Gun control
Why do the the left wingers think that tighter gun laws and more through background checks will keep the "bad guys" from getting guns? The bottom line here is that "bad guys" are not going into gun stores and buying guns legally. They will get there guns any way they can from stealing to buying them black market and there is plausible way to manage and track that. So with that said you can't "control" guns therefore "gun control" is not plausible. I challenge anyone to come up with something that is logical not crazy.
I have a logical suggestion; jleblanc1317.It is one that will take years of technological research, though. My suggestion is that a gun is manufactured that only fires a highly powerful, but non-lethal stunner to disable an attacker. Think of it like a sort taster in bullet form. It won’t casually hit the target. The new bullet will release the stunning pulse inches away the attacker...The gun is designed to alert police when fired & a profile is sent to police databanks. Let someone use that for evil purposes. I t will be like sending a digital footprint to authorities.Oh, & the guns police alert features cannot be removed or the gun stops working. The bullet should not be able to fire unless in one of these guns. The gun only fires when in the hands of the owner. Even a felon should be allowed one of these.
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago
0And as I have said, now they can make them at home even more easily than before.
In reality, it's not that expensive even to make a metal gun at home... CNC mills get cheaper and cheaper all the time, so do 3-d printers.
People are going to have to realize at some point, that trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals will be as futile as trying to keep them from printing off a page from the Bible at home.I think, actually, that people are more afraid of the casual gun user: the 4-year-old that got hold of Mommy's gun and shot her or himself with it; the angry teen who, upon being denied borrowing the car, immediately went to the gun cabinet and shot his whole family--then realized what he'd done and shot himself; the battered wife who would never buy a gun herself but got the one "for protection" from her husband's nightstand drawer and waited patiently for him to come home so she could end the horror she'd been living in.
Simply reducing the volume of guns available in the nation would reduce such tragedies. "Bad guys" and "crazies" will always be able to get guns, just not curious kids, pissed off teens, and abused spouses/significant others. It's the ready availability of guns that causes such "accidents". Personally (my $0.02) is that there should be more focus on gun locks, gun safety, locking ammunition separately from the weapons, etc. (Note: I do NOT oppose individuals who REALLY/ACTUALLY need them from having guns for protection. I grew up with guns in the house for hunting, and I've fired various hand guns, rifles, and shot guns). I am NOT anti-guns, just pro gun-safety and against keeping a gun for no apparent reason, especially with children in the house, no matter how safely you have that gun and its ammunition stored.
Our Constitution says we all have the right to bear arms (to protect our property in remote areas and primarily to stand up to an unjust government should such situation ever occur). I can't argue that. But, our founding fathers who wrote the Constitution no doubt never thought of rocket launchers, pressure-sensitive bombs, drones, and even nuclear weapons. A balance needs to be struck! We all need to work together or some dumb kid will be nuking their elementary school for fun someday soon."Our Constitution says we all have the right to bear arms (to protect our property in remote areas"
Where does our constitution say that?Laura, you list things like rocket launchers, pressure-sensitive bombs etc. The 2nd Amendment was and is about firearms, and those were clearly defined in writings of the day to mean personal firearm. They did not at the time include cannons etc. So, any hand gun or rifle would be protected.
Simple solution: Legalize all the drugs. All of them. All. Of. Them.
Many of these gun homicides are between drug cartels and biker gangs who have a stake in illegal drug trafficking. A lot of them are likewise between regular folks vying for control of drugs.
We'll still have 20,000+ cases per year of heat-of-the-moment shootings, premeditated hits, mentally unstable folks and kids getting their hands on guns, and gang violence over other things. But it's a baby step."Simple solution: Legalize all the drugs. All of them. All. Of. Them."
I couldn't agree more. Then there will be so much extra money available to crack down on real crime. Then we can stop acting like gun crime is the only crime that exists.White-collar criminals aren't even pursued, let alone punished, for example.
To legalize drugs is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. You cant possibly believe that nonsense. It is thinking like that, that got this country in the shape that its in. I would love to hear a legitiment reason why someone who was not on drugs would honestly think that legalizing drugs is a logical rational solution to gun control issues. Really people you can do better than that. WOW
In metropolitan areas where these studies have been done, up to 80%, or more, of all homicides were drug-related. The majority of all homicides were drug on drug, where people kill each other for drugs.
Since drugs are illegal, people have to go through the black market to get them. Prices are higher, and violence ensues. If drugs were legal, these people would be able to walk in the store and buy them for less, rather than sneaking around at night exchanging gunfire.
The truth is, there is no reason to keep drugs illegal. The people that use drugs still get them now, but at great risk to themselves and others. It gives money and power to drug lords instead of to the country. It's exactly like prohibition, prohibition didn't stop people getting drunk, but it made the mafia families rich and powerful.
So, give us a logical reason why drugs should be banned.You make an interesting point about the drug-violence connection. There is an interesting argument to be made about legalized drugs. There is also an argument to be made about securing the border, something that has never been accomplished and something that might result in far fewer drugs entering America. In my opinion, our disinterest or inability to secure the border is one of the reasons we've never really been able to "win" the war on illegal drug proliferation.
Source, FBI:
“No other country in the world has a greater impact on the drug situation in the United States than does Mexico.”
“The Southwest border (SWB) of the United States is the principal arrival zone for most of the illicit drugs smuggled into the United States, as well as the predominant staging area for the drugs’ subsequent distribution throughout the country.”
If we secured the border, we would decrease the drug supply and save lives.
From an economic standpoint, let’s talk about how much money leaves America and enters Mexico because of illegal drugs. The FBI reports, “It is estimated that approximately 18-39 billion dollars annually is moved from the interior of the U.S. to the Southwest border on behalf of Mexican and Colombian DTOs. Thus, billions of U.S. dollars are sent back to Mexico annually.” Further, you’ll find that most gangs in America, another source of violence, are partially or largely fueled by illegal drug sales, drugs often obtained from Mexico or south of the border.
If we secured the border, we would decrease the drug supply, save lives, and siphon money away from many gangs. It seems like an obvious place to start.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/drug- … ted-statesAnd how much money comes back from Mexico to the U.S. for guns? Answer: PLENTY. American gun manufacturers and dealers are arming Mexican drug lords, kidnappers and common criminals. Drugs go north, guns go south.
When the government is selling the guns to mexican drug cartels? Yeah, plenty.
Most American's think Fast and Furious is just a movie with Vin Diesel
Sure. Commodities come from both sides, leaving a lot of crime behind. The border security is so bad, people can smuggle things to and from America.
Ralph, if we had better border security, it would help eliminate gun smuggling to Mexico too. Better border security helps both countries in some ways.Very true, Ralph Deeds! Actually on your point above, too, brought up by Education Answer: I agree there as well.
While the one off killings are a tragedy, the mass killings by the mentally ill of young children and students is a much bigger tragedy and much harder to control. These people are usually armed with high capacity automatic weapons. Yes, it can be argued what constitutes an automatic weapon and what is high capacity? But how do we know who these people are and when are they going to commit the crimes?
Wouldn't the first step be to ban these weapons of war from civilian use? I can understand if you are an upstanding law abiding person and want to own an AR15 just for the thrill of firing it, or if you live in a remote area and feel you need it for protection. But I believe it is a small price to pay to remove these weapons and their magazines off the market. The market being the legal and illegal markets.
The other argument is to protect yourself from tyranny. Which I believe is a "what if game" the NRA and gun manufactures play to sell more of these weapons. The NRA doesn't sell weapons, but it's lobby groups get funding from the gun manufactures. Fear can be a great motivator and I believe the NRA uses tyranny as an instrument of fear.
What did we do before AR15 type weapons were available? Since we can't control when the mentally ill are going to commit these horrific acts. We don't know who they are and we can't provide therapy. Wouldn't it be better to remove the source of their instruments of mass destruction? I am not advocating that the government confiscate your weapons. I know that is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, banning further manufacture and sale of these weapons to civilians would keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill.
I'm sure it can be argued they will use some other type of instrument as a weapon. But the convenience of the AR15 type weapon will no longer be available to them. Note: AR15 in this context can be any weapon of war that is designed for mass killing.
In any decision that affects the entire socioeconomic structure, there are trade-offs. In this case, weapons that were designed for war, will no longer be made available to civilians, especially the mentally ill.
The second amendment is vague its understanding. In 1791, did it mean to protect the states that have a militia (national guard) from the federal government or did it mean everybody is entitled to have a gun? A gun in 1791 was the same for a civilian and the military. Today, a gun is much different than weapons of war used for mass killings.Wow Ralph, judging from your lengthy comments to others, those few words say a lot to me. Thank you. You are the only one who has commented so far. I read it again and in my haste to post it, I had some typos.
Tell me again how the ban on illegal drugs has worked in keeping them out of the public's hands?
Since none of the mass shootings, that I'm aware of, were commit with automatic weapons, what would a ban on them (which, incidentally, already exists) do to stop them? The definition and distinction between semi-automatic and automatic has been, for decades, clearly defined, so your argument on that point is moot. Semi-automatic firearms are those that must have the trigger pulled a separate time for each round to be fired. AR15s fit this legal definition, as do most modern hand guns.
Your comment about the difference between "one off" shootings and "mass" shootings is also a bad argument, as more people are killed annually, by far, in one off shootings than in mass shootings. So, if your concern is for the loss of life, why stop at AR15 type firearms, when more people are killed using handguns than all rifles combined.
Furthermore, almost all, if not all, of the mass shootings in the past 50 years, that occurred in public venues, have been in "gun free" zones. Violent offenders, regardless of reasons, tend to pick unarmed victims.Mitch Alan: Just because you are not aware of mass shootings does not mean they didn't exists. This should satisfy that requirement. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … tings-map.
The assault weapons ban was a sunset law that expired September 13, 2004 and was never renewed. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As … eapons_BanWhere did I say mass shootings didn't occur? Quote me back to me...
What I did say was that "one off" shootings account for far more deaths in the U.S. than all mass shootings combined. Furthermore, if any AUTOMATIC weapons were used, they are already banned and have been since the 30's.
As to the "assault" weapons ban, that should have expired, as the federal government is to be constrained by the 2nd Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution, and "shall not be infringed" is part of that Amendment. You may not like the Constitution, but it is the law of the land and can only be changed by Amendment.Here is what you said: "Since none of the mass shootings, that I'm aware of, were commit with automatic weapons, what would a ban on them (which, incidentally, already exists) do to stop them? The definition and distinction between semi-automatic and automatic has been, for decades, clearly defined, so your argument on that point is moot. Semi-automatic firearms are those that must have the trigger pulled a separate time for each round to be fired. AR15s fit this legal definition, as do most modern hand guns."
It's obvious, you didn't read either of the links I posted. The ban doesn't exists and the NRA and gun manufactures have worked around the federal definition of assault weapons. Please read the links.You are confusing AUTOMATIC with SEMI-AUTOMATIC. There is both a mechanical difference and a legal difference. There is, and has been, a ban on automatic weapons since the 1930's. There was a temporary ban on semi-automatic firearms that did indeed expire.
Secondly, what is the federal definition of "assault" weapon? Give specifics and explain how it is legal, under the U.S. Constitution, to ban these weapons per the 2nd Amendment, specifically the "shall not infringe" component. Don't counter with, "for the children" type answers, but from a legal and Constitutional point of reference.
Several states have banned AR-15s, large magazines and passed other regulations to deter mass and single gun deaths. My understanding is that there is no Constitutional barrier to banning these weapons and adopting other reasonable and practical restrictions on the sale, purchase and ownership of guns. Opponents of reasonable regulations have a greatly overblown conception of their 2nd Amendment rights.
Ralph, you correctly noted that STATES have passed individual laws, but the 2nd Amendment was written to to primarily limit the federal government and to retain those powers, not specifically granted (enumerated) to the federal government, in the hands of the people and the States. There is not a provision in the Constitution for the federal government to "infringe" on this right. If a State makes a law, regardless of it's subject (firearms, marriage, drivers license etc) the people have the right to try to change that law in THAT State or to move to a
State that better reflects their views. If a federal law is put in place that goes against the Constitution, then the people have lost their freedom and liberty in that area without the ability to move to a State that does not have that law. Communities and States, to a point, have more latitude in passing laws then the federal government...or at least, according to the enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment, they are supposed to.Here is the 2nd Amendment: " 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."
The 2nd amendment is a right for the people and and a law for the federal government. If the federal government infringes on that right, then they have violated the law However if someone does not exercise their right, then nothing happens to them.
The second amendment raises many questions:
Does It give the people the right to bear arms only in a well regulated militia to ensure a free state? Or does it give the right to the people to ensure a free state without a militia? And what is a militia today? Is it the national guard or is it the assemblage of citizens trying to protect themselves from tyranny? What does well regulated mean? Do you have to be trained, like the military? What are arms today? Where is the limit on what arms are? Does it stop at Rocket Propelled Grenades? Where is the line drawn? A stinger missile can be shoulder mounted and fired at an aircraft. Is that consider an arm that citizens have the right to bear?
The point is laws for the people are not derived from the 2nd amendment, only their rights are. The laws have to come from other legislation that is passed by congress. If congress doesn't pass the laws, then it is my opinion, the 2nd amendment is subject to interpretation, even by the Supreme Court.Well-regulated, as defined when the Constitution was written, and for a hundred years after was to mean well maintained, in working order...it was not regulated in the meaning of regulations. Easily found if researched.
In the times that the Constitution was written, including the Bill of Rights, it was well established that arms included any hand held weapon that was in use at the time and to be construed as any weapon so commonly used by civilians or the military. It did not include cannons for example. But, it was meant to keep the citizenry armed. There is no real need to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment, as it is clearly spelled out, "shall not infringe". It does not say "shall be licensed, regulated and taxed by the federal government as to insure that as few as many are able to partake in this right". It is a RIGHT to bear arms, not a need to bear arms, so any argument from the "how many does one need etc" is not relevant.
The point is, that the 2nd Amendment IS law and was put in place to limit the federal government from infringing on that right. We do not receive our rights from the federal government, but are protected from losing them to it. Big difference.The 2nd amendment is law for the federal government. It is not law for the people. It is a right for the people. How can a person violate the 2nd amendment? Where does the constitution define what "well regulated militia" means? "Shall not infringe" was meant for the government to not infringe on the states rights to ensure that they were free of tyranny from their government or any foreign government.
Why would you have a right to bear arms, if you didn't have a need? Bear arms is a military term meaning present your weapons. In military drill you present arms and ready up arms. The bill of rights protects us from government infringement, but in a sense, they are the keeper and protector of the bill of rights.
people, "shall not be in fringed" is in direct reference to "the right of the people to bear arms", it is not meant as anything else. It is the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment. When I said it didn't matter as to "need" , KI meant that there is not means testing. someone can not argue against a right by stating that someone does not need something. Some have tried to use the argument, "what do you need that kind of gun for?" or "who needs x number of bullets?" Those are not reasonable or logically arguments against the 2nd Amendment, as the amendment does not put those limitations on the right. It is a right for the people and limiting law for the government. The federal government is not to be the keeper of the Constitution, in the manner of picking and chosing what to enforce, but rather they are to uphold it.
If you put the 2nd Amendment in the context of 1791, it was written to protect the federal government and foreign powers on infringing on the rights of the people living in the colonies. The colonies experienced what happened when the British invaded the colonies and were keenly aware of ruling under British monarchs.
The anti-federalist wanted protection from that happening again. So they created and ratified the 10 amendments to the constitution which became the Bill of Rights, which protected the states from abusive power by the federal government. The 2nd amendment was written for that time period. That's why it is so difficult to apply it to today's circumstances without interpretation.
In that context, infringe means infringement by the newly formed federal government and/or foreign powers. The remaining nine amendments are easier to apply to circumstances today because the weapons of 1791 are not the weapons we have today or that we will have in future. The other nine amendments do not involve weapons technology that is constantly evolving."people, "shall not be in fringed" is in direct reference to "the right of the people to bear arms", it is not meant as anything else. It is the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment."
This guy will try and get you to believe words don't mean what they mean. It is a waste of your time.
People, the Amendments (Bill of Rights) were written to protect the people and the States (not colonies) from the federal government. The federal government was created by the States, not the States by the federal government.
By your "logic" concerning the technological side of the argument, where you posit the notion of "the firearms used then are not what we have now", would also mean that the modern printing press, full-color magazines, the internet, television and any digital transmission of information are not covered under the 1 Amendment's freedom of speech...correct?Mitch: You are right about the states, not the colonies. However the idea, about people's rights was born during colonial times during abusive British rule here and abroad. When the constitution was written and in place, the anti-federalist refused to approve it until the constitution was amended by the bill of rights. At that point, I believe the constitution was under control of a central power. You can call it whatever you want. The states were still afraid of a central power having to much abusive power over the people.
Your second paragraph is the same argument that gun advocates use. If you ban guns then you have to ban everything else that can be used as a weapon, including knifes forks, cars, and your dog, ad absurdum.
My point is I have applied every amendment in the Bill of Rights to circumstances today and they are all valid, except the 2nd amendment. If they had an amendment in 1791 that said transportation through a town is only to be done by riding side saddle on a horse. Do you think that would be valid today? Of course not, we have entirely different modes of transportation and the technology will continue to evolve. It's the same with firearms. If you think of firearms as technology, they were a lot different in 1791 then they are today. I suppose firearms then were pretty much the same for the military and civilians. Need i go into what the difference is between military and civilian arms today?
The fact they did NOT specify a specific firearm is testament to their foresight. they knew times and technologies would change. The were not specific for a reason, just as they did not say freedom of press was to be relegated to the hand cranked press. Should we limit the electronic transmission of information because it isn't printed on those type of presses? You argument is based on the fact that they could not have seen the technology we have today. I say it was because they didn't know that they left it open. They would not have listed an Amendment that restricted travel to horseback riding. They were smarted than that.
Mitch:
1. "The fact they did NOT specify a specific firearm is testament to their foresight. they knew times and technologies would change"
(That is your opinion. My opinion is that it is just simply the way they wrote it. Neither way can be proven, unless we can talk to the dead.)
2. "They did not say freedom of press was to be relegated to the hand cranked press. Should we limit the electronic transmission of information because it isn't printed on those type of presses?"
( The primary purpose of printing press is to print information. If technology makes it more efficient by electronic transmission, it just means the dissemination of information becomes more efficient.)
3. The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill people and things. It has secondary purposes including hunting, target practice, collection, and drill. However, when a firearm becomes more efficient because of technological improvements, it becomes more lethal. In 1791, they were lucky if they could hit the broadside of barn firing a flintlock musket. Today, the primary purpose of high capacity assault weapons is to be highly lethal, efficient killing machines and in the wrong civilian hands, that is how they are used.
The primary purpose of printing presses and electronic transmission is not to kill, but to inform.
Your comparison of printing presses and electronic transmission to firearms is a false equivalence. It is the same argument as cars kill people, so let's ban cars. Watch this link, you might enjoy it,
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/26598/ok-ful … rade-show/
The Netherlands has very, very lax drug laws. Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are very nearly just as lax, and as I've mentioned earlier, these same countries have absurdly low rates of violent crime.
(In this case, Japan is the odd man out, as many drugs are still quite illegal. Guess no one wants to mess with the Yakuza...)
Guns are not the issue, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Saying guns kill people is the same as saying cars kill people.
I disagree mostly. The way guns are used in big cities is not the way they're used elsewhere (armed forces, rural areas). Folks in the city carry them to protect themselves from human attackers: rather than slug it out, they simply shoot it out, not caring who's caught in the crossfire, to include children, parents... folks who have nothing to do with the quarrel and yet are punished by it. Spouses killing each other thinking erroneously that some intruder is in the house (they had no business using a gun if they don't know the basic rule that you don't shoot unless you have a clear view of what you're shooting at). Kids playing with the improperly stowed guns.... The people kill the people, absolutely. However, they likely would NOT kill those same people without the guns. More guns per capita equals more deaths. Same is true for your car example: the more cars/vehicles we have on the road the more likely we are to be killed in or by them. Simple math, complex social issues. "Bad guys" may always be able to get guns, but we don't need to make it so easy for them as to sneak daddy's gun out when he's not looking. Homeowners trying to protect themselves are doubling their chances of death by gunshot--for every member of the family regardless of age. It's unbelievable that people can think that MORE guns will improve the situation. And, if MORE guns won't improve the situation, it's likely that FEWER guns will improve the situation. Like the case of Someone on this thread who said he lived in the rural area and there wasn't all this shooting going on. In other words, fewer guns per square mile/block/whatever. Same number of people have the guns (let's assume), but they have space to live apart from being annoyed by their neighbors to the point that gunfire is the solution. And, reading ahead, I'm on board with jleblanc1317, too, regarding the drugs. Guns are the weapons used by the people who are angry, crazy, or high, and the people are angry when crowded together with drugs mixed into the scene, so reducing the guns and drugs should reduce the incidences of gunshot victims. How to accomplish this? Not by divesting yourselves of any responsibility for the situation as you both have done, but through active participation in a war against guns and drugs. Hard work over time and neighborhood involvement and commitment and clear leadership and lots of money. Finding healthy outlets for peoples' angst and things to keep them cool and busy during the hot days of heightened tempers and murders in the summers. Showing them that there is an exit--many, in fact--from the life they'd been leading/headed toward. Helping them get legitimate jobs that pay legal money in reasonable sums to those who earned it, and making sure that the people DO their jobs, get paid, and get home safely afterward. <shrugs> It's hard. But, guns most certainly can kill people when wielded by idiots or hot-heads who think they run the street--and probably do! :-( Think about it jleblanc1317 and Alphadogg16. Without a gun in your hand, you COULDN'T shoot someone deliberately or accidentally--or accidentally shoot yourself, for that matter. And, whether you have a gun or not someone else with a gun could still shoot you. Think it through. Do the math with a 3-digit IQ and see what you get for an answer. Find your own exits out of the mess and believe in them and then fight like heck to be able to let your folks and grandfolks remain living in your current neighborhoods without fear of violence if they so wish. Without people loitering at street corners, up to nothing legal. Start by being part of the solution--let go of your own gun(s). BE the change you want to see in your own life....
How about the people who kill people while on drugs. Drugs alter the mind they mess up rational thought processes. Therefore people do unrational things. Come on people really, not to mention that the most used most common drugs seeked and used is marijuana it is common knowledge that it is a nervous system depressant hence the laid back behavior of users of the drug. On the other hand other drugs are stimulants and provoke behaviors that a sober or rational person would not display. Lets use a little common sense with this people. Not to mention this was a gun control issue not one of drugs. However I enjoy the debate so bring it on your just gonna have to do better. And possibly stop taking whatever drug you want legalized.
And according to those countries I listed, where most drugs are quite legal, murder is not among those..."unrational" things.
jleblanc1317 if your going to take that stance lets ban caffeine, because high amounts of caffeine have been known to make you do irrational things.
That being said legalizing drugs would do wonders for this nation.
-Ability to create a new industry of recreational drugs. Job/career creations
-Ability to tax it.
-Ability to regulate it. No more junkies sharing needles. HIV, etc cases would decrease.
-Reassignment of law enforcement. It's a fact that cops are overworked and they can't keep up. What if all forms of law enforcement had the ability to stop looking into drug related incidents? How many murderer's, child molesters or terrorists could be caught?
-Decrease in organized crime. Who benefits most from drug laws? Drug Cartels, because if it were legal, a large corporation would come in and start making the stuff cheaper/safer and without the need to smuggle it over the border.
-Boost in tourism. This might be small but it would likely bring in more foreigners wanting to spend money here. How many people go to Amsterdam for the same reason?
So let me understand meth, bath salt, k12 and those type of drugs should all be legal no matter the affects are? Is this what I'm hearing from you weed is one thing I get it never tried it never will but I do understand the reasoning behind wanting it legalized. I am in favor because of the afore mentioned money aspects for both state and federal. I will concur on that one drug. But I will not back down on my stance on cocain heroin and the like. Not to mention that the countries that are mentioned do not have the population as the US the culture is different and all and all the entire populous is different apples and oranges I'm afraid.
It's incredibly hypocritical to start this thread arguing that people will get guns regardless of gun legislation and then turn around and want drugs banned, exactly the same thing is true for drugs as for guns and if you think people should have the right to own a weapon that can kill dozens of people in minutes (and I actually agree) how in the flipping hell do they not have the right to own drugs that can pretty much only harm themselves and maybe increase their chances of committing a crime a little (many of these drugs actually reduce criminal activity, LSD, Weed, Oxy etc. for example.)
Not to mention that crime would plummet if they did, a huge portion of our murders are committed over drugs, it would far more than cancel out the potential increase in some more people using and committing a crime.Have you ever heard of the law of unintended consequences?
When you make a drug illegal, street pharmacists make it with no regulation. The people that want that stuff still get it, but they get much more dangerous versions of it. Again, it funnels money and power to drug lords. There isn't a single benefit from banning it.
FROM MY MORNING PAPER:
BUSY WEEKEND IN DETROIT--13 PEOPLE SHOT
Thirteen people were shot, one fatally, during eight incidents in the 24-hour period between Wednesday and Thursday mornings, police confirmed.
The spike in gun violence includes a shooting on Detroit’s west side Wednesday that left four people injured and a 54-year-old woman dead.
At a news conference Thursday, police asked for the community’s help in identifying the man or men involved in that incident.
“We are hopeful that this information will come to us sooner than later,” Detroit police homicide Inspector Dwane Blackmon said.
As of Thursday, police said, a total of 115 criminal homicides had occurred this year, compared to 121 during the same time period in 2012. Police also said there had been 375 nonfatal shootings as of Thursday, compared to 371 by this time last year.
On Wednesday, the woman was killed after 8 p.m. on Carlin, near Orangelawn. A 58-year-old man, 32-year-old woman, 24-year-old woman and a 15-year-old girl were wounded in the shooting and are in temporary serious condition, police said. None of their names have been released.
Blackmon said the initial investigation revealed some type of argument occurred about children on the block. Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens told the Free Press Wednesday that a group of youths were playing, and after an adult sent one of the children home, the child told his or her family.
An argument broke out between the two families, and the shooting occurred, she said.
Blackmon said the shooter or shooters may live in that area.
“It appears that this was a situation that could have been avoided if there had been some conflict resolution utilized,” he said. “This was a situation that escalated far beyond where it should have been.”
In a news release Thursday, police said arrests have been made in two of the eight shooting incidents that occurred between Wednesday and Thursday. The victims in the incidents range in age from 15 to 58, according to information from police.
Police on Thursday also announced an arrest in the stabbing of a 64-year-old customer at a Detroit gas station. According to police, the man, who is recovering, was at a station on the southbound Lodge service drive in northwest Detroit when he was attacked for his money.
Lt. David LeValley, of the department’s Headquarters Surveillance Unit, said surveillance footage from the gas station and a tip from a citizen led officers to a 27-year-old Detroit man, who was arrested Wednesday. The Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office is reviewing a warrant, he said.
LOCAL NEWS /
City of Detroit
Detroit police search for man suspected of killing 1, injuring 4 others
Detroit police were searching late Wednesday night for a man suspected of shooting five people, one fatally, on the city's westside
May 16, 2013
LOCAL NEWS /
City of Detroit
Man shoots pregnant woman after she refuses demands for sex
The woman, who is several months pregnant, was listed in temporary serious condition at a local hospital.
May 14, 2013
LOCAL NEWS /
City of Detroit
Man found fatally wounded on Detroit's southeast side
The victim was discovered with gunshot wounds in the 300 block of Montclair and died at a a local hospital, according to Sgt. Eren Stephens.
May 12, 2013
Michigan news
ter an early morning crash with a vehicle in Dearborn, according to police.
Kym Worthy loses bid to get more money for prosecutor's office
Romulus mayor announces he won't seek fourth term
Judge tosses Arab Festival lawsuit filed by Christian missionary group
Hostage escapes, Westland City Hall standoff ends peacefully
Oakland County news
SEE MORE Oakland County news
Girl, 17, fatally shot in Pontiac; man, 18, held
May 16, 2013
Authorities in Pontiac say they've arrested an 18-year-old man in the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old girl.
LOCAL NEWS /
Michigan news
Michigan man gets life in Ohio pawn shop shootings
A judge in Ohio has sentenced a Michigan man to consecutive life prison sentences for the slaying of a pawn shop manager and the death of an accomplice during a robbery.
6:48 AM, May. 16, 2013
Virginia man charged in Macomb County road rage incident
A Virginia Beach man is accused of pointing a gun at another motorist in a road rage incident this week in Macomb Township.
May 16, 2013No news like that in my paper where approximately 90% of the citizens own guns.
Where do you live? In a rural community, I bet.
There's no shortage of guns in Detroit.Yes I live in a rural area, the city paper I speak of however is not rural at all.
Ralph has always had the philosophical position that if he can prove that lots of bad guys do bad things then society should make good guys pay for it with a reduced amount of freedom.
Ralph calls this "common sense gun laws."If he lives in a "rural" area with lots of guns... but no one is shooting people willy nilly.... and in Detroit there are lots of guns... but people ARE shooting one another regularly...
It's pretty obvious to anyone with even a two-digit IQ it is NOT the guns that are the root cause of the problem.That's the conclusion you come to based on the scenario as it has been presented?!? On what did you base that conclusion?
If I'm in a rural area with lots of guns my neighbors are distant from me so quarrels are less likely to break out. If I live in a densely populated area with lots of guns, my neighbors might be close enough to shake hands through the windows of our houses and just as annoying as an unwelcome house guest. So, when the quarrels break out they are immediately escalated far beyond "Sorry, Phil, I already drank the last beer or I'd give you one"--they go straight to lethal weapons used (mostly) by idiots who don't know how to use them or they wouldn't have brought one in the first place. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a three-digit IQ that it's the guns that are the root cause of people getting shot to death. If no guns existed in either area, rural or big city, no people could get shot to death by them. Obviously this is a "for instance", I know that guns will always exist in both places, but reducing the VOLUME of guns and/or the TYPES of guns --so they hold fewer bullets, not rapid-fire, etc. --should help city folks and won't hurt rural folks up against a raccoon or skunk who only needs 1-2 bullets in an educated hand or a shotgun.
Yes, guns will always exist; and yes, they will always be misused by some and not others. Maybe it's the education of the 2-digit IQ-ers that we need to work on: without a gun in an argument, it's unlikely to turn deadly. Bring a gun, and what we've just read is what you get. That and accidental shootings of people through the sides of their houses from stray bullets, the kid playing with daddy's gun and shooting himself. The wife shooting the husband, mistaking him for a rapist/burglar...
To respond to Jack's original statement directly, it's pretty obvious to someone with a 3-digit IQ that PEOPLE (humanity--human nature) are the root cause of the problem. Take away more of the dangerous toys and add education at all levels and you'll have a bare-minimum start at fixing a truly awful situation that will take years--generations--to resolve. ERs will start seeing fist-fight and broken bottle victims again, rather than gunshot victims. [I've lived in extreme MN and in Baltimore, MD (shades of Detroit still lingering, rioting still common), and in Chicago, so I can see in hindsight why we moved out of the cities when we did: too many guns went with the drugs and gangs and mobs. A bloody nose heals; a bullet to the heart--not so often.]
Ralph, we get it. Detroit is a screwed up place. A dying city, smothered by debt, run for decades with incompetence, corruption, and greed, and full of crime.
Are you trying to make a point other than that?
GUNSHOTS ON WARM SPRING EVENINGS
NEWARK — A FEW Saturdays ago, at the early evening hour when children linger outside to wring the last fun they can from the day, a series of gunshots split the air near the corner of Chadwick and Avon Avenues. Everyone scattered. After the cops arrived and taped off the intersection and determined that no one at the scene had been hit, the street slowly stirred back to life.
The kids re-emerged. So did their parents. Little girls did circles on pink bicycles in the driveway of a Newark Housing Authority town house complex. Someone turned up the radio of a parked car. With the cops commandeering the street, Chadwick and Avon was suddenly, temporarily, one of the safest spots in town.
I happened to pull up with my wife and daughter just as the police had reopened the street to traffic. We were there to see Thaiquan Scott, 36, whose five children included some of the girls in the driveway. I’d spent a long time following Thaiquan and writing about him as he struggled to make a better life for his family, to protect his kids from the streets he once ran as a low-level drug dealer. He looked grim.
“What happened?” I asked.
“You know what happened,” Thaiquan replied.
I stared at him. “Eight shots,” he said. “Maybe 10.”
Thaiquan saw me look at his daughters. “What can I do?” he said. “I got to let them play. They don’t go far.”
My heart ached for him. I’ve spent many years reporting on Newark, and I consider myself pretty well acquainted with the havoc that gun violence wreaks on a community. But it’s not just about blood and mayhem. The effects include a gradual acclimatization to violence that makes it seem O.K. to let your kids play 100 yards from the spot where someone just squeezed off a few rounds. It twists your perspective. Alters your perception of danger.
Nearly a decade ago, when I first became a crime reporter in Newark, I didn’t know much about gun violence or what caused it, let alone the debate over bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I’d never touched a gun, never known anyone who had been shot. I was clueless and grossly unprepared for what lay ahead of me.
I set out with the naïve goal of writing about every shooting in the city and was immediately overwhelmed. There was more than one a day, on average, and the best I could do in most cases was write a “brief” — a couple of paragraphs, including the barest of details from the police, and maybe a quote from a witness or loved one — and move on.
Within weeks, I was exhausted and despairing. I questioned why I was bothering to do it at all. When I returned home each night, I wondered if the victims or their families would pick up the next day’s paper looking for information, and how they’d react when they found so little.
One thing that particularly surprised me was how relatively few people died of their wounds. My first year on the beat, more than 80 percent of all shooting victims lived. That turned out to be a fairly typical rate for Newark and the rest of the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 84,149 people died in shootings in the United States from 2004 to 2010. During that time, another 350,157 people were injured in shootings but survived.
I’ve met a lot of those broken people. In a place like Newark, even after a historic drop in the crime rate, they weren’t hard to find. I interviewed a teenage girl with a slug lodged near her heart and a 7-year-old boy hit in the leg while he played on his porch. I know a hot-dog vendor who was shot in the gut by robbers and a grandmother struck by an errant bullet leaving church. One of my dearest friends is a man who got involved in a love triangle and paid for it with a gunshot that paralyzed him from the belly down.
I’ve talked to kids who have seen someone get shot; many of them are afraid to go outside, while others act as if it doesn’t bother them at all. I’ve met their neighbors, who live in a constant state of fear and mistrust. I’ve spent many hours with their suffering parents, people like Thaiquan, who desperately want their children to ride bikes on a warm spring Saturday evening without having to think about ducking and running.
Those stories don’t attract anywhere near the attention that murders receive. But I often think about them when there’s a mass shooting somewhere like Newtown, Conn., or Aurora, Colo., or Oak Creek, Wis., towns previously relatively untouched by gun violence. These unspeakable bursts of evil shred lives, families and communities, and the nation rightfully fixates on their grief and healing.
But for every one of those victimized towns, there are dozens of American cities where, every year, many more people are shot than in any single gun rampage. In those places — Newark, or New Orleans, where around 20 people were wounded last weekend when a gunman opened fire on a Mother’s Day parade — there is no definable healing process, because the violence never really stops. The number of dead, and the much larger number of those who return home with grievous injuries, grows every year. So does a deeper emotional trauma borne by their dispossessed communities.
It’s become so ingrained in the life of certain neighborhoods that even its victims, those who are most at risk, have little choice but to learn to live with it.
Police tape shouldn’t be a sign that it’s O.K. to go back outside and play.
Jonathan Schuppe, an NBC reporter and former staff writer for The Star-Ledger, is the author of “A Chance to Win: Boyhood, Baseball and the Struggle for Redemption in the Inner City.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/opini … ef=opinionBad guys is a generalized term. Who are the bad guys? There are many categories of bad guys. They include: gangs, robbers, and the mentally ill. Gangs generally shoot each other. They also shoot others because of stray bullets and initiation rites. Robbers and other criminals don't generally do mass killings.
However, mass killings are in almost every case done by the mentally ill. In most cases, these people only become criminals after they have done the mass killings. Therefore it is very difficult to detect when they are going to do it. Further, if they buy their weapons through the internet black market it even makes it more difficult. But if there were background checks, the checks would prevent these people from buying the weapons in the first place.
The argument is if I'm a good guy, why do I have to subject myself to a background check, criminals are going to get the weapons anyway? in my opinion, its a small price to pay in order to screen out the mentally ill that create these horrific crimes. Also there should be more funding given to mental institutions to be able to detect the potential for these situations. It's not going to work in every case, but why not try and screen out as many as possible?In light of recent events concerning the targeting of politically unfavourable groups, what basis is there for trusting the government to effectively judge who is mentally ill?
I think the mentally ill records are entered into a database. The background check would just screen those record. The federal government would not be involved. It would be much like the background check for a driver's license. It could be handled at the state level.
I'm all for background checks. I don't see the issue with that part of the gun control legislation however, much of what is being proposed is being completely ignored here.
1. A National Register of all LAW ABIDING gun owners and all weapons they own. This is after they've passed the background check. Merely a nice little tool for the government to go collect all the guns when they're ready. It serves absolutely no other purpose.
2. You would be denied the right to purchase a gun if you've been ACCUSED of domestic violence. Not convicted, mind you, simply accused. What happened to that nice little thing about innocent until proven guilty?
3. While I am not certain this is included in the national legislation, liberal Governors of NY & Maryland have gone a step further. Not just a list of law abiding gun owners, but now they must be fingerprinted. Really? REALLY?
Sometimes, it is not about the main point being spouted by the liberal left, but all the junk they hide beneath it.It doesn't take away the problem of an outside authority with vested interests dictating something as vital as one's own protection.
No one seems to have any problems with the same outside forces dictating something as vital as self-reliant transportation.
Yeah, that's a different subject, but it's an infringement on our natural right to be free to travel.
I do, but not to the extent of my issues with weapon background checks seeing as driver licence-ship would probably be necessary even if the roads were privately owned.
I believe they were targeted because they SAID they never paid taxes. They do target people who publicly say they don't pay taxes--saves the time and money of searching for those that don't advertise on billboards/signs. It's logical and fiscally responsible.
I agree with your other statement: ONLY a doctor (M.D. or Psych.D.) should be judging who's responsible enough to own a gun legally. (A note/form from your doctor should be good enough proof, though I realize doctors can be threatened or bribed into providing such things). The government can't seem to judge it's own sanity, if actions and results are any indication. LOL Sorry, I'm just sick of hearing "accidental shooting", "the child was killed by a stray bullet", and "friendly fire". And I grew up with guns in the house, was taught how to use and care for them properly, and I'm not a bad shot either. ;-)
How will background checks stop people from buying guns on the black market?
Why do you want more background checks, if we don't enforce the ones we already have?
What do you plan to do to stop people from making their own gun at home with the push of a button?How will background checks stop people from buying guns on the black market? - They won't, I never said they would.
Why do you want more background checks, if we don't enforce the ones we already have? - The reason they are not enforced is because congress has hobbled the ATF from doing their job.
What do you plan to do to stop people from making their own gun at home with the push of a button? - You can't stop that. But that doesn't mean you can't have background checks. Your argument is why even try, it's not going to work anyway!The point is that you don't violate liberty on a whim.
But even if it were theoretically possible to prevent every ill on this Earth, what would happen to our liberty?"Whim."
The gun mayhem that we've been experiencing is hardly a "whim."What gun mayhem?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati … 2693.storyWell said,Ralph Deeds! Mayhem is exactly right.
You said people buy guns on the black market, and background checks would prevent them from getting those guns in the first place.
It's not up to the ATF to prosecute. It's up to the Department of Justice, and state governments when the cases are passed on. Nobody prosecutes them. You have FELONS filling out those forms, getting rejected, and nobody prosecutes them... you think they just walk out and give up?
My argument is that gun control is a losing battle, and one that only puts restrictions on the kind of people who care about the law.The ATF doesn't prosecute. It enforces laws and arrests those who have violated them. Sure, why have any laws at all, it only puts restrictions on those who care about them?
There is no point to having laws if you don't enforce them. Thank you very much.
What would be the point of making it illegal to murder, if we didn't prosecute people for murdering?
"You broke the law! Bad! But, we're not going to send you to prison. Have a nice day, just try not to do it again."
Another deranged cretin with a gun:
" ...According to Mr. Kelly, the gunman was in the neighborhood with two other men shortly before midnight when he urinated in front of the Annisa bar and restaurant on Barrow Street at West Fourth Street.
The man then went inside and angrily confronted the bartender with antigay slurs, the police said, pulling up his gray hooded sweatshirt, and revealing a silver revolver in a shoulder holster. He threatened the bartender that if he called the police, he would be killed, the police said.
The man and two companions then headed south on the Avenue of the Americas and ran into Mr. Carson and another man at West Eighth Street, the police said. A confrontation ensued.
“There were no words that would aggravate the situation spoken by the victims here,” Mr. Kelly said. According to the police, the gunman once again used antigay slurs, and at one point asked, “What are you, a gay wrestler?”
Raquan Johnson, 22, was in a pizza shop on the Avenue of the Americas and watched as the argument escalated.
He said that Mr. Carson’s friend shouted back at the gunman: “Oh yeah? Well, what do you look like?”
After a few minutes, Mr. Carson and his friend continued on their way, assuming the exchange was over. The two men walked along West Eighth Street, but the gunman apparently did not want to let the matter drop. One of the gunman’s companions tried to talk him out of following Mr. Carson, according to the police. That companion left, the police said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/nyreg … ay.html?hpSo we should call the police?
http://news.yahoo.com/hofstra-student-k … 18864.htmlUnfortunately, many of the police aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree. And a significant percentage of them are bullies who should be locked up.
That's why we law abiding people have firearms. I am amazed that you don't understand that.
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
Lol, I love how you think these stories mean something Ralph
A huge part of the problem is prison overcrowding. Instead of tax payers feeding and housing lifers for the rest of their worthless lives we should execute them and make room. I say we do the same with pedophiles. But the bottom line is that the government has got to be proactive not reactive. That being said this country is entirely to far behind to be proactive. Drugs is absolutely a big part of gun control. The government will not do anything to stop drugs they have the rescources and means to stop it however it brings to much money into the country. They won't legalize like suggested in earlier post because prices will fall through the basement. So solutions I don't really know if there is one.
FROM THE DETROIT FREE PRESS 5-21-13
ARMED ROBBERY BY 3 TEENS IN WIXOM, Michigan
The Wixom Police Department is looking for three teenaged armed robbers they say struck around 11 p.m. on Monday in the Village Apartments on Thornwood.
According to police, two broke in and demanded money from the person inside, but when he said he had none, they attacked him. Then, the third thief came in and pointed what’s believed to be a long gun at him. The trio stole an item police haven’t identified and then fled on foot.
The victim was taken to a local hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, investigators said.
Anyone with information concerning is asked to call Wixom Police at 248-624-6114, or the anonymous tip line at 248-624-0884.
LOCAL NEWS /
Macomb County
Two on trial in Macomb County in shooting of pregnant woman
Police said the woman was driven to a field in Detroit, where she was doused with lighter fluid, set on fire and shot in the back
5:46 PM
http://www.freep.com/article/20130521/N … om-robbery
MAN ARRESTED IN QUINTUPLE SHOOTING
An arrest was made in a shooting last week that left four people injured and one woman dead, police announced Tuesday.
A 27-year-old Detroit man was arrested Friday in connection with the shooting, which happened on May 15, Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens said. She said the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office is reviewing charges.
Police said a 54-year-old woman was killed in the shooting on Carlin, near Orangelawn, on the city's west side. A 58-year-old man, 32-year-old woman, 24-year-old woman and a 15-year-old girl were wounded in the shooting, according to police.
Stephens said police are still looking for a second person they believe was involved in the shooting
http://www.freep.com/article/20130521/N … oit-arrest
DETROIT POLICE--WOMAN DEAD--2 MEN WOUNDED IN SHOOTING
A 55-year-old woman is dead and two men are wounded after being found shot in a suspected drug house early today on Detroit’s west side.
The trio was found at 1:20 a.m. today in what was supposed to be a vacant home in the 8100 block of Wetherby, near Livernois and Tireman, Detroit Police spokeswoman Sgt. Eren Stephens said in a release.
All three apparently had been living in the house, a suspected narcotic location, according to investigators.
The two men, ages 73 and 47, were in temporary serious condition. No details were available about who shot the trio, according to the release.
Anyone with information is asked to contact the Detroit Police Department’s Homicide Unit at 313-596-2260 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-SPEAK-UP (1-800-773-2587), online at www.1800speakup.org or by texting CSM and tips to CRIMES (274637).
http://www.freep.com/article/20130521/N … n-shootingWell now, Ralph, I wonder if you've actually read what you've posted here. They really do not support your argument for gun control. Let's recap.
A case where the assailants doused a woman with lighter fluid and set her on fire. THEN shot her in the back. Because you know, setting her on fire wouldn't have killed her at all. Either way, people who live outside the law, so elaborate how regulations aimed at law abiding citizens would have helped here.
A case where bodies were found in a narcotics house. Again, people living outside the law. Elaborate how regulations aimed at law abiding citizens would have helped in this instance.
A case involving three teenaged assailants. Committing a robbery. Once again, people already living outside the law. I reiterate my statement regarding the other cases.
I don't have enough details on the actual shooting for the last case because that isn't the story on the shooting itself but the arrest story.
Finally, I leave you with this:
9/11/2001: Weapon of control: box cutters Lethal weapon: airplanes
Boston Marathon Bombing: Weapon of control: none Lethal weapon: converted pressure cookers
Oklahoma City Bombing: weapon of control: none Lethal weapon: car bomb
People of a mind to commit mass murder, mayhem and destruction will do so with or without a gun.Ralph is not really interested in "supporting an argument for gun control."
He just likes to emote. For a number of years that has substituted for any reason and logic in his gun control posts.And your argument is to protect citizens from our government. Sounds like treason to me.
I don't believe that is the argument but that is exactly why the second amendment was created.
It's one of several arguments being advanced, by opponents of any or all weapons control.
It is a good argument then, and no if the federal government steps out of its intended role an armed response would not be treason! In fact it would be exactly what the founding fathers intended.
That's Looney Tunes. You sound like a member of the Michigan Militia. Do you dress up in a camo outfit and run around in the woods?
Not in a while no. Tell me why the second amendment exists then.
The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights exists because during the framing of the constitution the anti-federalist were afraid a central government would have too much abusive power over the 13 colonies. They didn't want the federal government to be like a monarchy. In 1791, the 2nd amendment was ratified. According to many Annenberg Scholars, it is the poorest written of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights and the one that is subject to the most interpretation.
"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."
A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State...A militia in 1791 is not the same as a militia today...and what does "well regulated" mean?..."necessary to the security of a free state"...in 1791, a free state was one of the colonies. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"...arms in 1791 was a flintlock musket..."shall not be infringed." meaning the federal government shall not impose it's authority on states rights.
The anti-federal were afraid of tyranny in 1791. The framers had no idea that amendment would be used today. What defines the right to bear arms today? It can be anything from a sling shot to a missile.
What Ralph Deeds was trying to tell you is the threat to this country has already taken place by the banksters and wall street. They created the financial meltdown which is taking place right under your nose and destroying this economy, while you arm yourself to the teeth in the extreme possibility that this country is going to turn on you...and if they did, they would use drones. So you continue to support the NRA, their lobbyist and the gun manufactures who will all make money off of you, while wall street fleeces the country right under your nose. On a scale of 1 to 10. Wall street is much more dangerous to our well being than any threat of tyranny that may or may not ever happen!
I wrote this not just for you, but for everybody who thinks like you do!Who cares what the annenburg scholarship think? The supreme court has ruled on this and that is the way it is.
I didn't need the history lesson Ralph did.
Annenburg scholars LOLYou asked the question, that's the response I expected from you. Yeah the Supreme Court ruled on Obama Care and that's the way it is! And you are going to continue worrying about tyranny while the country goes down the tubes because of wall street and the banksters. So you better arm yourself really well.
The Annenberg foundation is made up of a group well respected critical thinkers, not BS. I bet you didn't even know or care that they run Fact Check. Which you probably have never checked. But here is the link if you want to wet your appetite. Note at the top of the website who runs it. Look out, you might learn some real facts. http://www.factcheck.org/I asked the question of Ralph because he didn't like my answer. I don't read you're posts save for the first line. You can continue but I'm really not interested in anything you say, justice thought I should tell you.
Actually I can, if you glance above your last post you will see the truth.
That may be but the Constitution was not just written and passed, it was debated first and there are writings from those debates. There is no "interpreting" the 2nd amendment and what the founding fathers meant and didn't mean. It is there in black and white. Perhaps the critical think tank should have taken a gander at those writings.
There are those specific to tyranny from the Government itself, but also speaks of every citizen having the right to be armed against criminal elements. There is even one that speaks of it being the duty of every man from 16 to 60 to be armed.
"The framers had no idea that amendment would be used today."
Wrong. I do so love how you always try to claim some internal knowledge into how the framers of the Constitution were thinking. Further, they were not just "afraid of tyranny".
I give you these writings on the 2nd amendment:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)
sound familiar?
""No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
There are also writings on the people being the first line of defense if there is an invasion, even though there is a regular army but you'll note that these comments are specific to the rights of the individual.
http://hematite.com/dragon/jefferson2nd.html
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
- Thomas Paine
"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
- Patrick Henry
and, my favorite in response to those who claim to know the founding fathers' every thought and intent:
""On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." 12 Jun 1823 (The Complete Jefferson p.32)Yes every quote that you gave is about arming citizens against a central government that could abuse the states. That's tyranny and that is the purpose of the Bill of Rights. That's what Jefferson was afraid of. Read your history.
The constitution was already in place, but the anti-federalist would not agree to it until they created a bill of rights for the people and the states. That's why they are the first 10 amendments to the constitution. They started out with over 200 and then agreed to 10.
It's to give rights to the people so that they won't be controlled by the federal government. As far as the militia goes, they didn't have a military to defend against invasion. So that's why they wanted a well regulated militia.
If you comply with your last quote by Jefferson, we would have to arm ourselves with flintlock muskets. I ask you one question, unless the framers could see into the future, how would they know how the 2nd amendment would be applied today with the weapons we have today? And we have a department of defense and a national guard which are a well regulated militia. We don't need civilians in a militia.No they are not all about arming themselves against the government or an invasion.
One speaks solely of being armed in defense of oneself and property. One speaks of those being lawful should not have their right to bear arms infringed and that regulations aimed at lawful citizens does not hinder the unlawful.
As for the militia, it speaks of citizens being the first round of defense in an invasion until such time as regulars can relieve them. Doesn't sound like they were thinking there wasn't a National Army.
Do you really think that the framers of the Constitution were so stupid they believed the musket was the last weapon of invention? Really? That's a far leap.Especially with a prolific inventor (Benjamin Franklin) among them?
Because I'm sure people of the 18th century were constantly thinking about the invention of the one-man military-grade low-recoil low-heat portable machine gun.
They were constantly thinking, how the hell do you think the automatic weapon came to be? That is the worst argument I have ever seen.
Davinci was thinking about it in the 1500's
"Because I'm sure people of the 18th century were constantly thinking about the invention of the one-man military-grade low-recoil low-heat portable machine gun."
Specifically? Probably not.
But look around you. Do we not (and have we not) always thought of improbable things and inventions that could come in the future? Was there not even a movie of space travel long before it was even considered possible? Was there not thoughts of time travel within the 19th century? Look at Star Trek and their weaponry that at the time it was conceived we had nothing that could possibly come close. To think that the men who were able to frame a document such as the Constitution had no idea (one of them being an inventor himself) that weapons would not forevermore be the musket, nor that they would improve drastically in time is absurd.Sassy:
When you say one speaks, who is one speaks? As for your second paragraph, I agree with you, that's what I said.
If you put the Bill of Rights in the context of the time it was written, it was after the revolutionary war. The anti-federalist were afraid of invasion from the British again and they were also afraid of a central government acting as monarchs. So they came up with the Bill of Rights of which the 2nd amendment is one of them. They were still afraid of a tyrannical.
government. That's why the 3rd amendment says you can't quarter troops in your house, because that's what the British did. That's why the 5th amendment says you can't be tried more than once for the same crime, because that's what the British did.
I don't care what you say it was or wasn't, if you do the history, you will see for yourself. In that context it all make sense. The 2nd amendment was written for that time period and those circumstances, not for today. There is no way they could know about high capacity automatic weapons and that we have a national guard and a department of defense. You can tell me I'm wrong, but history bears out what I'm telling you.She has been telling you and showing you are wrong for a loooooooooong time.
"I don't care what you say it was or wasn't, if you do the history, you will see for yourself."
It's apparent you don't care about fact or truth. The writings are there and they say what they say. There is no preamble that this was in context of militia only. Only those such as yourself choose to ignore what is specifically stated in those debates and decide it means something else.
"one speaks" meant one comment spoke of ONLY the arming of the citizenry to protect themselves. If you can't go and read the link, oh well. I guess you choose to take a stand of the misinformed. So be it.
The founding fathers spoke themselves on this issue. Such as you choose to decide what they meant when it was already spelled out for you in black and white. No they are not all about a militia. Period. It is just a fact. You can go and read them for yourself.
History proves nothing factual about what you claim. Nothing at all. What in history proves your interpretation? I already stated that the debate covered the militia but ALSO covered the arming of the citizenry outside that context. And it does.
To decide that the founding fathers were so very short sighted that they gave no thought to the future is a ridiculous premise. As I stated earlier, we had people writing about time travel and moon missions long before we were even close to any technology to achieve anything like it. Long in literature have weaponry been conceived of great power, even modern guns, long before we had that technology. But our founding fathers who conceived the Constitution were not great thinkers and had no concept of such. Yeah, whatever.
Sassy: Very weak arguments. Why do we teach history if it is not fact? Put yourself in the place of those people in 1791. If somebody was shot, it was either by a flintlock pistol or musket. If the government was going to attack somebody or their was an invasion, both sides would basically have the same type of weapons. Today if the government attacks you, they have the whole department of defense arsenal at there disposal. I'm not saying they were short sighted, they were men of vision for their time. But there was no way in hell they could predict the future 200 years down stream. The problem is all the amendments in the Bill of Rights are still appropriate except the 2nd amendment. Why, because it involves technology and geopolitical change that the framers could not have envisioned. That's why it is subject to interpretation and needs to be re-written for modern times. Like I said before, read your history. As far as the last time I looked the history of the Bill of Rights was fact.
Here maybe this will help it is an excellent video on the history of the Bill of Rights. I only share this with my friends, so feel honored!
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/ … -of-rightsSo instead of reading history (which the words of the founding fathers are) you direct her to the leading liberals of our times.
Sassysue why do you even bother with this tripe?No it isn't fact. At least not YOUR version of it.
It is fact that having a militia was certainly part of the reasoning on the 2nd amendment. It was not the entire reasoning however, PROVEN by the comments of those involved in drafting our Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) during the debates. Simply put, it is written in black and white that the militia was not the only reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. Those writings are also history. Fact. You choose to look at only the reasoning that allows for your argument to reject the notion of the other intent of the 2nd amendment and call for its revision. Period.
Just as the previous conversations we've had regarding your re-writing of history on ObamaCare and some compromise with a GOP controlled House that didn't exist at the time. Yet I've seen you still spreading that misinformation about. Even after I provide you the proof of its falsehood. You don't get to re-write history to your convenience. You don't get to claim some all knowing eye that only your side knows exactly what the founding fathers intended. Especially when there exists writings straight from those founding fathers that proves your assumption incorrect.
"Why, because it involves technology and geopolitical change that the framers could not have envisioned."
False. Just blatantly false.
In 1917, a cartoon entitled a Trip to the Moon was released. Did we have any technology at that time that would suggest this was possible? No.
In 1823 Frankenstein was written about harnessing the power of lightening to bring the dead back to life. Any technology to suggest such a thing? Yet isn't that what we do for the most part with a defibrillator?
The entire premise that they gave no thought to the future when writing the Bill of Rights is ridiculous. Did they imagine some specific gun? No. Did they foresee that weapons would and could change and advance? Especially when one of them was an inventor? To suggest that they gave no thought to that possibility is a completely illogical conclusion.
As for your video, why do I care what a bunch of people have concocted now when I have the words straight from our forefathers to see what they intended? I think straight from the horse's mouth trumps speculation.
@Lie Detector
I bother because others read this as well and misinformation that is spouted should be pointed out and countered with fact.
To help make it even clearer:
""I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
There you go, from one of the men who actually wrote the 2nd amendment. Proof that while maintaining a militia was certainly part of the 2nd amendment, so was the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Sassy: You don't provide me with any proof. Just because you say it is proof, does not make it proof. What is the other intent of the 2nd amendment? I'm sure you knew what they were thinking, especially about the future, because you have super powers to get into their minds and tell the world what they intended for the future in 200 years.
The writings you have shown do not state a single thing about the 2nd amendment. Those quotes are dated 1764, 1776, 1775. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. You do the math. The remaining paragraphs: trips to the moon, Frankenstien, Defibreilators. Why don't you have evidence that they were thinking about high capacity automatic weapons and drones and mass killings. LMAOROTF.
Your last quote about George Mason is about the right to bear arms in 1791. Your last sentence you left out "keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What did not be infringed mean in 1791? It meant the government shall not impose its will on the people to not bear arms because tyranny was a real possibility then. Now it's just paranoid propaganda created by the NRA, their lobbyist, gun manufactures. and the right wing to bring more money into their coffers.
Just because you say I'm wrong does not make it fact on your part, no more than it does if I say that to you. The fact is that so many people are still arguing about this, is evidence that it is poorly written for today. Why is there not the same amount of controversy over the other nine amendments? Because they are better written.
The 2nd amendment needs to b re-written for today's circumstances. You haven't provided me with any proof about anything. Just because you say you do, does not make it so, only in your own mind. You accuse me of cherry picking my information, you do also. The only difference is you like to tell people they are wrong and provide illogical parallels like trips to the moon, defibrillators, and Frankenstein. Give me a break! You must really believe that you are an authority on the stuff your spout."Your last quote about George Mason is about the right to bear arms in 1791. Your last sentence you left out "keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. "
No I didn't leave it out. His quote is his quote. He was co-author of the 2nd amendment. Those were his exact words about the amendment he helped write. "shall not be infringed" is part of the amendment, it is not part of his quote.
"Why don't you have evidence that they were thinking about high capacity automatic weapons and drones and mass killings."
Why don't you have evidence that they gave no thought at all to the future? See how that works? The amendment exists and says what it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the burden of proof otherwise is not on me, but you since you claim they didn't mean what it says. The other examples were used to show that in the history of mankind, we have imagined technologies beyond our time. To think that men who created a document like the Constitution were short sighted is not even logical.
What did I cherry pick? The only information you provided was the opinion of a liberal think tank. That is the information you provided. I provided the words and opinions of the men who authored the amendment. Hmmm...wonder which information is more reliable?
You can twist the information all you like. It is still fact, still exists and still refutes the opinions of your liberal think tank. The only reason the 2nd amendment is contested is because it involves guns. Period.
"It meant the government shall not impose its will on the people to not bear arms because tyranny was a real possibility then. Now it's just paranoid propaganda "
In light of recent events, that shows how far removed you are from any reality. AP phone records and IRS targeting. What do you think those agencies are? They are your Government, overreaching their authority and abusing the power afforded them. You see, the right to bear arms isn't about really being able to stand toe to toe with the military. It is about the effort being too costly and messy for the Government to attempt.
"I'm sure you knew what they were thinking, especially about the future, because you have super powers to get into their minds and tell the world what they intended for the future in 200 years."
You are the one claiming knowledge of what they were and were not thinking about. You and your liberal think tank. I only gave you their own words at the time. But I guess they had no idea what they were thinking about when they said it then.
"The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791."
The Bill of Rights, which is actually the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, was written by James Madison after the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 and obviously, before he presented his proposal on June 8, 1789 during the First Congress. The US Congress approved 12 of these amendments on September 25, 1789 but the first two amendments were not ratified. "
The 2nd amendment is actually a conglomeration of similar rights that already existed within each State. The earlier quotes are from the debates within the States that passed their own version in their Bill of Rights within their States.
But here are some later quotes for you:
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all? " Patrick Henry, 1788
"[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. " Richard Sherman, House debates 1790
You're pathetic attempts to belittle me, as I've seen you do before when presented with facts that disprove your made-up reality, are really wasted here.
Sassy: Just because you can flood me with quotes does not tell me or anyone else what the framers could see 200 years into the future. Einstein was one of the most brilliant men of the 20th century, do you think he could see 200 years into the future of technology? Guns are technological weapons that are constantly evolving.
You never answered my question. Why are not the remaining 9 amendments so controversial and I will answer it again. It's because they do not involve technology. I believe and it's my opinion and the opinion of others that the 2nd amendment needs to be re-written for modern times.
You can give me quotes to you are blue in the face, but that is my opinion and I'm sticking to it. You accuse me of made up reality. What did I make up? Talk about made up reality. How about this and I quote.
"In 1917, a cartoon entitled a Trip to the Moon was released. Did we have any technology at that time that would suggest this was possible? No.
In 1823 Frankenstein was written about harnessing the power of lightening to bring the dead back to life. Any technology to suggest such a thing? Yet isn't that what we do for the most part with a defibrillator?" No we don't bring the dead back to life with a defibrillator or lightening!
Your argument is these things happened in 1917 and 1823, therefore colonial people could see more than 200 years into the future about how we use high capacity automatic weapons for mass killings. I'm through with you. You have to get the last word in. So I won't be replying to your reply. Just know this, what I said about re-writing the 2nd amendment is my opinion based on my observations and analysis. I don't have to quote anyone to prove a point, except you. And I leave you by quoting one of your statements:
"In light of recent events, that shows how far removed you are from any reality. AP phone records and IRS targeting. What do you think those agencies are? They are your Government, overreaching their authority and abusing the power afforded them. You see, the right to bear arms isn't about really being able to stand toe to toe with the military. It is about the effort being too costly and messy for the Government to attempt."
What the hell does that mean? Our government is afraid of us, because we are armed? So if an IRS agent comes to your house, you can shoot him or her.? Please explain your logic there...and even at that, it is nothing more than your opinion.Your argument is these things happened in 1917 and 1823, therefore colonial people could see more than 200 years into the future about how we use high capacity automatic weapons for mass killings.
No that wasn't the argument. I've stated it more than once but you choose to ignore it and make a post trying to twist it for your own convenience. You said they couldn't possibly imagine what guns would become. Those were simply examples of the imaginings of human beings of things that are impossible in their time. I never stated they DID see into the future, only that it is illogical to think that men of the type of vision to write the Constitution and forge a new nation would not give the future a thought in what they were crafting. It follows no logical pathway.
What the hell does that mean? Our government is afraid of us, because we are armed? So if an IRS agent comes to your house, you can shoot him or her.?
lol such melodrama in an attempt to divert from the actual facts. The actual post was about tyranny. It wasn't about anyone shooting a specific agent who knocks on their door. But you already know that.
I don't have to quote anyone to prove a point, except you
Because you can't. Your argument is that the 2nd amendment isn't supposed to mean what it says and needs to be re-written. That the Founding Fathers did not intend for individuals to be armed, only for them to be armed if they served in a militia. By their own words, that is not true. By their own words, they considered the right of the individual to bear arms to be one of high importance, which is why it is the 2nd amendment.
I did answer about the other amendments. And it isn't true that they are not controversial. There is much ado about free speech and what it truly means and covers and what restrictions can be placed.
I leave you with this:
I'm sure you support the whole "separation of church and state" stance right? Well, that isn't in the Constitution and never was written there. The Constitution simply states that the Government cannot promote one religion and cannot make any law infringing on the practice of religion. Period. The entire separation argument comes from one letter from Thomas Jefferson. I bet its okay to use his words to define that though isn't it? But we should throw out all their opinions and statements on the 2nd amendment because you and others like you, don't like it.
I'm glad you're not going to reply. I'm through with you spouting left wing rhetoric on subjects that you really don't know anything about and then trying to make claims you didn't say something you've clearly said when you get hit with actual facts.
Twist twist away. I deal with facts. You deal with rhetoric.If memory serves from my long ago Constitutional Law course, the Supreme Court is empowered and has historically interpreted and reinterpreted the meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in light of the country's changed current circumstances. The most obvious such case was Brown v. Board of Education which unanimously overturned the separate but equal doctrine in the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896 which allowed states to segregate their public schools. Existing Supreme Court decisions allow states and municipalities (and Congress) to establish reasonable and practical gun regulations, but not to establish a blanket prohibition of gun ownership as was the case in the District of Columbia. Anti-gun regulation activists have a greatly overblown concept of their rights under the 2nd Amendment.
You are correct, Ralph, that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as it applies in the cases before them. However, that was not the argument. Peoplepower was not speaking of restrictions on arms but re-writing the 2nd Amendment because the right of the individual to bear arms was not what the Founding Fathers intended.
"The anti-federal were afraid of tyranny in 1791. The framers had no idea that amendment would be used today."
"The 2nd amendment needs to b re-written for today's circumstances."
"We don't need civilians in a militia."O.k. I lied, I'm back. See I can say I lied. I wish I would have found this a long time ago. This shows how the supreme courts through the years, have interpreted the 2nd amendment due to its vagueness and ambiguity. My source is Widkipedia:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Academic inquiry into the purpose,[1][2] scope,[3] and effect[4] of the amendment has been controversial[5][6][7] and subject to numerous interpretations.[8]
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]
In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[12]
I wish I could have posted the entire piece, but it is too long. You should read it. It clarifies many points. It's interesting I have an opinion that the 2nd amendment is subject to interpretation and is not appropriate for our circumstances today. You on the other hand are of the opinion, that it is just fine the way it is. That's the facts. The rest of it on both sides is BS. Here are the real facts. I'm sure you won't believe it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame … nstitutionSo wait....the Supreme Court ruled that it protects an individual's right to bear arms in the defense of themselves and their property. Which is how the amendment is written. Yet, that somehow proves it is vague?
To clarify, I never advocated that an individual should be allowed to be armed with any weapon they so choose. I never argued it was an unlimited right. In fact, in their writings, especially in the case of Thomas Jefferson, they are speaking of firearms. They never said that individuals should have the right to have cannons sitting in their yards. So let's keep it to the discussion of guns, which is what the topic is anyway.
This is not the only amendment that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court over the years. Are you saying the entire Bill of Rights is vague? The First Amendment has seen countless arguments before the Court and also has seen restrictions to speech. Is it also vague?
The Bill of Rights is just that, so no, you and Nancy Pelosi don't get to re-write those guaranteed rights because they differ from your personal opinion. (Pelosi wants to re-write the First Amendment).
I am seeing a disturbing mind set among the left though. If I don't want to live within the confines of the Constitution or the current rules of Congress, I'll just re-write them so everyone has to adhere to my opinion. Reid wants to re-write the rules of the Senate so that the minority Party (bear in mind, it could be Democrats too! and I'd wager they'd want to re-write the rules again) have no say in appointments. The President has already re-written for himself what "recess" means in regards to appointments, and is ignoring 2 decisions by High Courts that ruled those appointments unconstitutional. Pelosi wants to re-write the First Amendment and you want to re-write the 2nd Amendment. Let's be clear, the Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments, and the States refused to ratify the Constitution without them, for a reason. These are rights they held in high importance. For a reason. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you like and throw the rest out at your discretion. Cherry picking what rights are allowed out of the Bill of Rights is no longer a democracy, but a dictatorship.
"The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights;"
Yes that is what I said when you said my quotes had nothing to do with it. The States, all of them, already had the right to bear arms within their States' Constitutions and some of the quotes were from those debates.
So, here is the question of the day:
If we all agree it is not an unlimited right, and restrictions can and have been placed, ( i.e. you can't own missiles) why does it need to be rewritten?Everything except your question is BS. Your question is excellent and I will try to answer it. Obviously, you didn't read the wikipedia link or you wouldn't even be asking the question. I copied this from wikipedia about how the supreme court through the years interprets the 2nd amendment. I've tried to summarize it. However if you are truly interested in the trials and tibulations of the 2nd amendment, I highly recommend you read the entire link.
Three basic competing models were offered to interpret the Second Amendment
The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective rights" model, holds that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia.
The second, known as the "sophisticated collective rights model", holds that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.
The third, known as the "standard model", is that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[132] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller : "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right":
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people
In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:
Based on that, can you for certain say what defines arms today? Can you say for certain what is a well regulated militia? They could in 1791, but not today. Arms are open ended today. We can't even ban assault weapons with high capacity magazines. Why, because there is nothing definitive and the NRA and its lobbyist exploit that through congress. You can even own a 50 cal. sniper rifle that is lethal at a mile. I've seen women firing twin barrel massive machine guns at an Oklahoma gun fair. They started a car by remote control and then as it was moving fired on it until it was completely destroyed. How does the 2nd amendment prevent somebody from owning a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG). It doesn't enforce anything. It's a right, not a law. But because that right is so ambiguous in today's world, laws cannot even be written to define its boundaries. Yes we had an assault weapons ban, but it had a sunset clause and it expired.
Please don't tell me I'm cherry picking and twisting things, go read it for yourself.
And ~this~ is the best that Ralph can do.
There ya go, Dear Readers. Straight from Ralph's reasoning...
If a Dick Cheney type gets into the presidency with a solid radical conservative tea party majority in the Senate and the House, and he decides he kind of likes the power and wants to continue it indefinitely so he shuts down the press and media, and sends anyone who contradicts him to Gitmo, including the Supreme Court, the best Ralph can advise is to "grin and bear it" since any other course of action would be "treason."
Ralph would be forced by his own philosophy to roll over like a lap dog and beg to have his stomach scratched.
He's slow he thinks because some shoot someone else nobody should have guns if somebody in his family was raped or robbed and they could have stopped it by having a gun I bet his view would change. That's the problem with the liberal democrats the think what is good for the gander don't apply for the goose. Some people also forget about those who have been traumatized by bad experiences in there lives. Not just the victim but there families as well. If my sister was rapped you bet I'm do everything in my power to protect my family by anyway possible. Yes Ralph that includes a firearm now you digest that while you try to come up with something to prove we don't need guns. Get real Ralph.
For some reason I don't think Ralph is interested in truth.
There are countries in the world where gun crime is only a fraction of the rate of crimes committed in the USA by gun users or gun-toting criminals.
has anyone seriously look at why that is the case? Are laws responsible for it? Or the absence of guns? Or the overall culture of the society in general?
Someone in the USA feels that despite the many deaths that happen all the time, guns seem to still be such a powerful thing that it is worth the risk owning one and possibly using one for criminal purposes...
What incentive would be worth implementing - that would dissuade gun-toting folks from using guns for criminal reasons? What would change that situation? What would save lives? What is the most we could do? Who's side are gun owners really on?More gun mayhem in Michigan:
1 killed, 3 injured at Saginaw pre-prom gathering
12:48 PM
Saginaw High School student Tonquinisha McKinley, 17,died and three women, ages 18, 19 and 39 are recovering after they were shot while watching students take pre-prom pictures, Saginaw Police Sgt. Reginald Williams II said today.thank you, ralph, for your continued and diligent efforts to provide the exact reason why citizens need to be armed to defend themselves against predators.
Hey Ralph, you forgot these:
Boy, 15, arrested in stabbing of 2 younger siblings
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/u … -1.1353037
Brother arrested in stabbing death of 8 yr old sister
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/11/us/califo … bing-death
Hmmm...no guns. Go figure. Disturbed people find a way. They don't require a gun.That's true, but guns kill more people and more effectively. It's been months since I've seen a report of someone who successfully defended himself with a gun. Not saying it doesn't happen, but reports of these cases, except for killings by cops, are far out-numbered by gang shootings, accidental shootings, suicides, murders, robberies, car jackings, etc. I'm sure there are ways of curbing some of this violence without interfering with anyone's legitimate 2nd Amendment rights. I accept the 2nd Amendment as interpreted by the courts. You and others in this forum appear to be completely uncompromisingly against any sensible gun regulations. (Repeat: I'm a gun owner and former hunter and target shooter.)
Depends on what you consider sensible.
I am all for background checks. I am fine with waiting periods. I don't even have an issue with a reasonable assault weapons ban, just not one that includes 15 different criteria whereby one can now define a handgun as an assault weapon. Thereby banning 80% of handguns. If you want an assault weapons ban, then you first have to determine an actual definition of the term.
I'm against fingerprinting law abiding citizens just because they purchase a gun. I'm against a National Registry of all gun owners and all the weapons they own. (serves no purpose for prevention and is only good for one thing, collecting them.)
So what are your sensible regulations?
I think you just really aren't looking, Ralph. You are aware, that such stories won't really make the mainstream media right? It doesn't support their agenda.
April, 2013:
"Most home invasion robberies follow the same script: Find a residence in a nice neighborhood where people do not live too close together. Statistics show potential victims are likely white or Asian, though professional athletes of all races are common targets, too. In this case, police are not identifying the identity of the home owner.
In an increasingly common crime around the country, especially in rural areas near cities, the perpetrators rush in, maybe beat up the occupants, take what they came for and get out. Maybe kill someone. Maybe not.
But this is the most important part of the plan: The potential victims need to be defenseless.
And that is where Xavier White, Dominik Lavon Council, Lamyer Gorminie Campbell and Derek Rashaun Hair went wrong: They chose the wrong house."
source: http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/gun-owner-st … ders-dead/
March, 2013:
Gun Owner Safely Stops a Crime
"Gun owner witnesses a burglary in his home, draws his weapon and waits for the police to arrive. No one is hurt"
source: http://5440fight.com/2013/03/30/gun-own … s-a-crime/
Here is a site that lists a few over the years:
source: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/ … crimes-tooI agree that what people commonly call "assault weapons" don't really fit the correct or original definition of assault weapons which can be fired automatically by holding down the trigger. Perhaps it would be better to quit using the term entirely and simply focus on the capacity of magazines which I believe should be limited to a smaller number than were used in mass killings in schools and movie theaters and which are not necessary for target shooting, hunting or self-protection. Ditto for armor piercing ammunition which is opposed by nearly all police organizations. I accept that you are not dogmatically opposed to all gun restrictions. We might be able to come to a meeting of the minds on issues opposed by NRA and the gun manufacturers. As you're aware they are pushing cute little guns for kids and allowed a target with Obama's face exhibited by a vendor at the organization's recent convention. NRA opposes any restrictions that would conceivably reduce gun sales in this country which is foolish because reason and the wishes of the majority will eventually prevail over the millions they spend lobbying against the public interest.
The whole guns for kids thing is a tough one. I live in a rural community. These kids get hunting permits at aged 8 and up. We've never had an accidental shooting of a minor or by a minor. I think, that at the very least, parents should have to demonstrate they are knowledgeable enough to keep the dang thing out of reach and unloaded when the child is not being supervised. Certainly held responsible if they fail in that duty.
I vehemently disagree about the President and the target practice. I disagreed with it when the Bush pictures went around as well.
I honestly don't think background checks would reduce sales. I think it would just make it more difficult and perhaps costly for the venders at the shows. I think much of the NRA's resistance is borne by people like Feinstein who's clear agenda is to rid the populace of all their guns. She's even said so. Even law enforcement has balked at the regulations being passed in states like Colorado and Maryland, saying it does nothing by way of prevention and only treats law abiding citizens like criminals. Given a politician or a policeman, I'll listen to the policeman's opinion on this particular question.
We've lost our moderates really. All we're left with (or at least the majority) are extremes on both sides running the show.
Deception on Gun Background Checks
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: May 24, 2013 48 Comments
A strange thing happened after 45 senators killed a bill to expand background checks for gun buyers five weeks ago: many of those same senators suddenly discovered a profound affection for background checks. They had been for them all along, it turns out, and wanted nothing more than to keep guns out of the hands of felons.
Knowing your interest in gun control, I wanted to give you an update on legislation I have co-sponsored and supported recently,” Senator Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada, wrote to his constituents earlier this month. “I have been adamant from the beginning of the gun control debate that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving.”
Mr. Heller says he was a co-sponsor of a bill called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Reporting Improvement Act. He doesn’t explain that the bill would have made it easier for people involuntarily committed to mental institutions to own guns. And nowhere does he mention that he actually voted against a far more important proposal, sponsored by Senators Joe Manchin III and Patrick Toomey, that would have required background checks for buyers at gun shows and over the Internet.
That bipartisan measure would have closed a gap that has let millions of guns get into the wrong hands. At the time, Mr. Heller said he voted against it because it would have led to the creation of a gun registry, though the bill would actually have made such a registry explicitly illegal.
This kind of dissembling by gun control opponents has been rampant for years, but rarely have the National Rifle Association’s most captive lawmakers been so nakedly deceptive as in the weeks since public rage grew over the gun vote. Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, also voted against the Manchin-Toomey measure, and she immediately suffered the backlash of angry voters in her state. So she issued a statement saying “I support effective background checks” and reminding voters that she had backed the misleadingly named Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act — a measure that does nothing to close the loopholes for Internet or gun-show sales and that was, in fact, supported by the N.R.A. because it actually makes it easier to transport guns across state lines.
Polls have shown that the vast majority of New Hampshire residents support checks on all gun sales. Infuriated by Ms. Ayotte’s attempt to paper over her own voting record, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (a group financed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg) produced a video ad pointing out that she was the only New England senator to vote against background checks “when it counted.”
These ads are having an effect, putting many gun-lobby senators on the defensive. Rather than admit that they fearfully follow the dictates of the N.R.A., these senators are instead seeking to fool voters by supporting measures with fancy titles and hollow cores. “Contrary to the ad, I did vote to strengthen background checks,” said Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, though he emphatically did not.
This issue is not going away. The true supporters of background checks have promised another vote in the months to come. Those who really want to keep guns out of the wrong hands will have to stand up and prove it.Ralph really first of guns don't kill people. People behind the guns kill people. How about this someone breaks into your daughters house holds a knife to her throat has his way with her then cuts her throat. Or he breaks into the house makes his way through the house when he opens the bedroom door he's staring at the business end of a firearm. Come on people power and Ralph pick a scenario I bet you won't pick the first one. Now lets get to the elephant in the room. Gun control is not about guns or people owning guns. Instead it's about the government having absolute power and control over the people it governs. Really you don't believe that well how about this. The liberal democrat administration that's currently in office says you should only be able to eat and drink this or that and only so much of this or that. Not enough here's some more you absolutely will have health insurance one way or the other or be fined oh but wait you can't afford it well that's ok the taxpayers can foot the tab. Furthermore it will now decide who gets what as far as treatment meds procedures. This is an attempt to radical and fundamentally change this country into what this administration wants it to be with boils down to a fascist ruling tyranny based Utopianism. The government is for itself and the ruled body should be for the government not the themselves. Get real the more power the better this administration feels absolute and supreme power.
You are a victim of the Tea Party syndrome. We will never agree on much of anything.
Oh nooes... the "tea party" card. That pretty much ends the thread for Ralph. That's as far as he can go with reason and logic.
Which is farther than "nowhere," which seems to be how far Tea Party members can run with logic and reason.
I am always happy to let the Dear Readers judge which posters are emotionally driven and those who use logic and reason. The fact that you added absolutely nothing to the thread just might give them a clue, eh.
. . .and the progressives are better?
Considering progressives usually have actual science on their side rather than superstition and religion-induced ignorance, yes.
Liberal, bleeding-heart emotion is the alternative? That seems like a soft science at best. Right now, we're progressing into bankruptcy.
Eh on most issues it's actually hard science. Same sex marriage, Global Warming and Contraceptive policy leap to mind immediately.
Liberalism is very much the ideology of experts, if you take a look at major liberal policies you will see the vast majority of them have the support of the vast majority of experts in that field.I find it interesting that the socialist defends progressives.
Socialists and liberals are both progressives though their ideologies are relatively different. As in I am a socialist but I still think liberalism is a step in the right direction when compared to conservatism because it's more progressive.
Historically I think I could say quite confidently that socialists have been more progressive than liberals but both are progressive. ie. same sex rights, gender equality and racial equality were some of the founding principles of socialism like 200 years ago.I find it interesting that the GOP is finding it hard to come up with a strategy to attract more voters. They are stuck in their outdated ideolgy while the majority of the country has changed. http://news.yahoo.com/gop-dilemma-draw- … 12481.html
"Instead, Mahe said, Republicans must pick a nominee who appeals "to the non-voters, disinterested voters, the uninformed — whatever you want to call them — who are attracted to a personality, someone they feel good about.""
Yep because half of America is misinformed or completely uninformed. They are the American Idol voters. No substance, as we've seen with this President, just flash. I hope the GOP does not buy into all the flash and no core hype.Considering that liberals are massively more likely to be educated and are wealthier I can only assume you mean conservatives.
Educated? Really?
The interviews of the Obama voters says otherwise.
http://youtu.be/mm1KOBMg1Y8
Not to mention, this woman who was a poll worker for years, but didn't think it was wrong to vote for others or more than once:
http://youtu.be/nX6E2Ucv7S8
Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.
On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”
Perhaps those "educated" Democrats should try to learn more about politics.Ah the usual small time opinion pieces and subjective data based on single questionnaires.
No see I am referring to actual statistical data that demonstrates liberals have a far higher rate of high school graduation and an ENORMOUSLY higher rate of college graduation. You know... facts? Maybe you don't.
Well see, here's the rub Josak. You are talking about a diploma. I know quite a few with 3 letters after their name that couldn't tell you how we pass laws or who the Vice President is, or even who their own Congressional representatives are. Not to mention, some of them lack even basic common sense.
But we were talking politics and it is just like you to use every left leaning rag you can find for your argument and just discount any other source (because that's how you roll) without any proof of any such notion other than your own opinions.
Fact: All polls show that Republicans know more about politics and the history of American politics than Democrats by significant margins.
Oh btw, you don't need 3 letters after your name to be intelligent. Speaking of that history, you should really check out some of those prominent intelligent men in our politics who lacked any formal education at all.
Or perhaps you'd like to know that George W.. Bush has a Masters' Degree from Harvard. Bet you don't count him in your "educated" folks lol
You always make these grandiose statements but never provide any sources to back up your facts. If I recall, you offered a blog, I mean, can you get any more opinion based than that? for one of your so-called scientific sources.
You're really very predictable. It's why I deliberately did not include the link to the poll. You see, you discounted it and called it an "opinion piece" and "subjective" data. Yet you don't even know the source.Or actually, sources.
Here's my favorite part, which has been proven tenfold here at Hubpages forums:
"A March Washington Post poll showed that Democrats were more willing to change their views about a subject to make their team look good. For example, in 2006, 73 percent of Democrats said the GOP-controlled White House could lower gas prices, but that number fell by more than half to 33 percent in 2012 once a Democrat was in the White House.
In contrast, the opinions of GOP supporters were more consistent. Their collective opinion shifted by only a third, according to the data."
That ones from the Washington Post. Nothing right leaning about that source eh?
With it's elitist, libertarian, evangelist platforms and candidates the GOP has painted itself into an ever-smaller little corner. It will take more than Marco Rubio to get them out. As fast as he makes a little progress on immigration reform, fellow Cuban-American Ted Cruz, the most obnoxious member of the Senate, drags the party back.
It has been for years. Why does this surprise you now?
Here's the strategy that seems to work. Spend money. Everybody is happy until we go bankrupt. More welfare. More food stamps. Instead of good jobs, let's just extend unemployment benefits.
"Money for Votes" seems to be the motto of the democrats.Except that response makes no sense, which is the wealthiest major political demographic in the US? Liberals (7% wealthier largely due to much more education) and who pays for most of this spending? Oh wealthy people, so liberals. One would imagine that they would be unwilling to vote to raise their own taxes and give away more of their own money for no benefit to themselves. The truth is liberals realize that the spending they have to pay for is for the good of the country.
This is beyond laughable. It's myopic policy that will result in bankruptcy.
What more would I expect from the wealthiest and most educated group of people the world has ever seen?It's a policy adopted by every single major nation in the top 25 richest in the world. For well over a hundred years for most of them.
. . .and it's still wrong. I quoted a poll once, and you said you had no problem agreeing with the minority. I have no problem agreeing with the minority too. Just because other countries spend and spend, that doesn't make it responsible policy.
Eh on most issues it's actually hard science. Same sex marriage, Global Warming and Contraceptive policy leap to mind immediately.
They are not hard science. Global warming has just as many on one side as the other. In fact, a recent report says that global warming has been slowing since 1998.
"Global warming has STALLED since 1998: Met Office admits Earth's temperature is rising slower than first thought"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … ng-up.html
Please elaborate on what hard science has anything to do with same sex marriage or contraceptive policy. Especially since teen age pregnancies have been on the rise since we went on the free for all contraceptive binge.Same sex marriage as in we now know that homosexuality is mainly or entirely predetermined and not a choice.
Global warming is hard science I really can't be bothered explaining how laughably wrong you are just refer to any actual expert in the field who doesn't work for an oil company, every single climate body in the world has come out in support of the theory even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has accepted the strong possibility after denying it for decades.
Yes the stall was expected and anticipated as early as the 70s, solar shift observation made it clear that the earth should be in a period of cooling from the late 60s (this is the ice age theory that conservatives love to ignorantly decry) however instead the temperature since the 60s has risen significantly and become far more volatile.
Contraceptive policy, is simple, areas that encourage contraceptive use have lower teen pregnancy rates, religious families that advocate abstinence have higher teen pregnancy rates and a whole variety of psychological studies and evidential studies have found contraceptives are the only statistically effective method of preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs.LOL
Hey any links for all this "hard science" ?
I've checked and there is nothing tying the correlation between religion and teen pregnancies. In fact, teen pregnancies are higher in relation to demographics, urban areas, you know, where the contraceptives are much more readily available.
In any event, provide some links. I love how now that the entire "OMG! The Earth is heating at an incredible rate!" has been proven false, it's now "oh that was expected" blah blah blah lmao
"This rise would be only slightly higher than the 0.4-degree rise recorded in 1998, an increase which is itself attributed by forecasters to an exceptional weather phenomenon.
With all but 0.03 degrees of the increase having occurred by 1998, the revision means that no further significant increases to the planet’s temperature are expected over the next few years." Hardly a "oh this was expected" statement.http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 … pregnancy/
http://www.reproductive-health-journal. … ent/6/1/14
http://www.livescience.com/5728-teen-bi … tates.html
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politi … ates/1735/
I can go on if you wish.
It was never the earth is heating at an incredible rate it has always been the scientific opinion that this would or might happen the issue is you are more likely to see a pig flying than a conservative who reads scientific studies on any regular basis so of course they have no idea what is happening or what will happen on scientific matters.Yes it has been the Earth is heating at an incredible rate. That has been the exact mantra.
In any event, I'll re-post the edit:
"This rise would be only slightly higher than the 0.4-degree rise recorded in 1998, an increase which is itself attributed by forecasters to an exceptional weather phenomenon.
With all but 0.03 degrees of the increase having occurred by 1998, the revision means that no further significant increases to the planet’s temperature are expected over the next few years."
Hardly, an alarming trend they've been touting is it?
Okay, but, a request has been made to stay on topic.Yup it's a long term trend, in 1994 we had the highest temperature in recorded global history, we have since hit or exceeded that four times. But yes it's a many decades process and it's at it's slowest point however since the 70s we have seen increase despite the solar shift that should be cooling the earth.
If you thought the scientific idea was ever "the Earth is heating at an incredible rate" it's because you have been listening to some moron who isn't a scientist and that just precisely proves my point.
Was the last comment enough links for you or do you need more scientific studies btw?
I can provide just as many links saying the opposite from viable scientific sources. You'll note the word "revision" in the link I've already provided. Meaning they have changed their previous stance.
True or not, alarming trend about global warming has been screamed from mountain tops for years. Here are just a few:
First, are the headlines, followed by their sources:
Alarming Global Warming Statistics (look, it even uses the exact word, "alarming")
http://www.carbonneutralearth.com/globa … istics.php
New climate change graph shows alarming effects of global warming (oh look, that word "alarming" again...this was some of the data that has been revised)
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquin … 12158.html
Australia's climate warming at alarming rate, report warns (can't seem to get away from that word "alarming" can we?)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro … warns.html
Now you want to attempt to make a claim that isn't what they've been feeding the public. Sure, it wasn't a fact, as is now proven, but that is indeed what they've been saying.
Last word on the off topic stuff from me, you can post away if you like. A request was made to stick to topic.Yup just as I suspected not a single scientific source saying alarming or anything of the sort just journalists. As usual conservatives don't read the scientific data and due to their far lower level of average education are unlikely to change that.
As for the teen pregnancy rates please do provide these sources you supposedly have (only scientific studies mind you) I would be terribly curious to see them, it's not everyday you get to see imaginary scientific studies.
The real questions should be is global warming a political issue or a scientific issue? And if republicans want smaller government, shouldn't they stay of out women's vagina's?...Sorry I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it.
This forum started out about gun control and now it is off on a tangent about global warming and contraception. And my reply here is guilty of the digression, but at least I admit it.Well,SassuSue1963,I think you are very intellectually inclined. Your points are very decisive & very opened to discussion. I think it's not necessarily a matter that contraceptives are a sure fire way to prevent pregnancies.I think it's a matter of the fact that we men have all of these health benefits in place for us,even relating to sex. Insurance covers our Viagra,ect.Why not make sure that women's right to healthy choices are recognized.Women should have their plight sympathized with by congress..Insurances should pay for things that help THEM with sexual activeness.Including preventative measures(Contraceptives).
Why yes, the Religious Right is full of bigots. We've known this for decades, now.
Like the left isn't?
Oh but it's just against religious people or white people so that's alright. I forgot.Yeah that one never offers any actual information. Just a bunch of stereotypical drivel the left has spoonfed him from birth.
Of course Jack is a veritable fountain of facts.
That may be accurate as well. Haven't seen that many posts from Jack so can't say one way or another.
It took us five years to teach you the difference between a fully automatic rifle and what is sold in Walmart, Ralph. I don't know many facts... but I do know more than you.
Sassy: This is where you get into trouble, by being insulting and this is also how forums get sidetracked is by people being put on the defensive by insults.
Interesting peoplepower. You didn't feel the need to call this comment out though did you? Speaks volumes.
"Why yes, the Religious Right is full of bigots. We've known this for decades, now."
I suppose that isn't insulting at all huh?
...and I'd say even more so since it relates to an entire group of people. I actually didn't call Zek anything at all. Just talked about his comment, which is stereotypical, and which i called it.
This is where you get into trouble. The old double standard you practice.Sassy: And you said: "Yeah that one never offers any actual information. Just a bunch of stereotypical drivel the left has spoonfed him from birth."
So it's not insulting that he just writes stereotypical drivel and that he has been spoonfed, like a child since his birth?...nothing there to be defensive about!
Bigotry started out as defining hypocrisy in religion by the French. I suppose Evangelist leaders are not bigots when they commit adultery. Here is a list to name a few:
1 List of American evangelical Christians involved in scandals
1.1 Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s–1940s
1.2 Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s–1980s
1.3 Marjoe Gortner, early 1970s
1.4 Billy James Hargis, early 1970s
1.5 Neville Johnson, 1983
1.6 Jimmy Swaggart, Marvin Gorman, Jim and Tammy Bakker, 1986 and 1991
1.7 Peter Popoff, 1987
1.8 Morris Cerullo, 1990s
1.9 Mike Warnke, 1991
1.10 Robert Tilton, 1991
1.11 Melissa Scott, 1992
1.12 Jim Williams, 1994
1.13 W. V. Grant, 1996 and 2003
1.14 Bob Moorehead, 1998
1.15 John Paulk, 2000
1.16 Roberts Liardon, 2001
1.17 Paul Crouch, 2004
1.18 Paul Cain, 2005
1.19 Kent Hovind, 2006
1.20 Ted Haggard, 2006
1.21 Paul Barnes, 2006
1.22 Lonnie Latham, 2006
1.23 Earl Paulk, 2007
1.24 Coy Privette, 2007
1.25 Thomas Wesley Weeks, III, 2007
1.26 Joe Barron, 2008
1.27 Todd Bentley, 2008
1.28 Ergun Caner, 2010
1.29 George Alan Rekers, 2010
1.30 Eddie L. Long, 2010
1.31 Marcus Lamb, 2010
1.32 Vaughn Reeves, 2010
1.33 John Langworthy, 2011Once again you're trying the old misdirect tactic.
Which comment came first peoplepower? So ...who was it that was put on the defensive? Since you seem to use that as an excuse for Zek to be insulting to an entire group of people.
Would you call what he said stereotypical or no because secretly you agree with it? Yet, my comment becomes insulting because you don't agree. You see how that goes?
Whether or not my comment was insulting, (and if so, I apologize) my direction was at the nature of his comments. The most telling though is that YOU FELT NO NEED TO ADDRESS HIS COMMENT. Only mine. Cherry picking at its best I'm afraid..
I could provide links where the left does indeed spoon feed the populace with such stereotypical information that the right is a bunch of bigots. I'm sure you've seen it though. You just don't wish to acknowledge it.
All of that isn't the point however. You felt some need to defend his insult, making some claim to being put on the defensive and try to call me out like I go around the forums insulting people. When his insulting comment came first.
You're history on bigotry is just more misdirection. We all know what it is, and saying it's alright to be bigoted against religious people because history says they started it is like trying to make an argument that slavery is okay because it was actually the practice of African tribes for generations and/or Native American tribes. Which is historic fact but has no relevance to the fact that slavery is an abomination.
And, no, they are not bigots when they commit adultery. That makes them 1. human 2. flawed and 3. hypocrites.
Bigotry is not hypocrisy.You speak with such authority. I wonder if you talk that way, because if you do, you never take a breath. Bigotry is not hypocrisy...really? From wikipedia:
"The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie (bigotry) in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite". This meaning still survives in Italian, in the cognate word bigotto. The exact origin of the word is unknown, but it may have come from the German bei and Gott, or the English by God."
See I do my research. I just don't spout of the top of my head and tell people they are wrong, because I think they are wrong...unlike some people I know!...and I rest my case.Yes because we live in 1598 lol
Here in the 21st century, bigotry is defined as follows:
"Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."
Hypocrisy is defined as follows:
The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
Hmmm...seems like a vast difference in meaning to me. Of course, I live here in the 21st century, not in the Middle Ages.
Again off on some tangent of irrelevance. I did not even argue your history lesson or origins of bigotry. Merely that the two are not interchangeable in modern day meaning. You are not stupid and are well aware of that fact.
I questioned your personal agenda in attacking my comment and ignoring the insulting comment of someone who agrees with you. I take note that you've yet to address that, respond in any way to it or even so much as admit his comment was an insult.
No problem though. Pretty much just proves my initial point (that bigotry is a-okay with those on the left if it is directed toward certain people, or anyone who disagrees with them) and even rather proves what that survey said that Josak wants to condemn without even looking at it. Democrats are more intolerant of those who disagree with their political views."But we were talking politics and it is just like you to use every left leaning rag you can find for your argument and just discount any other source (because that's how you roll) without any proof of any such notion other than your own opinions."
This is what I have been saying. +100
You wrote: "I questioned your personal agenda in attacking my comment and ignoring the insulting comment of someone who agrees with you. I take note that you've yet to address that, respond in any way to it or even so much as admit his comment was an insult."
Hypocrisy is defined as follows: 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
What he said was this: "Why yes, the Religious Right is full of bigots. We've known this for decades, now."
Based on the list I provide you with, he is correct. Therefore I don't find it offensive. Maybe they are not bigots by your definition, but they certainly are hypocrites for committing adultery.
I also find it interesting that you say my definition is out of date because its origin was in 1598. However when I say the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791 and is no longer appropriate for the times that we live, you say it's just fine the way it is.One is a word that is not defined nor used in the same manner as it was in 1598.
One is written in language that means the same now as it did then except for perhaps militia. But the militia part was not the argument. You claimed they did not mean for individuals to have the right to bear arms and I argued that right was intended.
But I am fine going back on topic because you never answered my question there either.
If we agree that certainly some restrictions can and have been placed on weaponry (i.e. you can't own missiles) why does it need rewritten?
Edit: I did want to address this comment as well:
""Why yes, the Religious Right is full of bigots. We've known this for decades, now." Based on the list I provide you with, he is correct. Therefore I don't find it offensive. Maybe they are not bigots by your definition, but they certainly are hypocrites for committing adultery."
Do you really want me to do up a list of left leaning bigots? You know, from Jeremiah Wright and onward? I can do that because the only argument was it doesn't contain any more bigots than any other demographic. Naturally you don't find it offensive because he agrees with you. Exactly my point. You should find it offensive period. A stereotypical statement is a stereotypical statement regardless of what demographic it is aimed at.
The liberal left is full of class bigots and racial bigots. When you give preferential treatment to somebody based on skin color, that's bigoted against everybody with a different skin color. Affirmative action is bigoted.
Education Answer. Why because we have a half black and half white president who was given preferential treatment twice to become president? You can pick a color. Be careful though, the black side is from Kenya and the white side is a no good Marxists, socialist, communist, fascists who wants to take your guns away and then control your every move through tyranny.
I hadn't even thought of the POTUS when I mentioned this. Interesting.
Well now you have been reminded. You better arm up, because he is intent on taking your guns and ammo away! And then he will "drone" you.
That is an interesting debate really. I am not personally in favor of affirmative action but is it bigoted?
America has the lowest economic mobility in the first world and a very bad generational mobility, not so long ago non white people were heavily affected by laws on a racial bias that prevented them from becoming wealthy (or made it much more unlikely) that has a serious effect on the wealth of modern non white people through inheritance.
Making reparations (to nowhere near the extent of the damages) for that past injustice to attempt to cancel out some of the damage done isn't racism because it's not a policy in favor of anyone anymore than ruling in favor of a victim in a civil case and being ordered to pay reparations is.
That is the argument anyway.When you give preferential treatment to somebody, based on race, that is bigoted, racist.
I'll give an example. When I first applied to college, I remember reading an article saying that my college of choice was going to increase its Native American population by lowering entrance standards and by offering significant scholarships to Native Americans. Entrance standards and scholarships were to remain the same for all races other than Native Americans. The article went on to state that some people who are not Native American might find it more difficult to get into the college, because admissions were limited to a specific number. This kind of preferential treatment, reparations, is unfair and biased, and yes, I call it racism."When you give preferential treatment to somebody, based on race, that is bigoted, racist."
What do you think was happening in this country for 200 years? Do you think the country was a meritocracy? Get real, pal. And judging from some of the comments in these forums discrimination against minorities and women is still common in this country.Like where Ralph?
Let's be clear, Affirmative Action was indeed a good thing and needed at the time of its inception. Today, if you are discriminated against based on race or gender, there are Federal laws that protect you and organizations that will help you in that process.
Today it really just pays people to be legally discriminatory against white males. There is no need for Affirmative Action today. In fact, I'd like race to be taken out of all college applications. For those colleges that rely on personal interviews for scholarships, at least the initial cut down to the final choices would not be based on race at all. From there it would be pretty easy to detect if someone was being discriminated against by the final cuts.
Affirmative Action is bigoted because it does not require a diverse workplace (or college admissions) in order to be eligible for Federal funds or contracts. It only requires a certain percentage of minority or females. If it truly was about equality, it would require an equally diverse workplace. In other words, if you run a completely female workplace, you are still eligible for federal contracts. They do not require that you have a certain number of males. This applies to race as well. So, yeah, it really is bigoted.I like your point about taking race off the college entrance application. Applicants should be selected based on their merit. I'm sure there is an argument both ways on this point. I'm sure some people have benefited, and others have been overlooked because of their race. Let's just eliminate the question altogether.
+1
You justify "reverse discrimination" because of the terrible things our great, great grandfathers did?
Preferential treatment, based on skin color, is bigoted, plain and simple. Justify it by saying our country was evil 200 hundred years ago if you wish. Nobody in this forum, that I know, is debating the fact that minorities were mistreated generations back. Still, treating someone differently based on skin color is wrong, and that's exactly what the intent of affirmative action is."You justify "reverse discrimination" because of the terrible things our great, great grandfathers did?"
Your ignorance of the history on this topic is stunningly incredible.There is plenty of discrimination today. And there was "de jure" (by law) discrimination in the North as well as the South until the 1960s. Where do you get the great, great, grandfather b.s.? For example, as I've pointed out previously there were only two minorities in my college freshman class of 1,800 and zero minorities or women in my grad school class and no minority faculty members. Fraternities and sororities would not admit members with 1/8 African American or Jewish blood. In Detroit suburbs real estate agents would not show houses to minorities and "clauses" prohibiting sales of property to African Americans or, in some cases, Jews, were common in deeds. The highest a white woman could go in auto companies was secretary and the highest a black woman could go was janitor.I already said there is discrimination today. I acknowledged that most is directed at minorities and women. Do you read what people write? There was discrimination 200 years ago, and there is today. We've already determined that. Your post is nonsensical, emotional jargon. We've already covered this before. We agree that there is discrimination.
I do not believe in "reverse discrimination" to pay reparations for things that happened 200 years ago. As for current discrimination, there are laws.
I don't know why there were so few minorities in your graduating class. Do you know why there were so few minority graduates, or are you assuming it was because of discrimination? It seems like a good assumption, but it is just that, an assumption. There were many in my high school, undergraduate, and graduate classes.
As for not knowing much about the topic, I have a degree in American history. I'm pretty certain I know a bit about the topic. I was asked to pursue my doctorate in history, and encouraged to finish a dissertation on how women's rights and equality were a forced emergence, out of necessity, during World War II. Trust me, I know a bit about the topic of discrimination, at least from an academic and historical standpoint.Well why did you make the claim that I justify affirmative action because of what my great, great grandfather did? That was hardly a valid point. You worry about discrimination against whites when the our society's more serious problem remains discrimination against minorities and women. There were only two minorities in my class because the school's recruiters and alumni secondary schools committees went only to all white suburban public and private schools. It apparently hadn't occurred to anyone that Detroit inner city schools could be a source of qualified candidates and that there was educational and societal value in providing opportunity for minorities. In the 1960s, thanks to the civil rights revolution, many universities began to do something about this situation and began to recruit in inner city schools. You apparently disapprove of this because you think it is "reverse discrimination." For years before and presently preference has been given to children of alumni, large donors, athletes and applicants recommended by influential people such as members of state legislative appropriations committees who could affect aid to state universities. Just curious, what part of the country are you from?
I live in Arizona. I'm not quite sure how that is relevant, but now you know.
I only mentioned 200 years, because you mentioned discrimination in the past 200 years. I thought you were trying to justify affirmative action as some form of reparations. Thus, I made that statement.
Of course there is discrimination. Of course most of that is directed at minorities and women. Why add more? Again, we've already established that. Affirmative action adds more discrimination. How can that be good?Affirmative action can be good if it is used in a school or organization which has few minorities or women because of past discrimination. Perhaps your understanding of what affirmative action is is different from mine (and from what it is in actual practice.) In my personal experience in industry and in recruiting for my college alma mater, all it means is applying a little extra effort to find qualified individuals. In the case of my alma matter it meant going to inner city high schools for the first time and seeking students who ranked at the top r near the top of their class; who took academic AP courses; who were highly recommended by the school; and who pursued one or two extra-curricular activities. In some cases applicants were accepted although their SAT test scores were lower than some non-minority applicants. Despite this, calling this "reverse discrimination" is misleading because the bias of SAT and other tests in favor of upper class suburban kids and against impoverished inner city kids has been well established. Of perhaps 30 or so inner city children that I helped recruit, not one dropped out and most of them went on to graduate school. One is a well known Detroit lawyer; another went on to get a PhD in history and is teaching, and two have highly successful careers in business (one is a multi-millionaire). The company I worked for began affirmative action for minorities and women in the 1960s but the policy was never to hire anyone who was not qualified. Currently minorities and women can be found in every occupation from entry level to corporate officer. Seems to me people like you who believe in the Horatio Alger American Dream of advancing to success by merit and hard work should be supportive of an end to discrimination which is what affirmative action means in my experience, no more, no less.
You're leaving out a tiny part of it, Ralph, but a very important part.
When affirmative action is applied to a limited number of positions (and no position is unlimited) whether for college, grants, private employment or anything else it means that otherwise qualified applicants will not be considered. It also almost inevitably means that applicants of lesser ability will be accepted.
And that makes it discrimination. It is one thing to search hard for a highly qualified college applicant and admit them, it is a completely different matter to find such an applicant and admit them while turning away other, equally or more qualified, applicants because they don't have the right skin color, sex, national origin, etc.
Not to say it is always bad; this is one of the rare times where two wrongs have made a right. It is, however, past time to stop repeating the second wrong; the results are no longer sufficient to justify the means." It also almost inevitably means that applicants of lesser ability will be accepted."
That depends on how you define ability. Consider the upper middle class suburban applicant whose background includes two married, sober attentive parents, private pre-school, good public high school or perhaps a private secondary school with small classes, summer camp learning experiences, tutoring in any subject in which he's encountering a bit of difficulty compared to an inner city, single parent applicant who ranks at the top of his class, has good recommendations, worked part time after school, and whose SAT or ACT score is above the university's cut-off, but a bit lower than the suburban child who grew up with every advantage. For sake of argument, let's say the inner-city kid ranked higher in his class than did the suburban kid who grew up with every advantage. The formerly lily white university believes that seeking out and admitting well-qualified minority applicants will contribute to the educational process for all its students, by helping them learn to get along with others with backgrounds and race different from their own much as they will likely encounter in their future occupation. I grew up with the misfortune of going to lily white schools first grade through graduate school and working initially in a lily white company. Not recommended for today's world.
THE MERIT ADMISSIONS MYTH
After ignoring merit forever and failing to admit minorities at all, the first time a minority applicant is admitted with test scores below that of a white applicant, opponents of affirmative action suddenly become apostles of merit. Moreover, one must wonder why there is such an uproar over minority admissions when preference forever has been given to children of alumni, relatives of or applicants recommended by large donors, relatives of or applicant's recommended by politicians capable of influencing state education appropriations for the university, and of course athletes recruited by the football coach whose salary is several times that of the university president.Ability: for purposes of hiring, actual ability as demonstrated in past employment.
OR, particularly for nubes to the employment market, what test scores or education the employer thinks will be valuable. And yes, I understand that tests and education both can be twisted to give preferential to one race while providing no benefit to the employer. I expect current, non-discriminatory laws to take care of that.
Opponents of affirmative action have always used merit as a prerequisite for hiring. They just don't like "merit" to include skin color. Or sex or whatever the AA is about.
And Ralph, I almost (almost!) pity you if you can't figure out that hiring based on skin color, because it has been done in the past, is OK. It's not. It's wrong.
For several decades that "wrong" was offset by the large amount of "good" produced by reverse discrimination. Not for the person hired, but for society in general. That is no longer true; the only "good" today is to (for example) hire a black woman at the direct (and wrong) expense of a white man. The wrong cancels the right because society in general gets very little return for allowing a "wrong". Only the individual hired, and the one passed over because they have the wrong color skin is hurt just as much as the minority is aided.As a teacher, I can tell you that the "dumbing down" issue is a big one in education. IF any people are admitted into higher education, based on race and not merit, that is one of the reasons we have dumbing down. It's not good for schools, and it's not fair.
Of course it does. When I went to college, many years ago, there was a program to encourage Native Americans to enroll. All expenses paid and no possibility of failure. The worst grades were accepted for graduation.
Nevertheless, few in the program ever graduated; they dropped out instead. Every night was a drunken party in the section of the dorm where those program recipients gathered. Surrounding students, both in the dorm and in class, suffered greatly from the rowdiness.
The program was a total failure because it attracted people out for a free ride rather than an education. Of the hundred or so recipients I doubt that more than a dozen ever graduated and by then the program had such a bad name I doubt they could find jobs anywhere in the state.
Had reasonable, even if a little lower, entrance exam scores been required and more importantly good grades in school it would have been different, but the whole thrust was a political effort to end "discrimination" against native Americans. Not to actually educate any of them, so money that could have educated twice as many poor but unfortunately white students was flushed away for nothing.Well actually that requires the immediate question what is dumb?
Is the inner city black kid who never had electricity to study with, rarely had enough to eat and was beaten every night by an abusive father dumber than the suburban kid with the comfortable life who got a slightly better score? Because believing that is moronic.
My only problem with affirmative action nowadays is that it's done by race, if it were done by socio- economic position instead (which reflects race anyway) I would be fine with it.Really? I would have thought everyone was familiar with the phrase.
It does not actually refer to dumb as in stupid, but to ignorant as in lacking in knowledge. Education is designed to provide knowledge to students; "dumbing down" refers to providing less knowledge because some students cannot assimilate it or because some students require extra training to gain the minimum knowledge level required to start the class.I did not fabricate the term. It is an accepted term among educators. It has to do with lowering standards. There are many factors that are part of the trend; typically, teachers, not students, are blamed for the practice of dumbing down. Dumbing down happens across America, both in suburban areas and in inner cities.
When you lower requirements in order to allow on race greater admission into college, that results in state-sponsored racial preferences and dumbing down in college. I believe there are plenty of intelligent people, within every race, who are capable of going to college. I find less fault with colleges that try to find these college-ready people, within any given race, than I do those that lower standards and offer greater scholarships in order to attract a specific race. That results in the dumbing down of our schools, and it absorbs scholarship money from other people who might be more deserving.
Affirmative action is done by race though, and that makes it state-sponsored racial preference. That's simply wrong.Why are you so offended by affirmative action for minorities, but we never hear a peep about athletes who can hardly write their name being accepted, children of alumni getting preference, applicants who are recommended by donors or members of legislative education budget committees going to the front of the line, ahead of others with higher qualifications? Some schools feel that a student body from all over the country and world (who pay out-of-state tuition) is beneficial to the education process so students from far-away places are deemed to have more "merit." Also, at many schools children of financially well off parents who don't need financial aid get preference as well. Merit and who gets it is in the eye of the beholder.
Here's the peep. I always hate it when preferential treatment is given to a specific class of people; it often results in fewer scholarships and the dumbing down of instruction for all. I do not believe in the dumbing down of our schools. Athletes should be in school to get an education. That's the primary purpose of college.
I am opposed preferential treatment being given to any group of people. If standards were lowered for any group of people, I wouldn't be for it. Preferential treatment should not be given. Standards should not be lowered. Scholarships should not be based on race, sex, family name, or any other discriminatory reason.
As I said in an earlier post, I have no problem with a school wishing to expand its diversity. Recruitments can occur without preferentially lowering standards and giving scholarships based solely on race, sex, or any other discriminatory reason.
Higher qualifications should mean everything. Scholarships should be based on academics, not race or sex.
This has been my experience. A limited number of positions or scholarships were filled based on racial preference. Racial bias is unfair even when it is government supported.
In most cases all affirmative action means in actual practice is stopping discrimination against minorities.
No, Ralph - it means discriminating against one race to give advantage to another. Or sex or whatever other minority is being chosen this time around. You don't stop discrimination by discriminating - you just add to it.
That depends on your definition of "merit." Your definition is analogous to a "fair" race in which one of the contestants starts ten yards behind another while carrying a ten pound weight on his back. A fairer definition, in my opinion, is how well each individual succeeded in his home and school environment. Why does a lazy white kid who grew up in an enriched environment which helped him get high SAT or ACT scores have more merit than an inner city kid who works his tail off in school and in part-time jobs and ranks at or near the top of his class? How do you reconcile preferences to athletes, legacies, "connected" applicants who have been getting preferences with your concept of merit? How do you think George W. Bush got into Yale and Harvard Business School? Strictly on merit, no doubt?
Based on that logic, I should give two different grades to two students who earn the exact same percentage in the same class. Perhaps an "A" should go to the student with the difficult home life and a "B" should go to the student who has a privileged upbringing? Nope.
Instead of lowering our standards to allow more inner-city students into college, why don't we fix those schools? We're not doing anybody a favor by allowing them to go to a college where they will likely fail, because they are not prepared for college. We're not doing anybody a favor by allowing them to go to college but failing to fix the faltering school from which they attended. If you really want to help students from inner cities, let's fix those schools and watch better prepared students get rightfully accepted into colleges in which they have a chance to succeed. Anything less perpetuates the problem."We're not doing anybody a favor by allowing them to go to a college where they will likely fail, because they are not prepared for college."
Your comments reveal much about your attitudes on race. Plenty of inner city applicants are going to college and doing very well. It's been proved time and again that inner city applicants who rank high in their classes and have strong recommendations from their school succeed in college as well or better than their white counterparts from the suburbs whose SAT scores may be slightly higher due to their privileged upbringing. Your imagination is running wild about what is actually happening. In the U of Michigan cases that I'm aware of there has been no claim that the minorities accepted were not qualified to do the work at the university.This idea fits with the modern mythology of affirmative action and not the fact. People think that because someone is given preferential treatment then they must not have qualified for it any other way. The reality is that an applicant must qualify to attend the college otherwise it would not help anyone. The D student isn't applying to college. This is just something use by politicians to get votes from us winy little white folk.
Yes, many are going to school and doing well. I never said they weren't. Your assumptions are almost as bad as your delusional, liberal bias which enables you to turn everything into a race issue. Learn a new argument. You try so hard to vilify your opposition, that you are blinded by reality. Why don't you just go post another gun article that nobody will read?
It is racist to simply lower standards for some people or to provide scholarships based solely on race. Why don't we get off our butts and help people by fixing inner city schools? That's my point. Failing to fix these schools could be considered racist!!! You want to put a bandage on cancer by recruiting people, based on their skin color, from crappy schools. Why don't we fix those schools in the first place? Then you won't have to recruit, lower standards, and give scholarships based on skin color. Merit will speak for itself. Anything less than that ignores the real problem, horrible schools that do little to prepare millions of people, regardless of race.
How does my effort to help people reveal any racial undertones, by wanting to help people get an education? Education starts from the beginning, not college. We need to fix the system which doesn’t prepare people and fails to educate so many people who could attend college. How is that racist?The problem extends far further than bad schools most of the problems are at home, if their parents even have a regular house they often can't afford the bills, are subject to abuse and malnutrition etc.
until all these things are fixed (and many more) colleges will continue to accept dumber people with less ability simply because they had a better upbringing.You are absolutely right about the problem extending further than bad schools; it's a systemic problem that absolutely includes parents, values, and home life. These are the real, serious issues that need to be addressed, the same ones that are not addressed when affirmative action is the solution.
In a way, yes. That poor racer with the 10# weight is unlikely to win the race unless someone jiggers the timer at the end. Just as the ignorant student from a bottom high school is very unlikely to ever graduate unless graduation requirements are dropped.
That doesn't mean, though that you don't let the racer ahead of him race at all, just so the weighted down one will "win". Just as it doesn't mean that you don't let the "B" level student in so there's room for a "D" level one that is unlikely to finish at all.
Personally, I would never give an athletic scholarship, but I'm also realist enough to recognize that it pays in cold, hard cash. Cash that can be used to reduce costs or give an academic scholarship to someone else. Same for "connections" and "legacies" - the answer is to stop them, not make another "connection" called race and hurt even more good students.
Bush undoubtedly bought his way in. Is it right? Possibly if his scholastic credentials were high enough, but I would doubt that. More like cash + connections - something we should put a stop to. Or do you claim we should supply our own cash + connections to select students because they have the skin color we like?
A decade or so ago, when my kid went to college, I helped him search for grants. You know, we found almost unlimited grants, scholarships and the like that were available only to various minorities, but not a single one that was dedicated to white males. He ended up joining the military to use the GI bill - in other words he paid his own way through school, just like every other student could. At least they could if there skin color wasn't something other than white, and they were thus forced to either pay their own way or not go...
It's time for a level playing field, not more discrimination. A playing field based on merit and qualifications, not skin color, sex or anything else. We've paid the bill our forefathers rang up; it's time that people took some responsibility for themselves rather than always depending on someone else to do it for them.
"The liberal left is full of class bigots and racial bigots. When you give preferential treatment to somebody based on skin color, that's bigoted against everybody with a different skin color. Affirmative action is bigoted."
You live in a dream world. Most discrimination is is still against minorities and women, not in favor of them--in employment, education, law enforcement and just about everywhere else.I don't live in a dream world. I know racism occurs mainly against minorities and women. That doesn't negate the fact that affirmative action is bigoted too.
Ralph, if someone is given preferential treatment for being a certain ethnicity or gender, then that is discrimination. Now, personally, I believe that any business should be able to hire and fire for any and all reasons, but per this argument it is discrimination...bigotry of a type.
The "bad guys" are stealing guns from the homes of the "good guys" though. This is one of the most coveted things stolen during break-ins. I don't know why "right-wingers" always jump to the conclusion that even the most modest control will lead to confiscation of all guns. Even modest reform is impossible due the limitless power of the NRA, the gullibility of some gun owner (my brother included unfortunately), and the timidity of politicians who are too afraid to face the gun-lobby.
You just discovered that bad guys steal things from good guys? How old are you anyway?
And yes, we don't trust you. We don't trust those who claim that they just want "a little" and behind our backs talk about wanting "a lot." We don't trust those who know nothing about guns yet think they can think of and write laws to "control guns." We don't trust those who say they want "a little" and when that doesn't work, will want a "little more" and when that doesn't work will want a "little more" unto infinity and there is "no more" to give. We don't trust those who think solely with their emotions and bring no logic or no reason to the table. We don't trust those who are really after "people control" and not "gun control."
We don't trust those who are willing to distort the plain truth of the 2nd Amendment. We especially don't trust the government -- and you can thank the good people at the IRS for nailing that down for everyone.
You've given us no reason to "trust" you at all.
I agree, Ralph Deeds. I dare anyone say that something designed to force equal treatment to be respected within our society bigoted. Affirmative Action is, like a policeman in its own right. It is there to dictate that humane treatment is a part of the mainstream in our workplace. Just like domestic violence laws. They not only protect our precious women, they also protect male victims, too.
Whether or not affirmative action is justified depends on the history of each particular organization--whether there was past discrimination and current participation by minorities and women. I can envision institutions where there are few whites where affirmative action benefiting whites would be justified. When I went to college there were exactly two minorities in my freshman class of 1800 and only one minority professor. In grad school there were exactly zero minority students, zero faculty, and women had just became eligible for admission (1958). Currently at both institutions there is a significant percentage of minorities (and women in the grad business school). This change was accomplished by seeking out outstanding minorities and women for to be admitted as students and hiring in faculty positions. When I came to Detroit, the police force and fire department were pretty much lily white. This resulted in friction between the police and citizenry and contributed to the riot in 1967. By virtue of affirmative action, there is now is a significant percentage of minorities and women, and affirmative action is no longer in order.
Ok you either believe the whole bible or you don't believe it at all. The bible clearly says right there in black and white man for woman woman for man. Sodom and gumora ring a bell did burned the entire city because of its sexual immorality. That being said God makes no mistakes no junk therefore to say that people are homosexual by birth is a complete joke if you believe the bible. Nextly how much gun control do you want how can you justify more restrictions on law abiding gun owners as I said in previous post it's socialist propaganda to give the government complete control over everyone and why power. Power is the root of it all. Guess what was the first thing hitler did when he got power take the guns and bully and/or kill those who resisted. Obamacare is punishment as is the sequester trying to whip us into submission and if you don't believe that then it's time to wake up. This country is down hill to quick to check up if it is not reigned in a hurry we will hit rock bottom. The Great Depression will look like a bad day in the stock market. No one in their right mind can oh no the country is in the best shape it's ever been in bush screwed up Obama hasn't had enough time. Really people I'm sick of hearing it. I won't sit here and say its all obamas fault however I can say confidently that he has not improved under his dictatorship.
A recent poll revealed some interesting views from our law enforcement professionals. PoliceOne.com surveyed over 15,000 law enforcement professionals. Here are the poll results:
Would a fed ban on semi-automatic weapons reduce violent crime?
91.5 % said no or negative effect
Would a fed ban of magazines holding more than 10 rounds reduce violent crime?
95.7% said no.
86.2% said casualties would be decreased/avoided if armed citizens were present at a shooting.
Only 1.5% thought schools should be “gun free” zones!
What do you believe is the biggest cause of U.S. gun violence?
Decline in parenting & family values – 38.1%
Parole, early release & short sentencing for violent offenders – 14.7%
Pop culture (violent movies, video games) - 13.9%
Poor identification/treatment of the mentally ill – 10.1%
Guns are too prevalent and easy to obtain– 4.4%
15,000 people is a significant poll. These are the people tasked with protecting us. They MIGHT just know something about guns.What happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany was so wrong, they were given a homeland with the support of the US President Senate and Congress. The Japanese was wronged by being the first (and only) Nation to have cities Nuked; their cities were rebuilt better than before. They became a trading partner and the label made in Japan was like, made in China is today. The Southeast Asians in America during the war, who were gathered and encamped, were given Reparations by US Law Makers after they were freed. The Native American’s Great Grandchildren were given a little land and casinos. The Negro, made in America after hundreds of years of slavery and racism, who got no reparation, no 40 acres and no mules, no homeland, the memory of their homeland lost forever. For some reason American Lawmakers and many here on Hubpages have no empathy for, we people who are darker then Blue. Affirmative Action is the least America owes to the people whose back this country was built. But… The Creator has a Master Plan and you reap what you sow.
?
Nobody owes college admission or tuition to a person because of the color of his/her skin or because of cruel treatment that happened hundreds of years ago. America does not "owe" affirmative action to anybody. Perpetual reparations, generation after generation, takes away from one group of people to give to other people who feel entitled based on skin color. It's simply wrong; it's similar to the racism we had fifty years ago and back. We're all equal and deserve equal treatment. Preferential treatment, based on skin color, sex, and religion, is simply wrong. Isn't that the message of American history, the message you are trying to make? Reparations and affirmative action result in greater opportunities for some, based solely on skin color; that's exactly what we should be avoiding based on what we should have learned about our past.Educated Answer: racism haven't changed in the last fifty years??? Don't you believe that post racial stuff because Obama is President. He is not Negro he can trace his history back hundreds of years There are people without skin color today as yesterday that feel their skin entitles them to be better then all people of color, even if they are poor hungry and uneducated. What I wrote about American made Africans didn't reference skin color. You seem to base your understanding of debts owed on skin color. I bet you think you are not racist and you don't think that colorless people did or do any wrong to people of color. I knew if my first reply can from the right, the right to be wrong will be used to try and confuse my post, you are not as confused by my post as you pretend to be, I think you know better then you let on.
I've read your post several times. You seem to be saying that I am a racist and that poor, hungry, or uneducated people are lesser individuals. You also seem to be saying that many people think racism is no longer a problem, because President Obama was elected; he is not black. Is that your point?
I wasn't confused by your original post, but now I am confused about this one. Actually, I'm quite baffled by your post. Sorry. Could you please clarify your point?No Educated Answer, I'm not saying Obama is not black. I stated that he was not a Negro. My point about the poor, hungry, and uneducated whites hold to their skin color or lack of color as an entitlement all people of color don't have. The much referenced Founding Fathers were all colorless, so some whites regardless of personal achievements feel superior to any and all people of color. My basic point is and was, people who was very wronged and left homeless in history like American Slaves, recieved from the American Government more than Affirmative Action. White women and all people of color needed and benefited from Affirmative Actions. Minority set asides benefitted the white woman more than the black man. The white man benefited through white women which included him when he was excluded by law. I can't educate you because you don't want to be educated by me, so my point is mute with you and you will never openly and publicly understand me.
Ralph,
Did you read what he posted? Were you able to understand it. Yes, I am cluess when it comes to deciphering what he meant. I asked for a clarification.
He quite literally stated that poor, hungry, and uneducated people shouldn't consider themselves better than black people? What does that mean? I asked for a clarification, because frankly, I was shocked by the statement.
"In recent years, the SAT scores of white applicants to U.S. colleges and universities have been, on average, about 200 points higher than those of their black counterparts. Nonetheless, black students have been admitted to virtually all academically competitive schools at much higher rates than whites. At Amherst College in 1995, for instance, 51 percent of black applicants were admitted vs. just 19 percent of white applicants. At Rice University that same year, the corresponding numbers were 52 percent and 25 percent for blacks and whites, respectively. At Bowdoin College, the figures were 70 percent and 30 percent. In their 1998 book The Shape of the River, Ivy League professors William Bowen and Derek Bok report that at five of America's most elite universities, black applicants whose SAT scores fell within the 1200 to 1249 range had a 60 percent chance of admission, whereas whites with similar scores had just a 19 percent chance."
There are many sources that detail this kind of thing. Here's but one:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/view … asp?id=693
We shouldn't be doing this. Instead, we need to make sure all children, regardless of where they live or what the color of their skin is, receive a good, solid education. Admitting anybody into college, based on reduced standards, does not address the real issue. Why do they need reduced entrance standards? We need to fix our schools. Affirmative action does not fix schools. Its goal is admirable, to level the field and allow greater opportunity. It miserably fails to do this, because ultimately, it never fixes the problem in the first place, failing schools.
Josak is right when he says that there is more to our problem than just bad schools. Students go home each night. If they go home to a family in physical, emotional, or financial crisis, it's less likely that they will succeed in school. If they have parents that are uninvolved, it's less likely that they will succeed in school. These are very real concerns that are not addressed by affirmative action. We're doing a disservice to our children by thinking affirmative action even comes close to addressing any of these issues. I liken it to gun control. Banning guns doesn't address the real issue, violence. It, much like affirmative action, is a quick fix. When was the last time any quick fix really worked? These quick fixes mask the problem and make activists feel like they have accomplished something. If we're going to address these issues, it's a little bit more difficult than enacting a law. It requires a deeper understanding and more commitment than enacting a feel-good, quick-fix law.Studies have shown that SAT scores are not a good measure of the academic potential and ability of inner city students or other students from deprived socio-economic backgrounds. And they are certainly not a valid comparison between deprived applicants and those with advantaged backgrounds. These tests are not a measure of innate intelligence and indicate nothing about character, ambition and potential for success in college and life.
True. I've always seen them as a measure of the knowledge base you are wanting to enter college with.
At an extreme level, you want to go to college and become a mathematician but you can't add 2+2. That SAT will tell the college that; that the applicant does not have the prerequisite knowledge for the classes they wish to take.
That's what they're for, or so I see it, and they do a fair job of it.I'm a teacher. Test scores are used for teacher evaluations and merit pay, so I can tell you that I am all too familiar with all of the faults of a single test score. Still, there is no better way to determine academic potential. The point, however, isn't that SAT scores are the single best way to compare applicants. The point is that standards have in fact been lowered for some applicants. Whether or not you believe in SAT scores, it is a fact that some applicants are given preferential treatment based on the color of their skin.
Invalid SAT scores should not be used as an indicator of comparative merit in the case of applicants from deprived backgrounds. A better predictor of success is class standing, school recommendations and other indications of character and determination to succeed. Test scores are being misused in many states to evaluate teachers for purposes of salary increases, bonuses and to decide who gets laid off.
Most educators know that class standings and school recommendations are a joke. Schools are not equal, so class standings and recommendations are not equal. What is above average performance at one school is substandard at another. Tests provide equal comparisons, and that's why they are used. Should a 4.0 at a horrible community college warrant admission into Harvard? Should a recommendation from a teacher warrant Yale? Come on, let's get serious.
Yes, test scores are being used to determine teacher merit too. It is a bit scary. Your future is based on a single test. If a student is hungry, sick, or being abused, you get slammed on your next performance review. Your salary might decrease, or you might be terminated if enough students do poorly. Still, the test is the single most accurate method to determine student ability. You see, I am not only for using test results when it comes to college admissions, I'm for it when it comes to my own future. Until somebody comes up with a better system, tests are the best method of determining what students know. Teacher recommendations and student standing do not work and are quite literally next to useless.
I base this on over 20 years in the profession. I place students in accelerated classes, and I can tell you that teachers often fail to select the best candidates for a rigorous class. Students who performed well at one school in another district aren't necessarily ready for accelerated classes in my district. District standards, grades, and even curriculum vary widely. Grades and teacher recommendations are the worst way to select students for accelerated programs, and I'm quite sure the same applies for colleges.
Another point I need to make is that our district employs testing to alleviate bias. Tests don't know color, sex, behavior, income, or religion. They simply record knowledge. Consequently, testing is an unbiased, fair system for selecting students.
.
Here's a good summary of the current state of affirmative action programs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/educa … ed.html?hpYes, the cost of a college is out of control. A person (white or "of color" ) may think twice before taking on 60,000 to 100,000 dollars of debt for a degree that may not get them a job.
And so they should, but there is no reason to run up a $100,000 debt load, either. Anyone willing to put out hard work and sacrifice some comfort can pay for their own college education without accumulating that kind of debt.
The average college work load along with the unavailability of work makes that harder than you may think. The jobs the average college student would do are now being done by non-college students (people doing two or three of them just to get by). The type of college that is designed for the working student is not the type of college most employers want to hire from. The days of working at a pizza shop to pay for college are over (unless you can find a pizza place that pays 40k a year). My Ex-brother-in-law worked while going to Kent State. His paycheck went to pay for life (housing, food, etc). He has around a 60k debt for his degree. He works behind the counter at a gas station.
" Anyone willing to put out hard work and sacrifice some comfort can pay for their own college education without accumulating that kind of debt."
True. I worked part time for three years and virtually full time during my senior year in college as manager of a student laundry and dry cleaning agency. As I recall, I made close to $4,000 during my senior year in 1957 which was enough to pay for most of my education and for a good used car.I think 1957 makes my point. Things have changed in the past 56 years. A part time job will not pay for rent on room in a college town. That is if you can find that job. A part-time job that pays around 25k to 40k a year? Good luck trying to find that.
Really? Boise is a college town, and there are lots and lots of houses for rent, all within, say, 20 miles of the school, for $900 per month and down.
Three roomies means that a minimum wage job will pay your share with just 41 hours of work per month.
It wasn't very many years ago that my son, with wife and 3 kids including one newborn attended school full time plus worked 40+ hours per week during the school year and more than that all summer long.
When he graduated his wife went back to school, working part time. She graduated, got a full time job, and he has now gone back part time for a masters, still working full time along with her. The plan is for him to get his MBA, whereupon she will go back part time while still working full time with what is now 4 kids. I'm really proud of them both, and they sure give a lie to the idea you can't pay your own way through college.
Is it fun? Heck no, but it can be done if you want to badly enough."Is it fun? Heck no, but it can be done if you want to badly enough."
Which is where a lot of the problem lies IMO. Today's kids don't want to work. They want to play. They expect everything to come fast, easy and not break a sweat.
Many never had a chore in their lives. Their parents just handed them money each week along with anything else they wanted. They don't believe they should have to actually work for something.
Is it true of all of them? Of course not. Did these same kids exist years ago? Yes they did. Now, however, the majority fall under this category.
It is a mindset that has been promoted by today's parents and our own Government. Just saddle on up and collect. No work required.
That is just my opinion but I observe it every single day.So they still had two incomes (one full time and one half) whereas a teen entering the college/workforce would only have the 1/2. Also your son was older with more experience behind him as well as a support system in his wife. 20 miles from school would require a car with all of the expenses a car brings.
Then you have to find that minimum wage job willing to give 41 hrs. Most will limit hours to limit the chance of being forced to offer insurance with the new law. This new job will also have to be willing to set their schedule around your school schedule. On top of all this you have the whiplash of all these over coddled children being on their own for the first time. Going from The helicopter mom to nothing is a shock that usually leads to drunk and disorderly charge or at least no understanding on how to do the basics.
People go to college in Idaho?
"to encourage diversity"
You won't need to encourage diversity if you fix our K-12 schools in the first place; if all kids have a good K-12 education, you won't need affirmative action to help students get into college. They'll be able to get into college and receive scholarships based on their academics rather than the color of their skin.
You haven't addressed that issue. How are you going to help all of those inner city kids who don't plan on going to college? Affirmative action is a quick-fix solution that avoids dealing with the real problem. It's like gun control. Neither affirmative action nor gun control really address the real cause of the problem.
Sorry, there's a bug in the mobile interface, making my posts absurd.
Would someone please report this bug to the appropriate thread? I have no control over where my posts appear when replying via the mobile interface. Thank you, unknown helper, in advance. Guess I'm altogether offline for today.
Another AR-15 shooting rampage leaves 4 dead in California.
SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Four people were killed and five wounded on Friday morning as a gunman, dressed in black and carrying an assault rifle, strode across Santa Monica firing at people, cars, a public bus and buildings before being shot and killed by the police at the Santa Monica College Library, the authorities said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/us/sa … p&_r=0
Ralph: This was too close to home for me. Our daughter lives in Marina Del Rey which is the town next to Santa Monica. She goes their all the time. When is enough enough? Thanks for your postings.
Wow, that was a close call! I'm so sorry, peoplepower73. Something like that happened to me: my sister, her husband, myself, and another friend of theirs were all sitting on the floor playing a board game one Saturday night in their St. Paul apartment. We all heard the noise. "Was that a gunshot?" the other friend said. "Yes," said my sister or her husband. Then they briefly discussed who should call the police THIS time while the rest of us kept our heads down and stayed on the floor. As we watched from the windows, the police arrived and the shooter was put in custody after a foot chase that ended at a street corner visible from their windows--about three houses down and across the street they lived on. The disturbing part of the story is that they couldn't remember who'd called the police the last time, this being a common occurrence in their lives.
I'm all in favor of gun control, peoplepower73, but I'm also in favor of the constitution upon which the U.S. is built. I'm at odds on this one within my own mind: I just don't know how to merge the two peacefully, as they seem at odds when it comes to automatic weapons, rocket launchers, drones, and, dare I say it, nukes and other such weapons of war, not protection, hunting, or sport. As you said before, however, simply reducing the VOLUME of guns and ammunition--and maybe even the places where they can be purchased, and adding a 60-day waiting period which a court order could override in extreme cases of danger--would help some. Also as you say, crazies and criminals will always find a way to get guns, but just cutting down the number of guns is a huge start--they have to work harder to get those guns, perhaps.
Perhaps we could outlaw the "sport": shooting tournaments and target practice--that might get a lot of guns off the streets. After all, there are plenty of other great sports out there for gun people to participate in, such as archery. Maybe we should demand a DNA sample and fingerprints from each person who purchases a gun, with private purchases and DNA and fingerprint collections being supervised or taken by a Notary public. With authenticated DNA, we could at least trace the original legal purchaser of the weapon. Maybe, like we do with cars hold that person accountable to some degree if the weapon does something wrong in anyone's hands....
These all sound like utterly crazy ideas to me, yet SOMETHING has to be done to get guns off the streets or we'll all be in the habit of sitting on the floor in our own home and hoping that no stray bullets can make it through the walls (fat chance, that, when you're talking assault weapons).
And if you have a weapon that you don't want/need and turn it in to the police department, do you know what they do with it? In at least one case that I know of here in suburban Minneapolis, MN, they auctioned it off--it had been safely stowed in a remote closet and wrapped tightly to prevent it from being used accidentally for probably 40+ years. Now, it's on the street and busy again. Sigh.
Thank you Raplh, for pointing out why citizens should always have a carry gun with them. You just never know when you'll need it. And as we see in your story, waiting for the police just gets more people killed.
I've never felt it necessary to carry a gun. However, okay for those who do. But why are you opposed to doing a bit more (background checks) to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, criminals, children?
The current required background checks are supposed to do just that. What seems to be the problem?
Why don't you read up on the issue of gun controls before you stick your nose into the discussion. Try googling "gun show loophole."
Because there is no gun show loophole. Private sales of firearms are legal, no gun can be sold at a gun show by a Federally licensed gun dealer without a background check.
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaign … w-loophole
To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.
Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.
Gun Show Loophole Headlines
New Gun Control Movement in America Making Real Strides
Monday, May 27, 2013
On April 17, the bill to expand background checks on gun buyers failed in the Senate, and the fatalistic shrugs in Washington were so numerous they were nearly audible. The legislation had been a modest bipartisan compro.., Read More >
Why Aren't US Gun Control Advocates Focusing More on Online Sales?
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Despite clear demonstrations of the ease with which anonymous weapons transactions can occur online — including ties to mass shooting incidents — the issue has been largely sidelined during the political debate. After al.., Read More >
How the Gun-Control Movement in America Got Smart
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Here is how advocates of gun control used to talk about their cause: They openly disputed that the Second Amendment conferred the right to own a gun. Their major policy goals were to make handguns illegal and enroll all .., Read More >
I wasn't aware that children were out buying guns at Walmart but perhaps I could be mistaken.
And we already have background checks to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, criminals, and children who buy a gun from a gun dealer. I guess we could create double-background checks for those people.
Dear Readers, Ralph thinks you're stupid enough to believe that the gun runner who is illegally selling guns out of the trunk of his car to those who legally cannot own one will suddenly be persuaded to run background checks on every thug who approaches him in the back alley at midnight if only the "right" law will be passed. This is what he believes is "common sense."
And I've already expressed the right approach in my hub about a gun law that everyone can support.Mitch--Thanks for explaining the legal difference. I understand now. I'm still not sure how that keeps such weapons out of the hands of the idiots, but I understand the law better. :-) And thanks very much for acknowledging my existence in this debate: much appreciated.
Children find ways of buying anything else they need that's illegal. Why assume guns are different? And why assume that the guns are being sold directly to the kid and not to a willing but idiotic adult?
I think the main point here is that kids HAVE access to guns. How, why, and most importantly how can we stop it? Trigger locks, safes, etc. are one way of doing that. Because obviously the current screening method is failing our society more and more frequently these last few years. Doing home checks after the purchase to ensure that the guns were stowed appropriately safely for all inhabitants of the house would be one expensive but possibly effective (for awhile) way to go.
Which reminds me... why aren't we all pushing for trigger locks? Aren't they effective? I don't know all that much about guns and nothing about trigger locks that's not on biased TV. I do know that daddy never locked his gun cabinet with 6-8 big guns (one for bears) and a hand gun or two in it...And another kid and I would play with them. (And we were supposedly the grown-up smart kids of the neighborhood, not the airheads.) Trigger locks would have helped as well as locking the gun case and putting the bullets somewhere else. (We lived in the suburbs then--we rarely ran into trouble except with the paperboy being late.) I currently know a felon who owns hunting rifles. How'd he get them? and why aren't those of us who know about it turning him in? Because we're "Minnesota Nice". Right to the death, we are. He's a very nice felon, but a felon for serious illegal business that guns are sure handy in. I guess those two things--me playing with guns alone or with a friend as a kid, and now knowing an adult felon with guns--are the reason I'm trying to keep up with this debate. Sorry if I'm asking stupid questions sometimes.Cute little guns designed especially for kids are being pushed by gun manufacturers. They are being purchased by gun nut parents for their children.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/07/ … e-allowed/
I've seen these guns, too! Ralph is right--they're a scaled down size for children and lighter weight in "cool" colors and designs. No serious adult would use them (or be caught dead, NO pun intended, using the pink ones).
Ralph, I assume you were referring to me when you said, I apologize, and you are correct: as I indicated before, I'm unprepared for this debate and kind of coming at it from the other side. I'll keep my mouth shut and listen and learn more from now on.
However, I am not totally ignorant and I have done research through "normal" channels, I'm just not as informed as all of you: I'm aware of the gun show loophole, having been to several shows, and I'm aware of trigger locks, but only from TV news or sales spiels (biased/useless). A person close to me went off his meds, bought some guns easily from a store--passing the background check without a hitch, and became one of the "crazies" we're worried about, and he knows exactly where I live--alone. I've seen the minimal background check forms they have you fill out at the stores that didn't prevent this particular crazy (or the convicted felon on parole) from getting guns from stores even with the background checks. No offense to TV, manufacturers, or the Internet in general, but I'd rather learn more from people who know more than the news feed readers or random total strangers on the 'net I've read rantings from, and what little I can learn having never gone through the whole process of purchasing a gun for myself at all, let alone in very recent years. I trust all of your opinions more than total strangers'. I'm NOT against owning or collecting guns at all--I kind of like target practice even, and I'm not a half-bad shot even when out of practice. I believe that any little bit we can do to make guns safer, within financial and practical reason, the better. I also believe the guns themselves are innocent {except perhaps the pink ones and Buzz Lightyear ones I've seen :-| those manufacturers and the parents who bought them are guilty, as far as I'm concerned}. The background checks and the parolee check-ins have utterly failed my little world, so I'm hoping to hear ways of improving something that will help prevent or at least lower innocent bystanders' risks. So far, reducing the number of guns on the street seems to be the only way I can see to really make a dent in that. Gun collectors are no trouble--heck I collect goblets and rocks and they're stowed appropriately for display just as are the collections of the gun collectors and makers I've met and am related to.
Okay, I'll just listen/lurk, if that's okay with y'all.
One serious question for everyone first, though:
Should I report the felon with the guns to the authorities, or is that too dangerous or a waste of time because the slime-ball will charm his way out of it and nothing will be done? That might (might) slow down his lucrative illegal business (while on parole after serving 7 years' hard time) at least for a while. I know he'll get another gun(s), but shining a spotlight in his direction -- would that help for awhile?Actually, my comment was directed toward Lie Detector.
Oh,... so you were wrong and children are not out buying guns. Thanks for clarifying your error. Now just work on the other 98 percent and we'll have a decent discussion.
Sorry, Jack, I didn't say that children were buying guns. Try for a change to get your facts straight.
" gun nut parents"
Do you have the ability to post without calling people names? You put up Chris Rock as some sort of voice of reason on gun control, Chris Rock shouldn't be taken serious on any subject.Well, Ralph... SOMEONE suggested that we need background checks specifically to keep guns out of the hands of "children."
I do believe that was YOU.Here's what I actually said:
"Cute little guns designed especially for kids are being pushed by gun manufacturers. They are being purchased by gun nut parents for their children."I heard you when you said it, Ralph. Thats why writing it is better than saying it, nobody can misquote you by mistake. It has to be on purpose, Right?
There's no need to lie about your posts, Ralph. When Al Gore invented the Internet he also invented scroll back with it so we can all see exactly what you posted.... and just like I said you said... here are your exact words...
"But why are you opposed to doing a bit more (background checks) to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, criminals, children?"
So go ahead, Ralph... explain to those of us waiting eagerly just how background checking a child who cannot buy is gun is "going to keep guns" out of their hands. Give detail. Be specific. But please don't lie about it again.
Survival story in inner-city Detroit:
This has been a week to remember for Balaal Hollings.
On Monday, he celebrated his 18th birthday.
On Tuesday, he suprised his classmates by attending his Northwestern High School graduation ceremony and delivering his speech as senior class president.
On Wednesday, parts of that speech were featured on national TV and “liked” all over the Internet. On that same day, Hollings was released from a Detroit physical rehabilitation center, and he threw out the first pitch at Comerica Park, where the Tigers battled the Tampa Bay Rays.
This week almost didn’t happen for Hollings. He almost wasn’t here to celebrate his birthday, give that speech or throw out anybody’s ball.
On April 6, a bullet blew out part of his brain. It’s still lodged there.
But unlike the stories of the seven teenagers killed by gun violence in Detroit this year, Hollings made it to the other side of high school. And he is determined to keep on making it.
“First, I want to thank God,” Hollings said to the crowd of 1,500 attending Northwestern’s graduation at the Millennium Centre in Southfield. “It is so good to be alive.”
A bullet could shatter his brain, but he refused to let it shatter his hopes. Even doctors marvel at Hollings’ nearly miraculous recovery.
“This is just a small piece of my life,” he said. “I still have my whole life to live.”
People love Hollings — his teachers, his classmates, his mentors. He was the class president. The homecoming king. Captain of the football team, basketball team and swim team. Voted “Most Likely to Succeed,” “Class Clown” and “Class Spirit.”
“This young man represents what we’re all about, that is, academic success, and it was critically important for me to go to the hospital and let him and his family know that he is important to us, that he has a bright future, and that we stand ready to ensure his continued success,” said Detroit Public Schools emergency manager Roy Roberts, who visited Hollings at DMC Sinai-Grace Hospital in late April.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130608/N … shot-WoundLaura sez: Children find ways of buying anything else they need that's illegal. Why assume guns are different? And why assume that the guns are being sold directly to the kid and not to a willing but idiotic adult?
Jack replies: Okay...now explain just how "background checks" are going to stop "illegal sales" and "willing but idiotic adults"?
It's a "feel good" measure. Laura. It does absolutely nothing other than make the person who posts "background checks" ffffffeeeelllllll gggggoooooddddd. Nothing else.
And it allows those of us who know this to know just how little other posters know about guns, buying guns, and the gun ownership culture.Ralph thinks that when you buy a red car you used a "red car loophole" in order to get it.
When you buy a head of cabbage at the store you used a "cabbage loophole" to buy it.
That TV you just bought -- it was only done with the "plasma TV loophole."
That's because Ralph doesn't know what a "loophole" actually is. For him, the definition is "I don't like someone doing something so that must be a loophole that allows them to do so."
He simply distorts the English language because he can't actually make a valid point with logic and reason.Jack Burton: I believe you are distorting what Ralph said. Here is what he said that is pertinent to the argument. "Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere."
Your thing about red cars, cabbage, and plasma T.V. is a distortion of what he wrote. It is also the same old line that is used that if guns are outlawed, then we have to outlaw knifes forks, cars, and anything that can be used as a weapon to kill people. That is called false equivalence and is a propaganda technique to compare two unlike things that are made to believe they will produce the same results.
PP... it's only a distortion if you have no clue as to what a "loophole" actually is. I think you've just settled that point about what you know and don't know.
don't be obtuse. I just said you don't know what a "loophole" is. this is why you agree with Ralph. Neither one of you know what one is. You just make up definitions to suit your desires.
Jack Burton:
Definition of Loophole :"The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition"
1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.
2. A small hole or slit in a wall, especially one through which small arms may be fired.
Absolutely. Now learn something...
There has NEVER been a federal wording, contract or law that ever, even once hinted at the necessity of background checks on private sellers and buyers of guns.
There have NEVER been an law or regulation passed by the federal government to have total, or even mostly "compliance" with a background check for private sellers and buyers.
There is no "difficulty." It doesn't exist.
There can be no escaping, omitting or evading a federal law that prevents, hinders, or stops a private sale or buying of a gun merely because it is private or between two individuals that reside in the same state. That is because there is no such law and there never has been.
By your own definition you just proved there is NO "gunshow loophole." If you still think there is, then the burden is upon YOU to show just which "contract" or "law" is being escaped, omitted or evaded. It's going to be difficult at best to show how a loophole exists in a law or regulation that doesn't exist.
The American system of freedom is that if a law is silent on an issue we have freedom in that issue. That is why I raised the concept of buying vegetables and TVs earlier. There is NO law that says you can't buy a TV... therefore you can buy a TV. It is not a TV loophole.
There also NO law that says I can't sell my gun to my neighbor in a private sale as long as he is otherwise an acceptable person to own a gun. Therefore I can. It is not a "gun show loophole."
You can continue to live in the fantasyland about "loopholes" that you've read about from anti-gun sources.... or you can man up and decide that you are going to live in the truth of the matter.
Your choice. I've done my responsibility to educate you.
BTW... your ignorance about selling guns over the Internet is as vast as your ignorance about loopholes. If you want I'll make a stab at cluing you in to the truth but I kinda want to know that I am not wasting my time on someone who refuses to learn the facts.Jack Burton: Read this. It is far too long and too much pertinent information to just quote some passages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_ … ted_States
Gun control is a state issue. Gun show loophole in the majority of states demonstrated here: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safet … s-map.html
Surely you're not advising wiki as an authoritative source. I've got a third-cousin, twice removed on my mothers side who says he knows the exact day the space aliens will land. He has as much credibility as wiki on any subject about guns.
If you want to know about gun shows just ask. I've been to them, I've bought and sold from them, and I've exhibited at them. If I judge that you are really seeking information to actually learn something I'll probably answer you.Jack Burton: Why am I not surprised that you would give no credibility to Wikipedia? I take it you did not even go to the website. I like the way you pass judgement on people and condescend to them by saying : "If you want to know about gun shows just ask. I've been to them, I've bought and sold from them, and I've exhibited at them. If I judge that you are really seeking information to actually learn something I'll probably answer you." Hey Jack, don't do me any favors O.K.
I think this link shows all the states and their laws for background checks. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safet … s-map.html
So when psycheskinner posted that link, you called him a "slow learner, eh... " You probably didn't even look at that site either. I don't think you can handle the truth.All of which to say that you can't really refute the truth that you've been wrong about the so-called gun show loophole all along.
Yes, I took a look at both links. Neither one of them refuted the error either.
As noted previously, you can continue to live in fantasy land or you can become educated. Your choice.Deleted
Your "protect police" website is nothing but a sock puppet for bloomy's Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Hardly a credible, unbiased source.
Here's the Fraternal Order of Police, representing the rank and file, in full support of the Tihart Amendment...
http://www.fop.net/servlet/display/news … vidual.xsl
And yeah, I remember quite well when my boss was gone for a month... why, I didn't come to work that whole time. Why bother, eh. The boss isn't there.
And you still can't point to a law or regulation that is being "loopholed" with private gun sales, can you.
All hat, no cattle.
At this point I am confused. What is the dispute. Most states require background checks, and in most states this requirement is waived at gun shows.
Yes? So.... cherchez the argument?psyche..,. you could not be more wrong than if you claimed an elephant was really a mouse. Or that a child's tricycle was a sufficient vehicle for interstate travel. Or that "The View" was quality TV programming.
Perhaps you could explain. Because very states laws are right there on the internet and that is what they say. Gun shop = background check. Gun show = no check. Not sure what I am missing. Perhaps it would help if the participants in the discussion would argue facts rather than hyperbole and misdirection.
psy....if you think it "would help if the participants in the discussion would argue facts rather than hyperbole and misdirection" then you have to quit posting statements such as, "Most states require background checks, and in most states this requirement is waived at gun shows." and "Because very states laws are right there on the internet and that is what they say. Gun shop = background check. Gun show = no check."
The FEDERAL government has set up a system using people with a federal firearm licenses for the buying and selling of guns. This person is known as an "FFL" for short. The rules are complicated at times but the basics are simple.
A gun manufacturer cannot sell directly to the consumer. A gun wholesaler cannot sell directly to the consumer. Both must go through a FFL to sell their guns to the public. If a person wants a "new gun" they have to go to a FFL located in their state to purchase one.
The FFL can have two types of guns. The first are his private guns, and these "off the books" as they are his private property. Any gun, whether new or an used one that he took in on trade or bought to resell, that he has for sale MUST be "on the books" in his registry. It goes in the book as soon as he gets it. To move a gun out of his book he MUST run a background check on a person who fills out the federal form 4474 completely and accurately. If a gun is on his books it does not matter where he is at when he sells the gun. The 4474 MUST be filled out and a background check MUST be called in. He can be sitting in his garage, at a flea market, in his shop, at a gun club, a hunting lodge, a gun show or any place between. The correct paperwork with a background check MUST be done by the FFL. If a FFL sells a gun on his books without doing so he has just committed a federal felony. There are NO exceptions.
There is no state law that overrides this federal law. None.
There are only three basic federal laws that have an impact on a private sale from one individual to another. The first says that if you are not an approved person (felon, adjudicated mentally ill and a few other categories) you cannot legally buy a gun from ANYONE. The second says that if you are a private seller you cannot SELL a gun to someone that you know is unapproved. The third law says you can only make a private sale to someone who lives in the same state at you do. There are some minor differences in the law concerning handguns and longguns but that is basically what private sales are like.
This means that all those who fearmonger about "internet sales" are clueless. If I, as an Indiana resident, want to buy a gun advertised over the internet in Oregon the only way I can do so legally is to have the seller of that gun ship it to my FFL and then he puts it on his books the same as any other gun in his shop. I then have to go through the same exact system with filling out the paperwork and doing a background check as if I was buying a new gun from him.
Yes, I can call Fred up in Oregon and ask him to ship the gun directly to me, but we are both committing federal felonies by doing so, and it has nothing to do with the internet. If my buddy Sam who is Fred's neighbor in Oregon tells me that Fred is selling his gun and I call Fred on the phone the same exact illegal process can take place without the internet even being invented. There is not a background check law in the world that prevents criminals from illegally selling and buying guns.
If I, as a private individual, want to sell my guns at the gun show I can do so without having to run a background check. I can also sell them over the back fence, over the swimming pool, and in the parking lot of Walmart without having to run a background check. My only requirement is that I verify that the person lives in my state and that I believe he is not an unapproved person.
There is no such thing as a "private dealer." This is like calling the drug dealer a "private pharmacist" or a bank robber as a "private money exchanger." The law allows a person to sell off their collection of 1, 100, or 200 guns. If it takes ten weeks, ten months or ten years to do so then it is still legal.
What is illegal is for me to buy a gun, sell it, buy a gun, sell it, buy a gun, and sell it. I am engaging in the activities of a dealer, and that is against federal law. Acting as a dealer doesn't make me a "private dealer" anymore than a fraud without a medical licenses is legitimately a "private doctor."
Some very few states, such as California, require by state law that ALL firearm selling and buying within the state must go through a FFL. This is their prerogative, but note that it does not impact or change the federal law at all.
So your previous statement "Most states require background checks, and in most states this requirement is waived at gun shows." is completely untrue. The state has no power to "waive" the requirement for a FFL to do background checks at gun shows. The states don't "waive" the requirement for private sales since they simple have no law on the books that require it in the first place.
You can figure out yourself why your other statement, "Because very states laws are right there on the internet and that is what they say. Gun shop = background check. Gun show = no check." is also just as wrong.
As noted with peoplepower... you can accept the truth of the matter... or you can choose not to and continue to believe and post false information. Your choice.
BTW... those who spout the nonsense about gun manufacturers opposing background checks because of their greed are just plain ignorant of the process. As noted above ALL new guns are sold via FFLs with their background checks. A used guy is what is bought and sold on the private market without background checks. That used gun brings in no profit one way or the other to gun manufactures. They have already made their nut off from it months, years or decades ago.
If the bottom line was the only thing the gun manufacturers were interested in they would all strongly be in favor of background checks in order to force all gun buyers into the gun shops where they can see what the latest, newest whizbang gun is for sale.
Yes, that applies to licensed dealers. But private individuals can also sell guns and in many states anyone not making their living by gun selling is a private seller. These users are not required to do a background check at a gun show.
Yes/No?
I genuinely am trying to find the facts here. I have no idea how much gun show trade is licensed dealer versus private seller.Anyone can be a "private seller." If I sell my handgun to my neighbor over the back fence I am a "private seller." The SAME EXACT WAY that I am if I sell my TV to him over the back fence.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand. There is NO FEDERAL LAW that prohibits me from selling the gun, the TV, my car, a tomato or three of each to my neighbor.... someone who saw my ad in the newspaper... someone I bumped into at Walmart... or someone I met at a gun show. As long as they are not a prohibitted person and live in the same state as I do I have the freedom to do so. And in each case I don't (and can't) do a background check.
Some very few states have a state law that requires me to go thru a FFL if I want to sell my gun. But I repeat myself from the previous post.... which I am beginning to suspect that you never read.
The phrase "private seller" is meaningless. Totally worthless. If you mean a "private dealer" I already went through that in the previous post.
I am understanding it, I think. And the existence of private sellers, some in large volume, is why you can buy a gun at a show without a background check. They are not subject to the federal background check requirement. Yes? They can sell guns over the back fence, or at a gun show booth. yes? That is where we came in?
At a gun show you are going to have three basic kinds of people who sell a gun privately. The first is someone coming to the show to unload a gun or two. He may sell it to a FFL if he gets a good deal, or he may sell it to another individual. You often hear, "I'll swap you my XX for your YY and I'll throw in $50 to boot." This is a common type of individual.
The second is the person who buys a gun meaning to keep it and someone else makes him an offer on it five minutes later that is too good to pass up. For some, a quick $20 profit is worth it, for others it takes a $100 or more to move their heart. Many gun show attendees won't do it for any price no matter what. While it is perfectly legal to do so, it has ~just~ enough shade in it to attract the attention of an ATF agent who might be far too quick of accusing the seller of acting as a dealer -- buying and selling guns for a profit.
The third is a person who actually has a table and is selling off a private collection. It's very common to hear those anti-gun people to breathlessly proclaim that statistics show that almost 50, 60, 70 percent (dependent upon how hysterical they are) of the tables at a gun show do not have an FFL at the table.
Well, of course they don't. That is because gun dealers actually only make up about 30 percent of the tables at a gun show. The other tables are knife dealers, book dealers, accessory dealers, and even homemade candy and jerky dealers -- none of which I beleive require a federal license to operate. This is symptomatic of the type of lies that those on the other side delight in spreading.
Back to private sellers. In a gun show of 30 to 40 dealers there ~might~ be 2 to 3 tables that feature an individual selling his collection. Might. The last gun show I was at a few weeks ago had none. It is a minor part of the show. Some buyers prefer buying from those people because they think they get a better deal. It's a toss up as far as I am concerned.
Keep in mind that in every gun show you have three kinds of cops... There are those who are hired by the gun show owner as security. They are quite a number. There are those who are shopping for their own needs. I see them all the time in the shows. And there are those who are "undercover" hoping to get in the news because they busted someone doing something illegal at an evil gun show.
Any felon with an ounce of brains is going to be on the far side of town from the show. Any person thinking about doing something illegal in the midst of dozens of cops deserves to be arrested for mere stupidity.How about the guy that is selling out of the back of his truck in the gun show parking lot? Or the guy who buys a gun for someone that cannot pass any kind of check, but he can, so he buys the gun and then hands it over to the person who is not able to pass the checks for whatever reason?
If the guy selling out out of the back of his trunk at a gun show is doing nothing illegal then why are you concerned about it? Do you often stick your nose into other people's business?
And a straw buyer is an illegal buyer. Why don't you also ask me about the person who goes into a bank and robs it.If the guy robbing the bank gets caught, he goes to jail. If the straw buyer gets caught, does he go to jail?...just asking!
Depends upon the prosecutor. Often they cut a deal with the straw buyer in order to roll up the bigger target above him. We just had a straw buyer sentenced to five years in jail in this area a few weeks ago.
It seems to me that if you want to buy a gun without a background check, one or two booths is enough.
That looks like a loophole big enough for an insane person or felon to walk through to me. I don't see how they would be scared off by cops being present. What they are doing is not illegal.I really, really hope for your patients sake that you are not as ignorant of your field of study as you are about firearm laws. How about taking a look internally at yourself and find out what compels you to post about matters that you truly know nothing about, yet proclaim with all steadfastness about facts that are 100 percent wrong.
I believe the law will not be able to stop the progression of guns and the illegal use of these guns certainly in America. I do however believe these laws being generated is in an effort to see to it that the government is not complicit in helping to provide guns for those with unlawful intent.
I do believe the one thing that will impact the murder rate and the proliferation of guns is the changing of people's mindset as to simply sitting back and accepting that nothing can be done. No man is an island it has been said once before there are people who know people who are unstable, high strung and those who are irrational all in possession of firearms. Once these people have taken action their friends, relatives maybe even neighbors have said time and again if anyone was going to do that I always suspected it would be him.This is the best that Ralph can do. And it's the reason why the anti-freedom crowd is losing in the courts, the court of public opinion, and the legislatures.
Star sez: I do however believe these laws being generated is in an effort to see to it that the government is not complicit in helping to provide guns for those with unlawful intent.
Jack replies: Please explain how two people engaging in illegal activity makes the government a partner in the activity. Is the government "complicit in helping to provide meth for those with unlawful intent" merely when two dealers get together to divide their stash before heading out to the street?Jack I hope I don't have to use big letters in order to explain this to you.
If sellers have contracts with the government and the policies or procedures used by the sellers are lax in comparison to the laws for example not taking the time to make background checks would in fact make the government complicit in these transactions.Makes no sense no matter what words or letters you use.
"contracts"? What "contracts"? Making up non-existent items doesn't help any position you have.This may come as a shock but Boeing is just one of the businesses contracted with the federal government.
Government Contracting Facts
•Less than 5% of the businesses in the United States do business with the U.S. Government.
•The U.S. Government is the largest company in the world. Approximately $1 billion in new opportunities in the services sector of Government contracting were available to bid on by private business each day.
•The federal government signs over 11 million contracts a year.
•COMPANIES ARE WINNING AND ARE AWARDED NEW CONTRACTS DAILY. ABOUT 95 PERCENT OF FEDERAL CONTRACTS ARE AWARDED TO SMALL-AND MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESS vendors.
•Government procure services range from Food Services and Janitorial projects to complex space flight systems development.
•A Small Business Set-Aside Program (SBSA) was developed to help assure that small businesses are awarded a fair proportion of government contracts by reserving certain government purchases exclusively for participation by small business concerns. Any contract that has an anticipated dollar value between $2,500 and $100,000 in value is reserved for small, small disadvantaged, woman-owned, and small veteran-owned businesses.
https://www.bidcontract.com/government- … 101.aspx#1
Private parties entering into a contract with one another (i.e. commercial contracts) are much freer to establish a broad range of contract terms by mutual consent than a private party entering into a contract with the Federal Government. Each private party represents its own interests and can obligate itself in any lawful manner. Federal Government contracts allow for the creation of contract terms by mutual consent of the parties, but many areas addressed by mutual consent in commercial contracts are controlled by law in Federal contracts and legally require use of prescribed provisions and clauses. In commercial contracting, where one or both parties may be represented by agents whose authority is controlled by the law of agency, the agent is usually allowed to form a contract only with reference to accepted notions of commercial reasonableness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government … ted_StatesI never knew the CEO of Boeing was caught selling illegal handguns out of the trunk of his car to convicted felons. The things I learn on the 'net never cease to amaze me...
More gun mayhem:
Woman, 3 Teenage Daughters Shot in Nashville
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 14, 2013 at 9:32 PM ET
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Nashville police said a woman and her three teenage daughters were shot at an apartment complex in the city's Madison neighborhood.
Police said in a news release Friday night that 39-year-old Earnest Woodley, who also goes by Earnest Moore, is wanted in the shooting of his girlfriend, 34-year-old Nicole Luke, and her twin 14-year-old daughters inside an apartment. Police said he then shot Luke's 15-year-old daughter as she sat outside in an SUV and fled barefoot.
Police said all four victims were transported to Vanderbilt University Medical Center and are in stable condition. Police said Woodley has a previous conviction for second-degree murder in the 1990s in Shelby County.
Arrest warrants were issued charging Woodley with four counts each of attempted homicide and aggravated assault.
Police said Woodley is considered armed and dangerous.Thank you Ralph. Your posting are a blessing for those who need to understand that THEY are their "first line of defense" and that waiting on the police to save them is usually done in vain.
You're doing a valuable service for the firearms community and it's growth.Yes, the firearms community won't be satisfied until daily life replicates the O.K. Corral.
This is the best that zel can do. He can't actually add anything of value to the discussion so he attempts to demonize his fellow citizens. No reason...no rational thinking... no logic... just pure emotions that make him ffffeeeelllll gggggoooodddd about what he posted.
And this is the reason why the gun control movement has lost in the public opinion, the courts, and the states. They have nothing to offer. Nada. Zip.Hmmm...
/cast Reflect
Jack Burton's attack reflected back onto himself!
It's super-effective!I am pro gun ownership myself but as for this:
"And this is the reason why the gun control movement has lost in the public opinion, the courts, and the states. "
Well that is flat out false, consult the polls to prove that gun control leads by a big margin in public opinion and ask the supreme court about the legality of background checks and automatic bans to see quite clearly that gun control won the courts too.
At last! A story in my Sunday morning Detroit Free Press relating how a responsible person (editor of the newspaper) carrying a gun averted being robbed at a convenience store. (Incidentally, I have no problem with responsible citizens "carrying." But I do think we need to try much harder to prevent others' access to weapons.):
"James G. Hill: Why I carry: Having a firearm is like having insurance.
"A few years ago, I was followed into a convenience store in northwest Detroit by two young men who were acting a bit too peculiar — and paying me a bit too much attention.
"They didn’t do anything specific to raise my suspicion, but I’ve lived in big cities long enough to know when I ought to keep my eyes peeled. Something just didn’t feel right.
"As we entered the store, one of the men followed me down an aisle; the other went down a separate aisle.
"When I got to the register, one of the men stood a couple customers behind me. The other had already exited the store.
"As I walked to my car, the man behind me began shouting after me, trying to get my attention. I kept walking, but also was scanning the parking lot, trying to put eyes on the man who had come out of the store before me.
"That’s when I noticed “the other guy” ducking down behind some cars in front of me in the next row.
"The man behind me, now just 10 or 15 feet away, continued to call out to me.
"After his last shout of, “Hey!” I dropped my package and turned. I lifted my shirt so he and “the other guy” could see the HK .40-caliber handgun in the holster on my hip.
"And I finally responded: “What?!”
"The two men fled in separate directions.
Prepared. Trained.
"People buy insurance for their cars or houses, even their pets — usually with the hope that they never have to use it.
"People take driver’s training or go to driving school to help them navigate the hazards and bad drivers on the road. They install alarms and locks for added security at home. And they watch over their pets and keep them in their house or yards to keep them out of trouble.
"I think the same way about my gun.
"Those are the analogies that I used to explain to the person who asked me recently, “Why do you carry a gun?”
"Then I told them about my parking lot incident.
"I carry it, like insurance, hoping that I never have to use it.
"But, more importantly, I train with it.
"I train with it because: a) It’s the responsible thing to do. b) I like target shooting. c) If I ever do have to use it, I want to be prepared to not only deal with the split-second situation, but also to help mitigate any unintended injury to those around me.
"To put it plainer, if I have to shoot, I want to hit my target — and only my target — if at all possible. I don’t want to be part of the problem of people walking the streets, shooting aimlessly with no regard for human life. We have enough of that already. We have 300-400 people killed each year in Detroit alone.
"But Detroit is not alone in that problem. And I don’t just carry my weapon in Detroit. Crime happens everywhere: From the quietest, far-flung community where the jaded response of “that just isn’t supposed to happen here!” echoes; to the grittiest of urban cores where the fed-up response of “Enough!” refrains.
"Unfortunately, there seem to be too many reminders of how important it is to be prepared.
"Think about the May 11 assault of a 64-year-old man at a gas station on Detroit’s northwest side. The man was followed into the gas station after being confronted in the parking lot, then beaten and stabbed repeatedly as the thug robbed the man. All the while, two men inside the station, along with the station attendant, watched — except for those brief seconds when one of the onlookers asked for his change and the attendant gave it to him.
"Like most people, I was outraged at the video of the brazen attack, particularly because it involved an elder. We’re supposed to respect our elders, not beat, stab and rob them.
"The first time I watched it, I focused on this prolonged attack that — while only taking seconds — must have seemed like forever to the victim. You can hear his pleas for mercy. And you can see and hear that the attacker had none to give. He was there only to take.
'As I watched it over and over, I focused on everything around the chaos. I was livid at what appeared to be the relative inaction.
"And I know I’m not the only one who felt that way.
But I also know that I can’t put myself in someone else’s shoes.
"It’s easy for me to sit back and say, what if? I’m sure the surveillance video clip didn’t show everything that happened. Those two customers may have had good reason to keep their distance. Maybe the attacker had a gun that wasn’t apparent on the video. Maybe the attendant, whom you couldn’t see or hear clearly in the video, was frantically calling for help from behind the counter.
"It would simply be unhinged indignation and uninformed bravado for me to sit here now and say that I would have done anything different. Fact is, most people have no idea what they would do in those split-second, heart-pounding moments when life or death potentially hangs in the balance.
"I admire, and now have a new appreciation for, police officers and what they confront on a daily basis. And I don’t want their job. But I know they can’t be omnipresent.
"That is why I train. Not only so that I can try to be aware — one of the most important things you learn in firearms training — but also so that I can react as rationally as possible.
'My experience in that parking lot is something that I have not shared. Not even with family members. But it was a situation I will never forget.
"My heart was racing at the thought of what could have happened. I thanked God for getting me out of that situation. And I thought about Will Campbell, too.
"Will, who is a licensed firearms instructor and a friend from our days at Wayne State University, had the same thing happen to him. Maybe it was the same duo? But, without really thinking — and at that moment in the parking lot — I recalled what he told me and reacted the same way he did. And with the same fortunate result.
"I handled the situation as best, and as calmly, as I could under the circumstances: No one hurt. No one robbed.
"By no means am I bragging about this situation. I was scared, for sure. But I was blessed. And I was trained.
"Just like insurance, you buy the weapon and the training with the hope that you never have to use it.
"But if you do, you’re glad you did.
"I know I am.
"I’m much less afraid of a responsible gun owner with dozens of weapons, than I am of one irresponsible thug with dozens of shootings and no training or conscience."
James Hill is the Free Press’ politics editor. Contact James Hill: jghill@freepress.com or on Twitter @JGHillfreep.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … 3306230043That one statement speaks volumes. Thanks for posting the article.
Unlike others... I actually have backup when I post...
"33 percent of Americans feel the “Senate should debate and vote on gun control legislation again,” while 62 percent want the Senate to “move on to other issues.”"
http://reason.com/poll/2013/05/29/poll- … ant-senate
"Just your opinion, what do you think are the one or two most important things that could be done to prevent mass shootings from occurring in the United States?"
2011 Jan 14-16
Stricter gun control laws -- 24%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
"Most Americans feel it is more important for the government to enforce existing gun control laws than to create new ones. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 32% of American Adults believe creation of new gun control laws is more important. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think more emphasis should be put on stricter enforcement of existing gun control laws. "
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … g_new_laws
There are dozens of other polls that I can point to that all say the same thing.
As far as the courts, if you really want to claim that in the recent light of Heller and McDonald that the gun control movement is winning in the court then good luck with that one. In a few days Illinois is going to be the last holdout on CCW laws because the state was forced by the federal courts to acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms.
"President Barack Obama made another push Wednesday to build support for gun-control laws in the wake of December's mass school shooting in Connecticut. But since then, states have passed more measures expanding rather than restricting the right to carry firearms."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 64474.html
That's what happens when all you have is emotion to post with. Reality has an unexpected way of intruding on fantasy.Yes you do reference your statements, too bad the references you give are totally irrelevant and dishonest.
None of your polls address the issue in discussion.
The first one is not "do you support more gun legislation" it's "Do you think the Senate should work on it given they already failed to do anything on the issue". The second one is not "do you support gun legislation" it's "what is most important to stop mass shootings" and the last one is again not "do you support more gun legislation" it's "Do you think enforcement is MORE important than passing new laws".
So really you didn't back your statement at all... because you can't, that's too bad. Not a single polls actually addressing your issue.
Here is a poll addressing the actual issue:
http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/23/ … s-chances/
More than 80% favor the background check increases and more than 75% want the Senate to pass the bill that they failed to pass.
Nice try though man
Josak frantically waves his arms and tries to claim that the public is in favor of more gun control in spite of the obvious truth that I posted. He can't really refute the numbers. Each question was on "gun control" and each time the public disavowed it.
As far as that bogus 80 percent?
The question was "do you think background checks should be run at gun shows"
80 percent said yes.
those 80 percent didn't know that background checks are already run at gun shows. They were merely approving of what was already a law. I can get you 90 percent of the public approving of a ban on abortion if I am the one who gets to define and arrange the question.
There was a mass demonstration of gun control support the other day in California. Three people showed up.I wonder how many of those that stated they wanted Congress to pass the bill in question have any idea what is in it? I doubt they know a single thing that is actually in it and are of a "do something, anything" mindset...just like those for Obamacare, Amnesty etc...
"/cast Reflect"
Do we have a poster who actually thinks that casting magical spells works on the internet? I think I found his problem with logic, reason, and rationality.Do we have a poster who actually doesn't understand the joke and how it relates to the post as a whole? I think I found his problem with...problem.
So far we've certainly established that this poster has little to nothing to add to the subject, eh.
Other than histrionics, of course.
OK Corral and all that....Live in fantasyland... post about fantasyland...
Related Discussions
- 273
Gun Control?
by Raymond D Choiniere 12 years ago
Hey Hubbers,If you're an American, then please weigh in on this topic. I'm considering writing a Hub on the topic and wondering what people have to say on it.As for me- Gun Control is a myth. It's kinda like the "War on Drugs", just a horrible idea, when completely thought out.Now, we all...
- 10
What will it take for the USA to have gun control?
by maddot 10 years ago
What will it take for the USA to have gun control?I woke up this morning to the news of yet another horror shooting rampage in the US. But this time it was mainly young children who died as the result of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. To my amazement the locals talked not of getting...
- 254
Do guns kill people, or do people kill people? Or does it depend?
by Jeff Berndt 11 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.The Left usually wants to restrict...
- 29
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
by Cindy Vine 12 years ago
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
- 857
The Movie Theater Massacre and Gun Control
by A Thousand Words 11 years ago
I know that many, if not all, of you are aware of the tragedy that took place at the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado. The "suspect," James Holmes, "allegedly" shot 70 people, killing 12 of them, including a 6 year old girl. He had four weapons with...
- 1302
Gun Control
by lesliebyars 10 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?