Judge Sonia Sotomayor

[Boreas]

Just thought it was time to raise the intellectual level of the discussion, since it has long left the subject of Sotomayor ...



I think we found Joe the Plumber's soul mate ...

One wonders which crop she is most interested in growing........

[Kouak]

Just thought it was time to raise the intellectual level of the discussion, since it has long left the subject of Sotomayor ...
[...]
I think we found Joe the Plumber's soul mate ...

Great one. I'm surprised that she did not suggest that we install a dimmer on the sun to curb global warming. Like we have them at the Home Depot and they are free...because the robots can put them together...on the land that is free...that is sold at the farmer's market... :D

[Navigator]

I think we found Joe the Plumber's soul mate ...

Terrific! This might belong under "Bumper Sticker of the Week"....but let me be the first to post:

"Palin/Ms. Santa Cruz - 2012"


(looking around in here) Did someone say this thread is drifting?:D

[Boreas]

(looking around in here) Did someone say this thread is drifting?:D


Drifting is fun! ;)

[gmoney]

Of course, what was I thinking?? :freak: I guess that would also take care of all the "undesirables" too. :sneaky:

I have no problem with drug dealers killing each other.


One wonders which crop she is most interested in growing........

She seems just like any far left liberal I have met. How in the world could you compare her to sweet sarah palin?

[Naturist Mark]

She seems just like any far left liberal

"Far left", does anyone say that except Bill O'Reilly? And doesn't he use it for anyone less conservative than Orrin Hatch? I mean really, doesn't that include McCain, Joe TP, and Sawah herself?

[Boreas]

Far left? No, far out man. ;) Groovin on those organic crops. :hippy:

[ki4kxq]

"Far left", does anyone say that except Bill O'Reilly? And doesn't he use it for anyone less conservative than Orrin Hatch? I mean really, doesn't that include McCain, Joe TP, and Sawah herself?

Actually, the term Bill O'Reilly uses is "far left loon". After seeing the clip, that term does seem appropriate.

[Naturist Mark]

Speaking of LOONS ....

Glenn Beck desecrated the American Flag on national TV.

Doesn't he know that GOD gave us that flag?
That American Soldiers gave their lives to defend it?
That only godless hippies, communists and foreigners would want to disfigure it?

WHY DOES GLENN BECK HATE AMERICA?

<center><div style="overflow: visible; padding-left: 320px; display: block; position: relative; width: 0px; height: 0px; left: 0px; top: 0px; z-index: 65535; opacity: 0.5;"></div><object height="260" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf"><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/07/23/fnc-20090723-beckdecider.flv"><embed src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/07/23/fnc-20090723-beckdecider.flv" height="260" width="320"></object></center>

[gmoney]

Speaking of LOONS ....

Glenn Beck desecrated the American Flag on national TV.

Doesn't he know that GOD gave us that flag?
That American Soldiers gave their lives to defend it?
That only godless hippies, communists and foreigners would want to disfigure it?

WHY DOES GLENN BECK HATE AMERICA?

<center><div style="overflow: visible; padding-left: 320px; display: block; position: relative; width: 0px; height: 0px; left: 0px; top: 0px; z-index: 65535; opacity: 0.5;"></div><object height="260" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf"><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/07/23/fnc-20090723-beckdecider.flv"><embed src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/07/23/fnc-20090723-beckdecider.flv" height="260" width="320"></object></center>

I see your point and completely agree. HE should never have went that direction.
He's an entertainer(more than anything and far right) and tryin to sell his books.
I consider my self an independant and score up and to the left of center(by not much) on 1 online test I did.

[Naturist Mark]

I see your point and completely agree. HE should never have went that direction.
He's an entertainer(more than anything and far right) and tryin to sell his books.
I consider my self an independant and score up and to the left of center(by not much) on 1 online test I did.

I was really pointing out his hypocrisy. If Obama had done this he and Fox news and WorldNetDaily and the rest of the howling wingnuts would have called for impeachment - or worse.

Just look how they reacted to Obama's entirely correct description of the police action in the Skip Gates incident as "stupid" (note he did NOT call the police officer stupid). Obama did his best to walk it back Friday, but he was correct the first time. It is not against the law to berate or yell at a police office. It isn't nice. It isn't smart. But it isn't illegal (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912778,00.html?artId=1912778?contType=arti cle?chn=us). Officer Crowley knew the charges would have to be dropped when he made them. But he "won" because he trumped Gates' bad mouthing him by handcuffing him in front of his neighbors and taking him to the police station and booking him. KNOWING the charges would have to be dropped, but that he won the humiliation contest. Stupid is the most charitable description possible.

[Fitz1980]

She seems just like any far left liberal I have met. How in the world could you compare her to sweet sarah palin?

Palin may be sweet for as far as intellect.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qaSECfQqty8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qaSECfQqty8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DRuBdW0yBUY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DRuBdW0yBUY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And before someone accuses me of being sexist:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mi49tvs8jp8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mi49tvs8jp8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[MoonShadow]

Palin may be sweet for as far as intellect.



Hope gmoney was saying such tongue in cheek. We don't need SWEET running our country.

Amazing - at their ineptness! Thank goodness, Palin isn't anywhere near DC. Eight years of dumb and dumber is more than enough.

[meredith2kp4]

I'm going to step up on my soapbox for a moment and state that judges should uphold laws rather than "interpret" what the black and white print in the books say. The words as written are quite clear and do NOT require interpretation! These "interpretations" are part of what has made quite a few of the problems this country has now. Liberal, Conservative I could care less what the labels are. .it's about the laws, not "personal interpretations" of the Constitution, Bill of Rights or anything else!

I'll put the soapbox away now and keep a sharp eye on what happens.

The statement: "The words as written are quite clear and do NOT require interpretation!" is dead wrong. If you read the Bill of Rights you will certainly see that it states general principles that must be given specific meaning to be applied to particular cases. For example, what is an "unreasonable search," which is forbidden? This question cannot be answered by a computer or a justice who thinks like a computer. It has to be given meaning by human beings and the specific meaning it is given will depend on the background and values of the justice. For this reason it is important to have justices of varied backgrounds to discuss questions and try to create consensus. Adding a competent Hispanic woman to the mix will promote this end.

Also, with regard to statutes, they are frequently intentionally vague as a result of political compromises and are passed with the expectation that the courts will make the hard choices the legislators do not want to make.

Let's get real about these questions.

[Illinois59]

The statement: "The words as written are quite clear and do NOT require interpretation!" is dead wrong. If you read the Bill of Rights you will certainly see that it states general principles that must be given specific meaning to be applied to particular cases. For example, what is an "unreasonable search," which is forbidden? This question cannot be answered by a computer or a justice who thinks like a computer. It has to be given meaning by human beings and the specific meaning it is given will depend on the background and values of the justice. For this reason it is important to have justices of varied backgrounds to discuss questions and try to create consensus. Adding a competent Hispanic woman to the mix will promote this end.

Also, with regard to statutes, they are frequently intentionally vague as a result of political compromises and are passed with the expectation that the courts will make the hard choices the legislators do not want to make.

Let's get real about these questions.

Excellent post. If words did not require interpretation, there would be no need for the Supreme Court since interpreting the law is the job of the Supreme Court. The founding fathers understood the fact that different people can read the same words and come up with different views of their meaning. The founding fathers had the wisdom to provide a final authority for the interpretation of the laws of the country.

[Kouak]

[QUOTE=meredith2kp4;234945]For this reason it is important to have justices of varied backgrounds to discuss questions and try to create consensus./QUOTE]

Consensus??? Rarely do they create consensus. Yes some of them agree with each other so they write their opinions together. Usually there is a majority opinion and minority opinion (that is 2 opinions so far) and many times multiple majority and/or minority opinions on the same case.

This brings up a good point. If the most educated and most intelligent judges in our land (please give me latitude on this one!!!) cannot agree what certain words mean, how are the rest of us suppose to know? How can we be law abiding if we do not know what the law is?

One person's reasonable is another's unreasonable. Here is a thought. Why not, at the top of each law, they state the "spirit of the law" to guide us and judges on interpreting the words? ... and give examples!

[gmoney]

I was really pointing out his hypocrisy. If Obama had done this he and Fox news and WorldNetDaily and the rest of the howling wingnuts would have called for impeachment - or worse.

Just look how they reacted to Obama's entirely correct description of the police action in the Skip Gates incident as "stupid" (note he did NOT call the police officer stupid). Obama did his best to walk it back Friday, but he was correct the first time. It is not against the law to berate or yell at a police office. It isn't nice. It isn't smart. But it isn't illegal (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912778,00.html?artId=1912778?contType=arti cle?chn=us). Officer Crowley knew the charges would have to be dropped when he made them. But he "won" because he trumped Gates' bad mouthing him by handcuffing him in front of his neighbors and taking him to the police station and booking him. KNOWING the charges would have to be dropped, but that he won the humiliation contest. Stupid is the most charitable description possible.

I have to disagree here.
Obama was again above his pay grade when he jumped in this one.
If I was a police officer and you mouthed off at me and was causing a disturbance you'd certainly make a trip downtown.

[Naturist Mark]

I have to disagree here.
Obama was again above his pay grade when he jumped in this one.
If I was a police officer and you mouthed off at me and was causing a disturbance you'd certainly make a trip downtown.

That is an excellent way to lose big money in a lawsuit.

Obama Was Right About the Gates Arrest (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/obama-was-right-about-the_b_244888.html)
What is “disorderly conduct” anyway? (http://volokh.com/posts/1248465451.shtml)

[jon71]

I have to disagree here.
Obama was again above his pay grade when he jumped in this one.
If I was a police officer and you mouthed off at me and was causing a disturbance you'd certainly make a trip downtown.


Mouthing off is not a crime. The officer in question needs to be disciplined if not fired.

[ki4kxq]

No, mouthing off is not a crime. However, disturbing the peace is. According to Massachusetts law, Professor Gates fit the definition of disturbing the peace. That is why no disciplinary action has been taken, that is why the officer has not been fired, and that is why President Obama and Professor Gates have both backtracked and halfway apologized.

[Naturist Mark]

No, mouthing off is not a crime. However, disturbing the peace is. According to Massachusetts law, Professor Gates fit the definition of disturbing the peace.,

Wrong

What is “disorderly conduct” anyway? (http://volokh.com/posts/1248465451.shtml)
<blockquote>Here is the Massachusetts statute under which Gates was arrested, Mass. G. L. ch. 272, s. 53:<blockquote>Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment</blockquote>Here is a recent gloss by a Massachusetts court (adopting Model Penal Code s. 250.2(a)):<blockquote>A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior.... ‘Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.</blockquote>Massachusetts courts have rejected MPC s. 250.2(b) as a violation of free speech rights. So this provision is not part of Massachusetts law:<blockquote>(b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present.</blockquote>And here are some squibs:<blockquote>Arrest under Massachusetts “idle and disorderly person” statute was unlawful under Massachusetts law, where defendant was arrested for yelling, screaming, swearing and generally causing a disturbance but, though the yelling was undoubtedly loud enough to attract the attention of other guests in hotel, it did not rise to level of “riotous commotion” or “public nuisance.” U.S. v. Pasqualino, D.Mass.1991, 768 F.Supp. 13.</blockquote>And –<blockquote> Defendant who did not physically resist his arrest arising out of a domestic violence incident could not be convicted of disorderly conduct based solely on his loud and angry tirade, which included profanities, directed at police officers as he was being escorted to police cruiser, even if spectators gathered to watch defendant; defendant did not make any threats or engage in violence, and his speech did not constitute fighting words. Com. v. Mallahan (2008) 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 889 N.E.2d 77, 2008 WL 2404550.</blockquote>And –<blockquote>Defendant's conduct, namely, flailing his arms and shouting at police, victim of recent assault, or both, after being told to leave area by police, did not amount to “violent or tumultuous behavior” within scope of disorderly conduct statute, absent any claim that defendant's protestations constituted threat of violence, or any evidence that defendant's flailing arms were anything but physical manifestation of his agitation or that noise and commotion caused by defendant's behavior was extreme. Com. v. Lopiano (2004) 805 N.E.2d 522, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 723.</blockquote>Here is more from that case:<blockquote>[Officer] Garrett asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. As the defendant was getting out of the car, he “kept saying no problem here, no problem here, everything is all set, no problem.” The police advised the defendant that he would be summonsed to court for assault and battery, that he was not to be arrested at Carins's [the alleged victim] request, and that he had to leave the motel parking lot. He began to walk away. [Officer] O’Connor testified: “He took a few steps from me, ten steps, turned around, began flailing his arms, yelling that I was violating his civil rights.” He was advised a second time to leave, and the defendant was “yelling at me, you're violating my civil rights, then he began yelling at Ms. Carins, why are you doing this to me, you'll never go through with this.” At that time, he was placed under arrest. It is not disputed that only the defendant's conduct after he left the car forms the basis of the disorderly conduct charge.</blockquote>
</blockquote>

[Boreas]

I heard the 911 call on Professor Gates. Apparently he was suspicious because he was using his shoulder to push his door open. Has no one ever had a sticky door that require this action?

I can't imagine anyone would be happy about the police accusing them of breaking in to their own home, especially if they thought that their appearance was part of the reason for the accusation.

It is also interesting that a neighbour called in on the man. Was he new to the neghbourhood, or was the neighbourhood so disconnected from each other that she did not recognize him?




[Officer] Garrett asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. As the defendant was getting out of the car, he “kept saying no problem here, no problem here, everything is all set, no problem.” The police advised the defendant that he would be summonsed to court for assault and battery, that he was not to be arrested at Carins's [the alleged victim] request, and that he had to leave the motel parking lot. He began to walk away. [Officer] O’Connor testified: “He took a few steps from me, ten steps, turned around, began flailing his arms, yelling that I was violating his civil rights.” He was advised a second time to leave, and the defendant was “yelling at me, you're violating my civil rights, then he began yelling at Ms. Carins, why are you doing this to me, you'll never go through with this.” At that time, he was placed under arrest. It is not disputed that only the defendant's conduct after he left the car forms the basis of the disorderly conduct charge.


So, a man gets arrested for trying to defend himself? In the land that values freedom above all?

[FireProf]

If I was a police officer and you mouthed off at me and was causing a disturbance you'd certainly make a trip downtown.


Maybe that's the reason why you are NOT a police officer and the reason why "everyone" can't be!

There are other issues clouding this arguement!

FP ;)

[bobk]

Laws that require 'interpretation' should not be enacted in my opinion. Judges should leave their personal views at home. If that were the case there would not be controversy over judge selection. Unfortunately, laws are not clear, and judges have personal opinions that they apply in their judgements.

[jon71]

Judge (soon Justice) Sotomayor passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13-6. There are so far five Republicans pledged to vote for her confirmation to the Supreme court which will mean no fewer than 65 votes in the full senate.

[BinCo]

Laws that require 'interpretation' should not be enacted in my opinion. Judges should leave their personal views at home. If that were the case there would not be controversy over judge selection. Unfortunately, laws are not clear, and judges have personal opinions that they apply in their judgements.

Every law is subject to interpretation. Not just the law, but the circumstances and evidence before the court. If a woman has a history of being abused by her husband, leaves him and he follows her to her new home and she blows his brains out (which she should do), the DA has the ability to NOT charge her and then the judge has the power to use the lightest sentance possible if the jury decides that she is guilty. According to your statement the judge would only have to look at the evidence. A woman shot her husband in the head and killed him.

It's not right to have a judge that only looks to the letter of the law and never uses any other means to determine the case. If that was true, Roe V Wade would be a non-issue as the court determined that abortion is legal.

Funny how the righties always consider a judge an activist when they disagree with the righties platform, and yet they are affirming the constitution when they rule in favor of the righty.:rolleyes:

[Illinois59]

Laws that require 'interpretation' should not be enacted in my opinion. Judges should leave their personal views at home. If that were the case there would not be controversy over judge selection. Unfortunately, laws are not clear, and judges have personal opinions that they apply in their judgements.

It would be nice if it was possible to enact laws that required no interpretation but it seems that many laws are intentionally vague and the rest are subject to circumstances that the writers of the law didn't or couldn't include in the law. One good example of interpretation of laws are speed limits on streets and highways. 30 mph may be fine on a residential street PROVIDED there are no small children playng on the side of the street or in the street. Likewise 65 mph might be fine on an interstate highway on a sunny and dry day in July. 65 mph on the same stretch of road at night in December with dense fog and freezing rain is like attempted suicide. Can a law be written to say how fast is too fast in the above examples? A policeman can write a ticket for driving too fast for conditions (policeman's opinion) and you can go before a judge (who has an opinion on how fast is too fast for the conditions) and present your case (your opinion) on how fast was too fast for conditions.

[Skinview]

I somehow do not believe that when you are travelling interstate in your trucks, you just stop at state borders to check your conceiled, handguns. Are you even aware of all the myriad of state and local laws which pertain to handguns? I somehow really doubt it.This is actually one problem that the NRA is trying to deal with. There are so many different laws in so many different political units that it becomes almost impossible to travel anywhere with a gun and comply with all the laws. Some states have lately enacted laws that prevent cities and towns from enacting their own gun laws, so the state doesn't become an incomprehensible patchwork of different laws. The NRA had a hand in ending that.


No doubt that you have been to New York State with your deliveries. Do you check your loaded handguns at the state line because you are fully aware that, being a non state resident, it is illegal for you to carry your handguns into New York State. I sincerely doubt that you really comply with the state law and leave your handguns in another state.He doesn't have to comply with that law. A Federal law was enacted to override that state law, so that individuals can transport handguns across New York State, although the handgun must be locked up.


Your fellow gun advocate, Skinview, believed that he could just walk across New York State with his handguns. He believed wrong and no doubt violated New York State law in the past.I do not believe that, I did not write that and you have given repeated indications that you have some kind of reading disability.



Your ilk also always likes to proudly state over and over again abuot being "Law Abiding Citizens". Does picking and chosing which laws that you want to follow and ignoring others that you do not wish to follow represent the new definition of 'law abiding'?So you think that people who tought blacks to read 160 years ago should have been incarcerated? It was against the law. How about helping slaves escape? Or refusing to sit at the back of the bus a few decades ago? Or our founding fathers, who refused to pay tea taxes, and shot soldiers that their government sent to take our arms? Knowing what laws violate our rights and refusing to obey them is what our country is based on. Honor the lawbreakers, for they gave us our freedom.


Somehow, I just do not believe that you check your handguns at state borders that prohibit them. You just roll right into town with your guns conveniently conceiled. Keep on trucking. The state police awaits. Ossining awaits.Thats why I donate to the NRA.

[Skinview]

Just to clarify things for me I looked up the definition of militia.

Militia; As constituted by the Federal Constitution and an early act of Congress, those citizens, collectively, who are enrolled and drilled in military organizations other than the regular military forces.

From where I sit, both sides are right, and both are wrong. I would seem to me that a private citizen can have a gun as long they are in a militia, and a militia is not part of the groups of army, navy, air force, marines, national guard, etc..Your definition is not wrong, that is one definition of the word "militia". Off hand, I think it would be the meaning if used as "a militia". But "the militia" often means every man capable of bearing arms. This was, more or less, a phrase actually used in the Supreme Court's Miller decision in 1939:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
-US Supreme Court, US v Miller (1939)

An important point in the Miller decision is that the court wasn't interested in whether or not the defendant was enrolled in an organized militia, the court was was instead interested in whether or not the illegal gun the defendant had was a weapon that the militia would use.

Your interpretation is the "collective right" interpretation that the anti gun people had, but it was rejected in the recent Heller decision. The court ruled, as the Second Amendment states, that bearing arms is a "right of the People", not a right of the militia. Virtually all individuals have a right to bear arms.


So to me the question is who recognizes when it is a militia and not just a group of people with guns, private citizens, the federal government, or state government?
Since about 1994, many people joined together and formed independent militias. While this is something many founders would smile upon, the US Constitution puts the President in command of the militia when called into service, and the states appoint the officers. The twist is that it was envisioned, as written in the Federalist Papers, that the militia would go to war against either the Federal government or a state government if either became tyrannical. Obviously the tyrannical government would want to disarm the militia, and that could be either one. In the end, the militia itself decides its a legitimate body, because they are the folks with the guns. But they are properly under the command of either the President or a state governor in any case.

[Skinview]

Nice try, [ki4kxq,] unfortunately you don't understand the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment in no way guarantees any other amendment.No he's right. Its not a point of law, its just a pragmatic fact. If there was an invasion, or a military coup, or some similar crisis, it would be the militia, or so it was envisioned, who would restore and defend our liberties. The idea being that the Bill of Rights could be torn up by a tyrant if not for an armed citizenry to defend all our rights.

[FireProf]

Are you all still discussing "Sotomayor" or has this turned into a "gun" topic!?

[Skinview]

I don't care if you have or carry guns, gmoney. What I don't understand is the need to have them or to carry them all the time. It makes no sense in a civilized society for either, actually.Crime happens in any society, no matter how civilized. We all have a right to defend ourselves when confronted by a criminal, and a gun is the must effective means to do that.

[Skinview]

Protect ourselves from our Armed Forces? Our Armed Forces are comprise of us, the people.The militia is the people, the regular forces are a tiny fraction of the population, and the founders regarded the Army as a very, very, dangerous institution. We almost lost the country to a military coup near the end of the Revolution. Many states have written into their constitutions a warning that a standing army is a threat to liberty.


Further, there were no armed forces to speak of during the time the Second Amendment was written.Partly because they weren't trusted, partly because we had a vast and trained militia instead.


As I will state again, the Second Amendment is archaic and should be amended to today's times.Its not archaic. The Swiss have a modern and effective militia system of defense.

[Fitz1980]

Partly because they weren't trusted, partly because we had a vast and trained militia instead.


Also partly because back than training a soldier consisted of a few weeks of rifle drills, these days there's all kinds of fancy equipment, tanks, planes, RADAR, guided munitions, helicopters and other things that can take years to become proficient at using.

[nakenone]

Is she married an what is her husbands opinion of her? She may be able to help in future social opinions that are social an grass roots,blowing off conservative or liberal tags. Naturism is neather,but grass roots without the grass on,we may need to align ourselves with other social groups that we dont nessarially agree with ,but willing to tolerate for sake of freedom ,an the premiss that there is room in America for diverse lifestyles.Nakenone

[MoonShadow]

Her marital status is irrelevant. Are male nominees asked about their marital status and what their spouses think of them?

[Petruchio]

I am still unclear about her opinions on social nudism.

[Sanslines]

Her marital status is irrelevant. Are male nominees asked about their marital status and what their spouses think of them?

Good point. Why does it always seem that a separate set of standards applies to women?

[ki4kxq]

Wrong

What is “disorderly conduct” anyway? (http://volokh.com/posts/1248465451.shtml)
<blockquote>Here is the Massachusetts statute under which Gates was arrested, Mass. G. L. ch. 272, s. 53:<blockquote>Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment</blockquote>Here is a recent gloss by a Massachusetts court (adopting Model Penal Code s. 250.2(a)):<blockquote>A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior.... ‘Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.</blockquote>Massachusetts courts have rejected MPC s. 250.2(b) as a violation of free speech rights. So this provision is not part of Massachusetts law:<blockquote>(b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present.</blockquote>And here are some squibs:<blockquote>Arrest under Massachusetts “idle and disorderly person” statute was unlawful under Massachusetts law, where defendant was arrested for yelling, screaming, swearing and generally causing a disturbance but, though the yelling was undoubtedly loud enough to attract the attention of other guests in hotel, it did not rise to level of “riotous commotion” or “public nuisance.” U.S. v. Pasqualino, D.Mass.1991, 768 F.Supp. 13.</blockquote>And –<blockquote> Defendant who did not physically resist his arrest arising out of a domestic violence incident could not be convicted of disorderly conduct based solely on his loud and angry tirade, which included profanities, directed at police officers as he was being escorted to police cruiser, even if spectators gathered to watch defendant; defendant did not make any threats or engage in violence, and his speech did not constitute fighting words. Com. v. Mallahan (2008) 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 889 N.E.2d 77, 2008 WL 2404550.</blockquote>And –<blockquote>Defendant's conduct, namely, flailing his arms and shouting at police, victim of recent assault, or both, after being told to leave area by police, did not amount to “violent or tumultuous behavior” within scope of disorderly conduct statute, absent any claim that defendant's protestations constituted threat of violence, or any evidence that defendant's flailing arms were anything but physical manifestation of his agitation or that noise and commotion caused by defendant's behavior was extreme. Com. v. Lopiano (2004) 805 N.E.2d 522, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 723.</blockquote>Here is more from that case:<blockquote>[Officer] Garrett asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. As the defendant was getting out of the car, he “kept saying no problem here, no problem here, everything is all set, no problem.” The police advised the defendant that he would be summonsed to court for assault and battery, that he was not to be arrested at Carins's [the alleged victim] request, and that he had to leave the motel parking lot. He began to walk away. [Officer] O’Connor testified: “He took a few steps from me, ten steps, turned around, began flailing his arms, yelling that I was violating his civil rights.” He was advised a second time to leave, and the defendant was “yelling at me, you're violating my civil rights, then he began yelling at Ms. Carins, why are you doing this to me, you'll never go through with this.” At that time, he was placed under arrest. It is not disputed that only the defendant's conduct after he left the car forms the basis of the disorderly conduct charge.</blockquote>
</blockquote>

Police chiefs as well as several prosecutors from the State of Massachusetts have stated that Professor Gates met the definition of disturbing the peace. He was causing a disturbance after Officer Crowley had retreated and was walking to his car.

Officer Crowley, whether you like what he did or not, was operating within the law.

[Boreas]

Police chiefs as well as several prosecutors from the State of Massachusetts have stated that Professor Gates met the definition of disturbing the peace. He was causing a disturbance after Officer Crowley had retreated and was walking to his car.

Officer Crowley, whether you like what he did or not, was operating within the law.


So, he is unable to defend himself in the face of being accused of breaking into his own home? Would you stand by if someone accused you of breaking into your home, only because of your appearance, and because you used you shoulder to try to open the door?

[Skinview]

Also partly because back than training a soldier consisted of a few weeks of rifle drills, these days there's all kinds of fancy equipment, tanks, planes, RADAR, guided munitions, helicopters and other things that can take years to become proficient at using.
Well, the Swiss manage. And our National Guard operates this kind of equipment too. And if it were the case that we continued to have our large standing army, there would be a big pool of individuals with experience from former military service.

[Boreas]

Is she married an what is her husbands opinion of her? She may be able to help in future social opinions that are social an grass roots,blowing off conservative or liberal tags. Naturism is neather,but grass roots without the grass on,we may need to align ourselves with other social groups that we dont nessarially agree with ,but willing to tolerate for sake of freedom ,an the premiss that there is room in America for diverse lifestyles.Nakenone


I agree with MoonShadow, her marital status is irrelevent. If she is married, her husband's opinion is irrelevent as well.

[Naturist Mark]

Police chiefs as well as several prosecutors from the State of Massachusetts have stated that Professor Gates met the definition of disturbing the peace. He was causing a disturbance after Officer Crowley had retreated and was walking to his car.

Officer Crowley, whether you like what he did or not, was operating within the law.

And many many police chiefs and officers have stated the opposite.

The cases quoted were in the same jurisdiction as Gates, and apply as precedent, so they are clearly controlling law. The police knew it, which is why they dropped the charges.

I'm sure Crowley knew it too - but that isn't the point. Crowley knew that the charges wouldn't stick. He got to "win" by handcuffing Gates in front of his neighbors and frog marching him to the car.

The tactic of deliberately making an arrest that cannot be prosecuted is well known. The arrest itself is punitive justice without due process - it is irrelevant that the charges will be dropped. During the Bush Administration this became a standard part of the "Miami Model" to control mass protests such as at Global trade summits and political conventions. Pre-emptive arrests of very large numbers of demonstrators on flimsy grounds - or no grounds at all - followed by long detention (usually until the event they are protesting is over) until they see a judge and are released - almost always with charges dropped. There have been very many successful lawsuits for false arrest following these events, but the consequences are small for authorities and the costs are considered a small budget item.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UznTdyY94CI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UznTdyY94CI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[gmoney]

Far right? Sure but how can you disagree with what he says?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LCHtw6WbbnM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LCHtw6WbbnM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Boreas]

Far right? Sure but how can you disagree with what he says?

</EMBED>


Actually, it is very easy to disagree with a lot of what he says. I do agree that the perpetrators he describes deserve no symapthy. I do agree their victims should not have been victimized. I do not agree with most of the rest.

Violence begets more violence. What Mr. Nugent describes are isolated, sensational incidents. They do not happen as frequently as some would have you believe. As I said before, if your world is as violent as this clip would imply, then my condolences to you.

Oh, for the record, I do believe we have the right to freedom and to defend ourselves. I just do not believe that guns are always the best way. I also am opposed to carrying a concealed weapon.....but then I am a Canadian, and my world apparently is very different from yours. I have lived very well for over 50 years without a "Second Amendment".

[gmoney]

Actually, it is very easy to disagree with a lot of what he says. I do agree that the perpetrators he describes deserve no symapthy. I do agree their victims should not have been victimized. I do not agree with most of the rest.

Violence begets more violence. What Mr. Nugent describes are isolated, sensational incidents. They do not happen as frequently as some would have you believe. As I said before, if your world is as violent as this clip would imply, then my condolences to you.

Oh, for the record, I do believe we have the right to freedom and to defend ourselves. I just do not believe that guns are always the best way. I also am opposed to carrying a concealed weapon.....but then I am a Canadian, and my world apparently is very different from yours. I have lived very well for over 50 years without a "Second Amendment".

You probably live in a gated community and can ride your golf cart to the grocery store.
The rest of the world does not.

[MoonShadow]

LOL -- gmoney enjoys blowing people to the side when they disagree with him.

Dear man, I have lived 63 years without the need of the Second Amendment, have never lived in a gated community, and do now drive a golf cart. There are millions of others who have lived the same way. So, you just carry your guns for fear of the whatever will happen to you and with that you have my sympathies. I am glad I am not in your skin.

Good post, Boreas.:)

[Naturist Mark]

You'd think that America is awash in violent crime listening to some of these people.

Well, there is no doubt we are one of the most violent societies on Earth, outside of those actually undergoing violent conflict or complete chaos like Iraq or Somalia. But the level of violence is not nearly as high as the media would lead one to believe, and the level has been steadily falling for nearly two decades.

Do you feel safer than you did in the 80s? ... You are. The last time violent crime rates were this low Nixon was facing impeachment.

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2007 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

[Boreas]

You probably live in a gated community and can ride your golf cart to the grocery store.
The rest of the world does not.

There are no gated communities in this town, and for that I am thankful. While the universe is trying to turn me into a golfer, I am resisting. Therefore, I have no need for a golf cart. In fact a golf cart would be ridiculous in this community of big trucks, real men, and tough living. :)

Maybe you need to come up here in January or February to show us how tough you are. That is the measure of real strength, enduring our winters, not whether or not you can carry or better yet, handle a firearm. Which I can for the record, I was a qualified range safety officer in the Canadian Forces. :surprised:

[Boreas]

LOL -- gmoney enjoys blowing people to the side when they disagree with him.

Dear man, I have lived 63 years without the need of the Second Amendment, have never lived in a gated community, and do now drive a golf cart. There are millions of others who have lived the same way. So, you just carry your guns for fear of the whatever will happen to you and with that you have my sympathies. I am glad I am not in your skin.

Good post, Boreas.:)


63 years without the need of the Second Amendment????? :eek: How DID you manage?? :confused: I mean, to hear some people speak (or type) it is a veritable war zone down there in the US of A!


Well, there is no doubt we are one of the most violent societies on Earth, outside of those actually undergoing violent conflict or complete chaos like Iraq or Somalia. But the level of violence is not nearly as high as the media would lead one to believe, and the level has been steadily falling for nearly two decades.

Do you feel safer than you did in the 80s? ... You are. The last time violent crime rates were this low Nixon was facing impeachment

Now how can that be? You mean the media does not give us the truth? :sneaky:

[nakenone]

I agree with moonshadow,but i think that a spouses opinion of there relationship,his or hers may be helpfull in understanding a persons claim to life experiences.I look past the judge an try to see cause an effect on judgement rendered. Nakenone

[Sanman]

99% of the people who do conceal carry will never need nor ever use their gun in self defense, but the point is, you never know when you will be that 1% who does. And, it doesn't help that the media never gives account of the crimes stopped by someone with a concealed carry handgun. They only report any time one has any sort of failure or accident.

[jon71]

99% of the people who do conceal carry will never need nor ever use their gun in self defense, but the point is, you never know when you will be that 1% who does. And, it doesn't help that the media never gives account of the crimes stopped by someone with a concealed carry handgun. They only report any time one has any sort of failure or accident.


That's because it's so rare you need a microscope to find examples of that. Examples of gun crime in general and even cases of someone being killed with their own gun (by a criminal, suicide, accident, domestic violence, etc.) are far more common.

[gmoney]

That's because it's so rare you need a microscope to find examples of that. Examples of gun crime in general and even cases of someone being killed with their own gun (by a criminal, suicide, accident, domestic violence, etc.) are far more common.

The stats are in. over 1.5 million cases a year of guns stopping a crime.
400,000 acts of violence committed with one.

Your statement is totally false.
Someone defending themselves is more common but violence is sensationalized.

[Sanslines]

You'd think that America is awash in violent crime listening to some of these people.

Well, there is no doubt we are one of the most violent societies on Earth, outside of those actually undergoing violent conflict or complete chaos like Iraq or Somalia. But the level of violence is not nearly as high as the media would lead one to believe, and the level has been steadily falling for nearly two decades.

Do you feel safer than you did in the 80s? ... You are. The last time violent crime rates were this low Nixon was facing impeachment.


Mark,

Didn't you know that every man over 30 (single or not) should be considered a potential child molester? This is the message that the media keeps reinforcing and it works. Fear is a wonderful way to motivate people. Another classic way is to spout absolute statements that appeal to those who can't think for themselves. Remember the Bush statement "You are either with us or you are against us". Such statements appeal to so many people for many people can not or do not want to understand that life is not either black or white - they refuse to see the many different shades of gray in between.

[Boreas]

Mark,

Didn't you know that every man over 30 (single or not) should be considered a potential child molester? This is the message that the media keeps reinforcing and it works. Fear is a wonderful way to motivate people. Another classic way is to spout absolute statements that appeal to those who can't think for themselves. Remember the Bush statement "You are either with us or you are against us". Such statements appeal to so many people for many people can not or do not want to understand that life is not either black or white - they refuse to see the many different shades of gray in between.

That is so true. Folklore which becomes dogma fulfills this same function. As a Canadian I will only comment on the apparent spirit of the Second Amendment. It is my assumption that the state of life in the US is different from when that was drafted. Yet, people hold true to beliefs about that amendment, and it has now become dogma in some circles. You hear the same mantra repeated over and over again. Something to the effect that "it is our constitutional right", and "we need it to protect ourselves".....etc. When people cling so tightly to dogma at all costs, they no longer think for themselves, and their reasons for whatever the applicable behaviour are less clear. This type of dogma is not limited to the Second Amendment.

[jon71]

The stats are in. over 1.5 million cases a year of guns stopping a crime.
400,000 acts of violence committed with one.

Your statement is totally false.
Someone defending themselves is more common but violence is sensationalized.


Did you get that from the N.R.A.? That is a bald faced lie and frankly an incredibly ridiculous one.

[gmoney]

Did you get that from the N.R.A.? That is a bald faced lie and frankly an incredibly ridiculous one.

LOL shows your lack of well nevermind....

Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958392,00.html

Its worth reading
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_lives.html

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

pick this one apart
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/04/13/abc-ignores-evidence-guns-useful-confronting-criminals

I could go on and on but I already know you are not interested in FACTS presented from an opposing view.

[jon71]

LOL shows your lack of well nevermind....

Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958392,00.html

Its worth reading
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_lives.html

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

pick this one apart
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/04/13/abc-ignores-evidence-guns-useful-confronting-criminals

I could go on and on but I already know you are not interested in FACTS presented from an opposing view.


It isn't that your facts are in opposition it's that they're made of silly putty. You aren't even trying. This is a million miles from anything believable. Perhaps 1% of the people reading this are dumb enough to take you seriously Gmoney and I'm not one of them. If you want to be taken seriously you have to at least get in the ballpark of the truth. If that number were true one person in two hundred uses a gun in self defense EVERY YEAR. I could believe one person in two hundred IN THEIR LIFETIME, but every year. Seriously? You think anybodys going to buy that? Did you even think about what those numbers meant? Obvioulsy you aren't even paying attention to your own claims.
I'm going to try and explain this so simply that even a conservative can understand it. You claim one person in 200 uses a gun to defend themself every year, that's a nation of 300 million divided by 1.5 million, i.e. 1 in 200. For the sake of argument let's ignore the years up to 18. I know some people let kids have guns but we can ignore the fringes for now. Now let's assume after 18 people live another 50 years. It's actually longer than that but 50 is a nice round number. Now That means over those 50 years an average of one person in four has used a gun to defend themselves. Everybody, think of everyone you know in multiples of four. Think of relatives, friends, co workers, everyone you know. Has one in four used a gun to defend themself? The number I come up with is ZERO, and yes I do know people who own guns. If everyone on here were to answer I guarantee you by far the most common answer would be zero, with a few people saying they know one person who has. Gmoney unless it's one person in four lifetime you aren't close to 1 in 200 yearly. The numbers don't work. Just ballparking but something like 100,000 annually seems more credible than 1.5 M.

[MoonShadow]

LOL --- jon71 --- yes, you have to watch those decimal points.

If it was 1.5 million we wouldn't have all this arguing and discussing of guns, would we? But it isn't 1.5 million.

[Boreas]

Good post Jon! I look forward to the response.

Yes, I know people who own guns. I suspect the stats I would find about whether they have used theirs for self defence would be similar to yours.......well maybe. Perhaps some people up here have used their guns to protect themselves......against bears. I have knowingly met one person in that category. Since I know osme hunters, guides and others who enjoy the backwoods, and I mean backwoods, I am sure some of these people have had to defend themselves against bears.

I do know one person who arguably used his gun to protect himself. He was an off duty police officer who heard a break-in in the store below where he and his family lived. He called the on duty police and went down on his own........he ended up getting shot with his own gun. This was in a sleepy town (which is ironically now a bedroom community for Toronto) in Ontario, and it happened to my father. So, yes I am biased.

[Sanslines]

Yes Jon, good post! Thank you for your detailed explanation. You make a good point!

[gmoney]

I see you didnt read any of the link so I'll exceprt a little. And forget about your 300 million.
Take that number from the 80 million gun owners instead. They are the ones defending their rights not the rest.

Here's some excerpts:
According to noted criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University, every year some 650,000 Americans use firearms to thwart criminal assault. That's 12,500 a week."
Kleck estimates that an assailant or the defender actually fired a handgun in nearly half the cases. If so, 322,000 incidents each year involved great danger, and the potential victims credited their guns with protecting them. That is about ten times the number who die from guns annually in the U.S.


His numbers are based on a 1981 poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. It asked 1,228 U.S. voters whether in the previous five years any member of their household had "used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property." Roughly 4% (about 50 people) said they had done so. Projecting that percentage onto the number of U.S. households in the five years covered by the poll (1976-81), Kleck came up with the estimate that handguns had been used protectively 3,224,880 times, or 645,000 a year. Comparing that with surveys that included rifles and shotguns, he estimated that all types of guns are used defensively about a million times a year.

The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.

It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don't usually report crimes that don't happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his life.

"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20". "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you
Most news coverage of these incidents ignored the role of guns in ending the bloodshed. In the month following the Mississippi shooting, only 19 of the 687 stories on the episode mentioned Myrick. Some of those said only that he had "disarmed the shooter." In a later story on CBS, Dan Rather noted only that "Myrick eventually subdued the young gunman." Similarly, only 35 of the 596 stories on the Pennsylvania crime mentioned Strand, with the New York Daily News explaining that he had "persuaded [the shooter] to surrender" and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution claiming that he had "chased [the shooter] down and held him until police came." Five school-related shootings occurred in the 1997-98 school year. One might have thought that the fact that two of them were stopped by guns would register in the public debate over such shootings.

[Boreas]

The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.

I think it could equally be argued that guns do not control crime. I will have to do some homework on that to be sure. Or perhaps one of the wiser members of this thread will find the information.

At any rate, guns or gun control issues are the "downstream" 'solutions' to social problems. Ensuring proper educational opportunities or mental health treatment, etc, will mean fewer people will need to resort to criminal behaviour to live.


"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20".

Now that is just silly. You think criminals have more power in this world? If they had legitimate power, most often they would not need to resort to this activity for their power.

[gmoney]

I think it equalizes unequals for the law abiding protecting themselves is what was meant.

I agree with you that everyone likes to blame guns for the problems and that is simply not so. Banning guns will not solve any problem in America. That being true why do you have such a stance to ban guns? guns are not the problem, they are the solution for self protection against these immoral thugs we have in society today.

[MoonShadow]

Now that is just silly. You think criminals have more power in this world? If they had legitimate power, most often they would not need to resort to this activity for their power.


It certainly is! Criminals empower themselves to break laws and it isn't always with guns. Criminals will breach the law regardless of those who own/have guns. Whether or not the rest of us own or carry guns does NOT minimize criminal acts.

Just look back in history - the wild west for an example where everyone own and carried guns. Criminals didn't halt their behavior. What stopped the criminals to a considerable degree was organized law enforcement initially known as the sheriff and deputy sheriff(s) and when needed a posse of those chosen to serve. And even with law enforcement, criminals were still around. They always will be.

The downside from this point and time in history is that a lot of innocent people were shot/killed by non-criminals.

And before gun controls laws were ever thought about, look at the days of slavery. Studies have shown with what data they could obtain that innocent slaves were shot by law-abiding slave owners or neighbors of slave-owners. This is criminal activity but to those who were in the slavery business, it wasn't.

The argument that the more of us that carry guns will deter criminal activity is absurd. It hasn't and it won't.

[Boreas]

The argument that the more of us that carry guns will deter criminal activity is absurd. It hasn't and it won't.

No, it will only increase the chances of more gun violence. I do not think it is a coincidence that the US has the highest rate of gun crimes in the world. The absolute religious passion about guns in some circles is likely part of the reason.

[Boreas]

I think it equalizes unequals for the law abiding protecting themselves is what was meant.

I agree with you that everyone likes to blame guns for the problems and that is simply not so. Banning guns will not solve any problem in America. That being true why do you have such a stance to ban guns? guns are not the problem, they are the solution for self protection against these immoral thugs we have in society today.

Have I said that I have a stance of banning guns? No, I have a stance that it is silly to suggest that people carry guns, concealed or not, as a means of protection. I have the stance that the world is not as violent a place as you would suggest, and that the odds of becoming involved in a violent crime are nowhere near the rate you would suggest. There are fewer "immoral thugs" today than 20 years ago. The percentage of "immoral thugs" to law-abiding citizens is quite low. I live in a small city that has quite a problem with cocaine and the resulting violence that can occur. I would never be aware of the problem if I did not work in a field that exposed me to it. The likihood of me becoming involved in a cocaine related crime in this town is quite low. I am more likely to be attacked by a bear.

Frankly, I am not sure how to control guns, or if they need to be controlled. I do know that the religious fervour over guns is absolutely incomprehensible.

I'd really like to hear more of an explanation of how guns equalize things for "law-abiding citizens".

[jon71]

I see you didnt read any of the link so I'll exceprt a little. And forget about your 300 million.
Take that number from the 80 million gun owners instead. They are the ones defending their rights not the rest.

Here's some excerpts:
According to noted criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University, every year some 650,000 Americans use firearms to thwart criminal assault. That's 12,500 a week."
Kleck estimates that an assailant or the defender actually fired a handgun in nearly half the cases. If so, 322,000 incidents each year involved great danger, and the potential victims credited their guns with protecting them. That is about ten times the number who die from guns annually in the U.S.


His numbers are based on a 1981 poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. It asked 1,228 U.S. voters whether in the previous five years any member of their household had "used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property." Roughly 4% (about 50 people) said they had done so. Projecting that percentage onto the number of U.S. households in the five years covered by the poll (1976-81), Kleck came up with the estimate that handguns had been used protectively 3,224,880 times, or 645,000 a year. Comparing that with surveys that included rifles and shotguns, he estimated that all types of guns are used defensively about a million times a year.

The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.

It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don't usually report crimes that don't happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his life.

"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20". "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you
Most news coverage of these incidents ignored the role of guns in ending the bloodshed. In the month following the Mississippi shooting, only 19 of the 687 stories on the episode mentioned Myrick. Some of those said only that he had "disarmed the shooter." In a later story on CBS, Dan Rather noted only that "Myrick eventually subdued the young gunman." Similarly, only 35 of the 596 stories on the Pennsylvania crime mentioned Strand, with the New York Daily News explaining that he had "persuaded [the shooter] to surrender" and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution claiming that he had "chased [the shooter] down and held him until police came." Five school-related shootings occurred in the 1997-98 school year. One might have thought that the fact that two of them were stopped by guns would register in the public debate over such shootings.



You just admitted to making up the numbers as you go along. 650,000 while still ridiculous is around 40% of the 1.5 million you had claimed. Apparently the "researcher" did a lousy job with running that poll even before he decided to intentionally just inflate the numbers to "include" other types of guns. Tell me gmoney have you ever gone jogging with a shotgun strapped to your back in case you met a mugger? A handgun is possible, a rifle or shotgon is just a silly claim.
Also you kind of killed your own argument (and thank you by the way) by pointing out that of 300 M Americans only around 80M have a gun. I established that for your earlier claim to work one in four Americans would had to have used a gun to defent themself in their lifetime. Since almost 3 in 4 Americans don't have a gun that puts a different perspective on things. For the 1.5 M. claim to work we would have to average nearly EVERY SINGLE GUN OWNER IN AMERICA, to sometime in their life use a gun for self defence. Do the math, it doesn't miss 100% by much. If we use your new 650,000 number it's closer to 1 in 3. Do you think anybody will believe 1 in 3 gun owners have used their gun in self defence? Who's supposed to believe this? Kleck and Hart are apparently pro-gun activists just pretending to do research to push their agenda and you're just parroting their claims without even attempting to think about whether it's at all plausibe or not. You should be embarrassed but I know that would require more self awareness than you possess.

[jon71]

Just look back in history - the wild west for an example where everyone own and carried guns. Criminals didn't halt their behavior. What stopped the criminals to a considerable degree was organized law enforcement initially known as the sheriff and deputy sheriff(s) and when needed a posse of those chosen to serve. And even with law enforcement, criminals were still around. They always will be.



You obviously know nothing of history. Let me clue you in, real life is not like the westerns you watched as a kid. The good guys didn't always wear white, the bad guys didn't always wear black, you couldn't count on cutting them off at the pass and most people did not, I repeat, did not, own guns. Furthermore of those who did own guns most never used them on people, only on animals. Like today most people were farmers or in small business with the "cops and robbers" making up only a small percentage of the population. I guess it's no wonder your arguments on this thread are so crazy if you can't tell the difference between movies and real life.

[Naturist Mark]

Through the use of dubious methodologies, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun advocates have created wildly inflated numbers supposedly showing handguns to be an effective means of self defense. This claim is false. Although handguns are marketed primarily for their self-defense value, bringing one into the home has exactly the opposite effect, placing residents at a much higher rate of risk. A person living in a home with a gun is three times more likely to die by homicide and five times more likely to die by suicide.

Data from 1997 buttress the point that self-defense handgun uses are rare. In that year there was—

* A total of 15,690 homicides.

* Of these, 8,503 (54.2 percent) were committed with handguns, contrasted to 2,207 involving all other types of firearms (14.1 percent).

* Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.

For decades handguns have been marketed and purchased as the strongest bulwark a law-abiding citizen could have against a legion of dangerous strangers. However, of the 8,503 handgun homicides in 1997, only 110 (1.3 percent) were justifiable killings of an assailant previously unknown to the person using a handgun. Instances in which a person uses a handgun in self-defense against an unknown attacker do occur, but compared against the total universe of gun crime and violence, they are extremely rare.

Handguns are employed extensively in violent crimes such as assaults and robberies. In 1993 there were about 1.3 million such crimes committed with a firearm—and 86 percent of the time the weapon was a handgun. Conversely, an analysis of four years of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicated that gun owners claim to defend themselves with a firearm of any type approximately 65,000 times in an average year—a minute percentage compared to the total figure for violent crime.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/unsafe.htm

[Skinview]

[I]Through the use of dubious methodologies, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun advocates have created wildly inflated numbers supposedly showing handguns to be an effective means of self defense.
This is crap from an anti gun organization. Its like a post from a couple of people here - factually backwards. The NRA often quotes research done by Gary Kleck. From what I have read in the mainstream press regarding Kleck's research, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Kleck's methodology. He uses the same survey methodology that sociologists routienly use. His research indicates that the numbers of defensive uses of guns are so extreemly large that they have been doubted. I think its plausible that the respondants in his surveys are being dishonest, but the research is the best that can be done. How far off Kleck's conclusions are may be impossible to ascertain, but the results of his research is not "created" by the NRA.

And here is what Wikipedia says:

Self-defense
In an extensive series of studies of large, nationally representative samples of crime incidents, criminologist Gary Kleck found that crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. This was so, even though the victims using guns typically faced more dangerous circumstances than other victims. The findings applied to both robberies and assaults.[75] Other research on rape indicated that although victims rarely resisted with guns, those using other weapons were less likely to be raped, and no more likely to suffer other injuries besides rape itself, than victims who did not resist, or resisted without weapons.[76] There is no evidence that victim use of a gun for self-protection provokes offenders into attacking the defending victim or results in the offender taking the gun away and using it against the victim.[77]

Kleck has also shown, in his own national survey, and in other surveys with smaller sample sizes, that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are probably substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns.[78] Thus, defensive gun use by victims is both effective and, relative to criminal uses, frequent. In a largely approving review of Kleck's book Point Blank (1991) in the journal Political Psychology, Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States.[79]



This claim is false. Although handguns are marketed primarily for their self-defense value, bringing one into the home has exactly the opposite effect, placing residents at a much higher rate of risk.Wrong.

FABLE I: A gun in the home makes the home less safe.

Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them,1 and accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low.2 In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is "43 times" more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder, based upon a study by anti-gun researchers of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington.3 Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-gun groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study or how the ratio was derived.

To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide.4 Survey research by award-winning Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, has shown that firearms are used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually.5

It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by "gun control" groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."6

While the "43 times" claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 58% of firearm-related deaths are suicides,7 a problem which is not solved by gun laws aimed at denying firearms to criminals. "Gun control" advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.8

In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.9

This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."10




Data from 1997 buttress the point that self-defense handgun uses are rare. In that year there was—

[long list of irrelevant statistics...]


an analysis of four years of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicated that gun owners claim to defend themselves with a firearm of any type approximately 65,000 times in an average year—a minute percentage compared to the total figure for violent crime.And here, at the end, we finally get to the meaningful part. Kleck has figures of 1.5 to 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms, and the government has a figure of 65,000. Its an enormous, vast, difference. Kleck is a criminologist who publishes in peer reviewed scientific journals. He is no light weight. So why would responses to Kleck's surveys be so different than government surveys? If someone from the government asks you if you have brandished or pointed your gun at somebody for any reason, what are you going to tell him? Think about it.

[Skinview]

I think it could equally be argued that guns do not control crime. I will have to do some homework on that to be sure. Or perhaps one of the wiser members of this thread will find the information.From Wikipedia:
The economist John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime, states that laws which make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get a permit to carry a gun in public places, cause reductions in crime. Lott's results suggest that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms deters crime because potential criminals do not know who may or may not be carrying a firearm. Lott's data came from the FBI's crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties.[80]


At any rate, guns or gun control issues are the "downstream" 'solutions' to social problems. Ensuring proper educational opportunities or mental health treatment, etc, will mean fewer people will need to resort to criminal behaviour to live.Not that those things don't have an effect, I think that the culture has a far greater role in the level of violence. It has been argued, and I can't say if its true, that the introduction of television violence to society has a large effect. But suppose that were true. Would that mean the government should censor tv? I wonder if anti gun liberals would say the government should censor what we see if tv was shown to cause violence.




"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20".
Now that is just silly. You think criminals have more power in this world? If they had legitimate power, most often they would not need to resort to this activity for their power.

I'd really like to hear more of an explanation of how guns equalize things for "law-abiding citizens".I am sure that's not his point. The power isn't political, its the power of the thug who will take the purse of an old lady, the knife wielding rapist over a woman, or the gang over a single man. A gun in the right hands can turn the tables.
If you click on this link, you will find a vast number of accounts of individuals defending themselves with firearms:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/

[MoonShadow]

Just look back in history - the wild west for an example where everyone own and carried guns. Criminals didn't halt their behavior. What stopped the criminals to a considerable degree was organized law enforcement initially known as the sheriff and deputy sheriff(s) and when needed a posse of those chosen to serve. And even with law enforcement, criminals were still around. They always will be.



You obviously know nothing of history. Let me clue you in, real life is not like the westerns you watched as a kid. The good guys didn't always wear white, the bad guys didn't always wear black, you couldn't count on cutting them off at the pass and most people did not, I repeat, did not, own guns. Furthermore of those who did own guns most never used them on people, only on animals. Like today most people were farmers or in small business with the "cops and robbers" making up only a small percentage of the population. I guess it's no wonder your arguments on this thread are so crazy if you can't tell the difference between movies and real life.

Well, well, jon71, what an insulting post. Please read your history again. I stand by what I say from what I have LEARNED from reading about our history.

[Sanslines]

No, it will only increase the chances of more gun violence. I do not think it is a coincidence that the US has the highest rate of gun crimes in the world. The absolute religious passion about guns in some circles is likely part of the reason.

Is this 'religious passion' really healthy or is it an example of an obsession that requires specific social work attention?

One of the biggest challenges right now is to create more jobs. High unemployment creates desperate situations for many. Many who would normally be gainfully employed are now turning to crime for a variety of reasons.

[Sanslines]

Well, well, jon71, what an insulting post. Please read your history again. I stand by what I say from what I have LEARNED from reading about our history.

Moonshadow,

Notice how some always think in terms of absolutes ie black and white. Notice certain specific words , such as "all", "everyone" etc. Jon's post (along with others) clearly does not make such absurd generalizations. This is the mistake that others stubbornly continue to make (ie sweeping generalizations) in spite of the fact that this particular issue can not be simplified to either 'all' or 'none'.

[Sanslines]

NRA's Big Lies Can NOT Change The Facts:

``I think it was in this very room that we actually had the NRA admit they wanted people to be allowed to own bazookas,'' Schumer said with a chuckle. "

"The gun lobby has been saying the president is to blame for kids killing other kids and misfits of all description stocking up on weaponry and hunting people down. The means used to obtain these arsenals have much to do with the cavernous holes in our system for regulating who can get a gun, and how easily. These holes were cut wide by the NRA, which does everything in its power to keep and expand them."



"The Schumer-McCarthy plan tries to repair the damage the NRA caused with a 1986 law it wrote that gutted the 1968 federal Gun Control Act. The plan would try to shrink the enormous network of unregulated private dealers, giving the Feds greater authority over them. It would help the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms target dirty dealers -- the 1 percent of licensed dealers to whom nearly half of all guns used in crimes can be traced.
The proposal would shut down an NRA- backed law that lets convicted felons get back their right to own a gun, though the very same convicts may never again be allowed to vote or even work at the mall. It also would expand a program called Project Exile, in which some gun violators who would normally be charged with state crimes can be prosecuted and sentenced instead by the Feds. "

"Schumer and McCarthy invite the NRA to get its record on enforcing the gun laws as robust as its rhetoric. They know enough, though, not to sit idly by the phone awaiting a response. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2000/03/29/ED21009.DTL&type=printable

"How many must die from another NRA lie"

[Sanslines]

Informed people speak out against the NRA:

"The NRA is against Obama? Never would have guessed that.
Even if someone asks for a reasonable discussion on guns, the NRA freaks out and starts screaming "2nd Amendment!!"."

"I own a gun and I am in no fear of Obama attacking my rights to bear arms. This trick is the oldest in the book and actually supports Obama's comments about small town residents. They have been lied to so much by politicians that they cling to issues regarding their guns and religion. The republicans know this and they seek to highlight these wedge issues in an effort to steer votes away from democratic candidates."

"Do gun owners have to PAY to belong to this idiotic NRA GROUP?
I would own guns but to Pay money to belong to an organization that
"tells" lies and "tells" its members who to vote for, is not my idea of
how I would be spending my money these days. GASOLINE would
be my priority. I need money for gas!!!!"

"NRA always claims that the democrats want to remove the 2nd amendment. wether it be hillary, kerry, edwards, obama, kennedy, pelosi, or bill.
""…what did he say about people becoming bitter when economic situations become bad, they cling to guns (NRA) , religion (abortion)""
Besides, its so easy to get a gun license and a gun these days. There's more restrictions on buying and owning a car!"

"Well whenever you want to run from the fact that you have no plan, bring out the good ole' NRA and let them spew lies. If any NRA supporter can explain to me why AK-47's are needed and armor piercing bullets are needed, I will be more than happy to listen. My husband is an ex-cop who shudders everytime he hears that they should both be perfectly legal. Do you people not care about those guys?"

"The NRA used to be a responsible organization for Gun Owners,
Nowadays, it's just a political operation that makes Gun Owners look like Rednecks and Outlaws.
Someone tell the NRA to get back to its roots and stop playing politics with the 2nd Amendment. We aren't stupid, ignorant, backwoods rednecks. We are responsible people and we are being "misrepresented" by the NRA nitwits in charge."

"Republicans, … your party is on its last legs. You and your religious wingnut radicals have driven wedges into American society. For such stellar values voters you lie about every issue. The country is changing, and your racist days are becoming history. Bush, and his gang have nearly destroyed our economy, our military, our reputation, our security, and much, much more. McCain/Palin is just more republican corruption, and lying. What have republicans done to improve America?????? Dwight Eisenhower was the last decent Republican."

"I am a proud gun owner, but this is why I cancelled my NRA membership. I grew up with guns and would never give up my guns, but I understand that we have a problem in our cities. As a country we have to do what is needed for the greater good. If that means that we impose some regulations on weapons in the inner city then I am ok with that."

[Naturist Mark]

[long list of irrelevant statistics...]

And here, at the end, we finally get to the meaningful part. Kleck has figures of 1.5 to 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms, and the government has a figure of 65,000. Its an enormous, vast, difference. Kleck is a criminologist who publishes in peer reviewed scientific journals. He is no light weight. So why would responses to Kleck's surveys be so different than government surveys? If someone from the government asks you if you have brandished or pointed your gun at somebody for any reason, what are you going to tell him? Think about it.

So the government statistics are wrong, and your proof is that to you it seems obvious that nearly every person who uses a gun in self defense LIES about it. Wouldn't it be simpler to assume that the one person making the claim of 1.5 to 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year is lying?

[ki4kxq]

Crime stats prove that the 40 states that have some form of carry law, be it open or concealed have far less crime per capita than those states that do not.

With all due respect Boreas to guns being a "downstream solution", if someone is threatening myself or my family, I really couldn't care less about what social issues brought them to commit the crime. My priority at that point is to protect myself from them. People who cannot or will not protect themselves are easy prey.

Heard a story just a couple of months ago on the news. A couple in their 60's were at home one evening minding their own business. A man started to break into the patio door. The wife called 911 while her husband grabbed his pistol. The man yelled to the man to stop or he would shoot. The man broke the patio door. The man again ordered him to stop. On the 911 tape you can clearly here the homeowner fire 2 shots. The criminal himself was armed with a knife. (Never carry a knife to a gun fight) The police arrived apx 10 minutes later. One person was dead (criminal). However, if the homeowner had not been armed, would we have 2 dead? (Grandma & Grandpa) Don't know, but at least they knew to protect themselves.

This story also shows why I carry a gun, because a cop is just to heavy. Note the police arrived 10 minutes after the incident was over to write the report. Police cannot be everywhere to protect the citizens.

[Sanslines]

Crime stats prove that the 40 states that have some form of carry law, be it open or concealed have far less crime per capita than those states that do not.

With all due respect Boreas to guns being a "downstream solution", if someone is threatening myself or my family, I really couldn't care less about what social issues brought them to commit the crime. My priority at that point is to protect myself from them. People who cannot or will not protect themselves are easy prey.

Heard a story just a couple of months ago on the news. A couple in their 60's were at home one evening minding their own business. A man started to break into the patio door. The wife called 911 while her husband grabbed his pistol. The man yelled to the man to stop or he would shoot. The man broke the patio door. The man again ordered him to stop. On the 911 tape you can clearly here the homeowner fire 2 shots. The criminal himself was armed with a knife. (Never carry a knife to a gun fight) The police arrived apx 10 minutes later. One person was dead (criminal). However, if the homeowner had not been armed, would we have 2 dead? (Grandma & Grandpa) Don't know, but at least they knew to protect themselves.

This story also shows why I carry a gun, because a cop is just to heavy. Note the police arrived 10 minutes after the incident was over to write the report. Police cannot be everywhere to protect the citizens.

A person who is properly trained in appropriate firearm use would never kill someone with a knife. Believe it or not, but it is possible to shoot someone to stop them from attacking without killing them.

How would your gun stop someone like me who is a trained martial arts expert. I could snap your neck in a millisecond and you would fall dead to the ground without ever knowing what hit you. Of course properly trained martial arts experts do not indiscriminately go around hurting or killing people as this is anathema to proper training. Part of training involves developing tremendous self control, self discipline, and using only the minimum sufficient amount of force to control a situation.

The average gun owner does not have such a degree of training and yet is allowed to own and use a lethal weapon. If you want to own guns then you need to demand that a basic requirement for gun ownership is to be required to go through very intensive training sessions.

[Skinview]

So the government statistics are wrong, and your proof is that to you it seems obvious that nearly every person who uses a gun in self defense LIES about it. Wouldn't it be simpler to assume that the one person making the claim of 1.5 to 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year is lying?No, it wouldn't. First off, it may also be that there is some reason that the two numbers can't be compared because they don't actually represent the same thing. You can get different survey results by asking questions in different ways, and so forth. I can't say I know what is going on here, other than I think the effect I mentioned is probably a factor. I have seen the same criticism, that I made of the the government survey, elsewhere. But more to the point, we are talking science here. This is research which has or will be replicated. It would be incredibly foolish for Kleck to fabricate his data. Any scientist who did that would see his career evaporate is a flash, and studies as high profile as Kleck's is going to get a ton of scrutiny by his peers. Politicians and partisans shamelessly play fast and loose with the facts all the time, but the world of science is an entirely different culture, and such behaviour is absolutely abhorrant and not tolerated one bit.

[ki4kxq]

A person who is properly trained in appropriate firearm use would never kill someone with a knife. Believe it or not, but it is possible to shoot someone to stop them from attacking without killing them.

How would your gun stop someone like me who is a trained martial arts expert. I could snap your neck in a millisecond and you would fall dead to the ground without ever knowing what hit you. Of course properly trained martial arts experts do not indiscriminately go around hurting or killing people as this is anathema to proper training. Part of training involves developing tremendous self control, self discipline, and using only the minimum sufficient amount of force to control a situation.

The average gun owner does not have such a degree of training and yet is allowed to own and use a lethal weapon. If you want to own guns then you need to demand that a basic requirement for gun ownership is to be required to go through very intensive training sessions.


You are wrong. Everyone that has a concealed carry permit must take a class to show marksmanship and how the law applies in various situations. Someone breaking into your home, especially while you are telling them to stop, whether they are armed or not, is a threat to your well being. That is reason to pull your weapon and fire. Proper training also tells you that if you have to pull your weapon because the situation is that dire, you are to fire to kill. Period. Have you ever seen someone on PCP? If you shoot to injure you may likely be killed yourself.

As far as your martial arts, I don't plan on letting you get that close. Again, if you are breaking into my home, I have told you to stop, I have identified that you are not a family member, if you don't retreat or stop, I will fire. Martial arts won't do you much good at that point.

[Skinview]

A person who is properly trained in appropriate firearm use would never kill someone with a knife.You have it backwards. I have firearm training, and it is the case that with standard defensive use of a firearm, you always try to kill your attacker. The police do the same. The reason being, unless you have shot someone in the head, heart or spine, they don't just drop like you see in Hollywood films. If you shoot someone most anywhere else, the criminal will be concious and mobile enough to kill or do grave damage to you before he succumbs to his wounds.



Believe it or not, but it is possible to shoot someone to stop them from attacking without killing them.And on the other hand, yes, apparently most of the time gun owners actually just brandish the gun and the criminal flees. And this is contrary to the training. I have noticed that the NRA speaks with forked tongue on this point. Their training, and police training (its the same), is to kill, but the NRA is always pointing out that in the vast majority of successful defensive gun uses, the gun is never fired. The reason for the difference is that if you brandish and don't fire, there is a huge danger that if the criminal chooses to fight, you can be killed. Now you have given the criminal the initiative, and he can close a distance and stab you faster than you can react and pull the trigger, or the criminal could even take your gun from you. Apparently, criminals are rarely so brave. I think police training is one reason why police are five times more likely to kill an innocent person than a civilian. The training says kill, but the average person is more inclined to take his chances and try to use his or her gun to intimidate the criminal. Mistakes are less leathal.


How would your gun stop someone like me who is a trained martial arts expert. I could snap your neck in a millisecond and you would fall dead to the ground without ever knowing what hit you.For sure, which is why the training says not to pull out the gun unless you both must and intend to kill the criminal. Otherwise... like you wrote.


The average gun owner does not have such a degree of training and yet is allowed to own and use a lethal weapon. If you want to own guns then you need to demand that a basic requirement for gun ownership is to be required to go through very intensive training sessions.Training is good, but like I wrote, the trained police are far more dangerous than the average gun owner. Average gun owners use firearms very successfully and safely. Gun safety should be taught in high school to everyone, but you can't make people jump through hoops to excercise their rights.

[Sanslines]

You are wrong. Everyone that has a concealed carry permit must take a class to show marksmanship and how the law applies in various situations. Someone breaking into your home, especially while you are telling them to stop, whether they are armed or not, is a threat to your well being. That is reason to pull your weapon and fire. Proper training also tells you that if you have to pull your weapon because the situation is that dire, you are to fire to kill. Period. Have you ever seen someone on PCP? If you shoot to injure you may likely be killed yourself.

As far as your martial arts, I don't plan on letting you get that close. Again, if you are breaking into my home, I have told you to stop, I have identified that you are not a family member, if you don't retreat or stop, I will fire. Martial arts won't do you much good at that point.

There are classes and then there are CLASSES. Not all classes are the same. I understand that you may not be familiar with the years of training that go into becoming a martial arts expert. Such discipline does not come about because someone takes one class or listens to a few lectures about the 'law'.

I maintain that there is a vast difference between classes. You many have had superior training and may very well be the utmost responsible person when it comes to gun use. However, you need to realize that you do not represent the average person.

I do not agree with 'fire to kill' unless there is no other option. Those who have taken a 'class' are not always able to make that determination. They have the lives of others in their hands. They need to make life and eath decisions in milliseconds. I do not believe that the average person is capable of doing that.

Martial arts experts do not 'attack to kill' as a matter of course. Martial arts experts use only the minimum amount of force to control a situation. This understanding comes from years of study and could never come from just taking a 'course'.

Trained police officers only fire to kill under very specific circumstances. They prefer to use alternatives such as stun guns or non lethal firings whenever possible.

Fatal weapon discharges have consequences for both the victim and the victor. Such is not a responsible to be taken lightly. We can all agree that many within our society are not responsible individuals. Such individuals should not have the responsibility of determining life and death over another human being.

[Skinview]

Everyone that has a concealed carry permit must take a class to show marksmanship and how the law applies in various situations.Is that all states? Different state have different requirements, although I think what you say is true for the vast majority of states. In Vermont, permits are prohibited by the state constitution. People have a right to carry without government permission.

[Skinview]

Those who have taken a 'class' are not always able to make that determination. They have the lives of others in their hands. They need to make life and eath decisions in milliseconds. I do not believe that the average person is capable of doing that.I have a much higher opinion of the average person, and in this republic, the founders also put a lot of faith in the average person. Anyone who drives a car puts the lives of others in their hands when they get behind the wheel. The vast majority of people are very responsible with other people's lives.



Fatal weapon discharges have consequences for both the victim and the victor. Such is not a responsible to be taken lightly. We can all agree that many within our society are not responsible individuals. Such individuals should not have the responsibility of determining life and death over another human being.Everyone, EVERYONE, has an ancient and natural right to kill to preserve their own lives.

[Sanslines]

With love from Mom: Time to grow up

http://media.barometer.orst.edu/media/storage/paper854/news/2002/05/17/Diversions/With-Love.From.Mom.Time.To.Grow.Up-2296624.shtml

[Sanslines]

PSYCHOLOGICAL: It is rare for anyone to be involved in the justified use of lethal force (giving or receiving) without having been affected or changed by the experience. Depending upon the situation and personality of the person involved, the effect may be profound. Know in advance that actually using lethal force may have a psychological cost attached. The balancing factor is that the psychological cost of using lethal force may be only a fraction of the psychological cost of NOT using lethal force, should such use become necessary.

"The taking of a human life is an emotionally shattering act; a normal person who terminates a fellow man's existence suffers second only to the deceased and his loved ones. You will see the latter at the coroner's inquest, and if you do not know in your heart that you HAD to shoot, you will see their faces in your sleep for the rest of your life." (Gravest Extreme, P. 44)


TACTICS: It is not enough to simply have the means to apply lethal force defensively. One MUST be capable of applying lethal force effectively. This ability requires extensive training, practice and forethought. The practice and forethought must be ongoing. (The majority of gun owners do not follow these practices.)
"The ability to use your gun effectively is not only an asset, but indeed a serious responsibility. You must become sufficiently adept to be sure (a) that you will not endanger standers-by with wild shots, and (b) that you can neutralize an armed, violent offender before he terminates innocent lives. The handgun is the most difficult firearm to shoot accurately and rapidly; skill comes only with practice." (Gravest Extreme, P. 47) (Irresponsible persons should be prevented from owning guns to eliminate the threat to innocent individuals.)



MORAL: The moral issues surrounding use of lethal force cannot be ignored. Since our laws are a reflection of the moral code of our society, following the law will tend to keep a person on reasonably safe moral ground. Notwithstanding this assurance, the moral values of the person involved, or the moral ingredients of the situation, may require conduct more restrained than even the law allows. Better to think through the moral consequences of lethal force before the need arises, and before snap decisions are required. (Such moral reflections require a degree and maturity and this is something that many in society have demonstrated that they do not posess.)

"Better you should avoid entirely a situation that could place you in a perilous situation from which you dare not extricate yourself with the full force at your command, for fear of moral error or public criticism." (Gravest Extreme, P. 70) ("Fire first and ask questions later fanatics" do not demonstrate the level of maturity necessary to be gun owners.)

"The man who wears a gun carries with it the power of life and death, and therefore the responsibility to deport himself with greater calm and wisdom than his unarmed counterpart, whose panic or misjudgment in crisis situations will have less serious consequences." (Gravest Extreme, P. 81) (Such "Life and Death" responsibilities are beyond the ability of the average citizen).

"... the privilege of killing in self-defense derives from 'the universal judgment that there is no social interest in preserving the lives of aggressors at the cost of those of their victims,' as one of the great twentieth-century legal analysts, Herbert Wechsler, said. And we can conclude from the reasonable-or-prudent-man test that it is the privilege of the innocent to use lethal force to interrupt or prevent any attack that is perceived to threaten death or bodily harm." (Armed & Female, P. 118)




CIVIL LIABILITY. Any person may be sued in civil court for any reason. Suits where the plaintiff can demonstrate real injury or damages will probably be allowed to go to trial by the judge (suits where no genuine injury or damages can be demonstrated are often dismissed by the judge). If a gun owner should shoot another person, it is almost guaranteed in this litigious society that the gun owner will be subject to a civil suit to collect damages, either by the person shot or his next of kin. Count on the fact that the plaintiff and his attorney will ask for BIG money.

If the shooting was a clearly legitimate and justifiable use of lethal force under the law, it is unlikely that the claims of the plaintiff will be sustained by the judge and jury. If, however, the shooter has made errors in judgment in application of lethal force (classic examples: pursuing and shooting the theoried assailant; applying lethal force with insufficient reason or provocation) the person shot or his next of kin may gain a court order to collect an amount of monetary damages that will bankrupt the shooter, forever.



Bottom line 1. The proper, lawful and justifiable application of lethal force is so littered with pitfalls that by far the best choice is to simply avoid using lethal force, whenever and however possible, and to avoid situations that may require one to make the choice whether or not to use lethal force.

Bottom line 2. If the defensive use of lethal force is forced upon one, and is unavoidable and necessary, apply lethal force effectively and decisively.

Bottom line 3. Know the law about use of lethal force. Understand that after an incident involving application of lethal force, where one may have to make life and death decisions in fractions of seconds, a person having used lethal force will be expected to have used the sober, educated and reflective judgment of an un-stressed, armchair philosopher. Think through IN ADVANCE how you will conduct yourself.

Bottom line 4. As a very general rule of thumb, never use or threaten to use lethal force to protect property - only to defend against imminent threat to life.

Bottom line 5. Use of lethal force to protect people in your home is MUCH more justifiable than use of lethal force in any sort of public place.

Bottom line 6. When the threat from an assailant stops (because he's "neutralized" or has fled or surrendered), discontinue application of lethal force (stop shooting). This may not always be good tactical advice, but following it will help keep you on the right side of the law.

As the above clearly demonstrates, the use of lethal force is a very serious and complicated issue. Normal, mature, and responsible individuals will not take such responsibilities lightly, will openly acknowledge that such responsibilties exist, and will not promote simplistic and irresponsible postions about taking life without regard to the numerous and diverse consequences of their actions.

[jon71]

Well, well, jon71, what an insulting post. Please read your history again. I stand by what I say from what I have LEARNED from reading about our history.


I don't think you mean what you learned from reading about history, I think you mean what you picked up from watching John Wayne movies. What you described was obviously a fantasy.

[jon71]

No, it wouldn't. First off, it may also be that there is some reason that the two numbers can't be compared because they don't actually represent the same thing. You can get different survey results by asking questions in different ways, and so forth. I can't say I know what is going on here, other than I think the effect I mentioned is probably a factor. I have seen the same criticism, that I made of the the government survey, elsewhere. But more to the point, we are talking science here. This is research which has or will be replicated. It would be incredibly foolish for Kleck to fabricate his data. Any scientist who did that would see his career evaporate is a flash, and studies as high profile as Kleck's is going to get a ton of scrutiny by his peers. Politicians and partisans shamelessly play fast and loose with the facts all the time, but the world of science is an entirely different culture, and such behaviour is absolutely abhorrant and not tolerated one bit.


Not true. The N.R.A. and others like them will make sure Kleck and others like him gets money and support no matter how garbage his findings are. It's like the "scientists" who are deniers of global warming, big oil and big coal will keep their pockets lined for life no matter how little credibility they have. Kleck's peers don't take him seriously, only anti-gun control people claim to.

[nimrod]

Well, well, jon71, what an insulting post. Please read your history again. I stand by what I say from what I have LEARNED from reading about our history.

You may have found his post to be insulting, but that does not make it any less true. I recently saw a program that adressed just this topic and how the history of the west is confused because of the movies. Not everyone at that time owned guns and there were no "show downs" at noon.

[nimrod]

With all due respect Boreas to guns being a "downstream solution", if someone is threatening myself or my family, I really couldn't care less about what social issues brought them to commit the crime. My priority at that point is to protect myself from them. People who cannot or will not protect themselves are easy prey.

The point that Boreas was trying to make is that if there was help for those with problems before they went to a life of crime, that person would be less likely to commit the crime so "downstream" you would not have the need to use a gun to protect yourself from that person.

[gmoney]

The average gun owner does not have such a degree of training and yet is allowed to own and use a lethal weapon. If you want to own guns then you need to demand that a basic requirement for gun ownership is to be required to go through very intensive training sessions.

Why cant you fathom it is used for self defense only. I think most people need NO training to know when someone is trying to attack them.






As far as your martial arts, I don't plan on letting you get that close. Again, if you are breaking into my home, I have told you to stop, I have identified that you are not a family member, if you don't retreat or stop, I will fire. Martial arts won't do you much good at that point.

RIGHT ON!!!!

I do not agree with 'fire to kill' unless there is no other option. I do not believe that the average person is capable of doing that.


I disagreed. If I feel threatened you have two options retreat or face death.
Simple logic!




]TACTICS: It is not enough to simply have the means to apply lethal force defensively. One MUST be capable of applying lethal force effectively. This ability requires extensive training, practice and forethought.


Sure it is enough. The gun equalizes the unequal.Let the CRIMINAL make the choice of what to do.


The point that Boreas was trying to make is that if there was help for those with problems before they went to a life of crime, that person would be less likely to commit the crime so "downstream" you would not have the need to use a gun to protect yourself from that person.

Don't blame the problems on the guns!

[gmoney]

What gets me is all the scare tactics thrown out from the antis.

Here's the deal everybody in this debate should explain their situation.
I own 10 guns. All are in a safe except 1. I do not jog anyplace I would expect to meet a mugger. The only way My guns are gonna cause harm is if they are stolen!. If i shoot myself, my fault I take the blame.
I work in 1 area that potentially I could be robbed or killed so there I protect myself. (granted I'm there at 9am and there's been 2 homicides in last few years at 2 am)Everywhere else I go I may have 1 in my truck but its put away and usually unloaded.

I think most people know whether they are in a crime ridden or safe area most of the time.
With all that said chances are if someone was to die from 1 of my guns they would have to be stolen. Nothing in these anti gun arguments are gonna prevent theft(which is where almost all guns used in crime come from)
Putting criminals away for long times would serve a much better purpose. Most are not retrainable, they only get out and repeat the process.
I seriously doubt ANY of these anti gunners ever set foot in a crime ridden area or experience the real world.
The world we live in has many facets including Nudists, one group that a high percentage think are whacko. I know otherwise.
Me a law abiding citizen should be allowed to own a gun. If a thug gets it, put him away(end of story).
Responsibilty should always fall on not how but why did someone steal a gun.

[Sanslines]

For those who thought that this thread was hijacked from Sotomayor to guns:



NRA can’t halt Sotomayor’s march to court:

The National Rifle Association's threat to punish senators who vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia <NOBR id=itxt_nobr_0_0 style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">Sotomayorhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif</NOBR> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32251444/ns/politics-capitol_hill#) has been met with a shrug by Democrats from conservative-leaning states and some Republicans who are breaking with their party to support her.

The gun-rights group is used to getting its way by spooking lawmakers about the political consequences of defying its wishes. But it never before has weighed in on a Supreme Court confirmation battle. It was cautious about breaking that pattern, and it looks like a losing fight to defeat President Barack <NOBR id=itxt_nobr_1_0 style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">Obama'shttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif</NOBR> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32251444/ns/politics-capitol_hill#) first pick for the court.

Sotomayor is expected to easily win confirmation in a vote this coming week that could deflate the long-accepted truism in Washington that you don't cross the NRA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32251444/ns/politics-capitol_hill

[Sanslines]

As far as your martial arts, I don't plan on letting you get that close. Again, if you are breaking into my home, I have told you to stop, I have identified that you are not a family member, if you don't retreat or stop, I will fire. Martial arts won't do you much good at that point.

You obviously do not know what a trained martial arts expert is capable of doing. I hope you never find out.

FYI there is a 'code of honor' that many martial arts experts adhere to. Breaking into homes to attack or rob people is a violation of the code. This is NOT what the study of martial arts is about.

[Skinview]

Not true. The N.R.A. and others like them will make sure Kleck and others like him gets money and support no matter how garbage his findings are. It's like the "scientists" who are deniers of global warming, big oil and big coal will keep their pockets lined for life no matter how little credibility they have. Kleck's peers don't take him seriously, only anti-gun control people claim to.The NRA doesn't fund research, and it would be extreemly unlikely that Kleck would be so foolish as to accept money from the NRA if it were offered. And no tenured professor wants to give up his position for some transient research funding.

[jon71]

For those who thought that this thread was hijacked from Sotomayor to guns:



NRA can’t halt Sotomayor’s march to court:

The National Rifle Association's threat to punish senators who vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia <NOBR id=itxt_nobr_0_0 style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">Sotomayorhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif</NOBR> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32251444/ns/politics-capitol_hill#) has been met with a shrug by Democrats from conservative-leaning states and some Republicans who are breaking with their party to support her.

The gun-rights group is used to getting its way by spooking lawmakers about the political consequences of defying its wishes. But it never before has weighed in on a Supreme Court confirmation battle. It was cautious about breaking that pattern, and it looks like a losing fight to defeat President Barack <NOBR id=itxt_nobr_1_0 style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">Obama'shttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif</NOBR> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32251444/ns/politics-capitol_hill#) first pick for the court.

Sotomayor is expected to easily win confirmation in a vote this coming week that could deflate the long-accepted truism in Washington that you don't cross the NRA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32251444/ns/politics-capitol_hill


That's right. Senators Baukus, Dorgan, Graham, and Alexander, all with "A" ratings by the N.R.A. have pledged to vote for Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. The N.R.A. can't even control "their" own senators. That's waning influence if there ever was.

[jon71]

The NRA doesn't fund research, and it would be extreemly unlikely that Kleck would be so foolish as to accept money from the NRA if it were offered. And no tenured professor wants to give up his position for some transient research funding.


Directly I'm sure that's true, doesn't mean there aren't sly ways around it. A friend of a friend of the N.R.A. could always help support him and his "research" wink wink nudge nudge.

[Sanslines]

NRA Political Action

If They Don’t See the Light, We’ll Make Them Feel the Heat



The quickest way to change policy is to change politicians. When lawmakers target our freedoms, we target their careers.

The NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF (http://www.nrapvf.org/)) is a federally registered Political Action Committee. NRA-PVF (http://www.nrapvf.org/) is one of the most important tools in the NRA-ILA (http://www.nraila.org/) arsenal, and is funded solely by the generous contributions of NRA members. Thousands and thousands of small contributions add up to fund one of the largest PACs in operation today.

Unlike many other PACs, however, NRA-PVF (http://www.nrapvf.org/) does not limit its scope to simply making direct contributions to campaigns. The PVF war chest is deployed by NRA-ILA’s (http://www.nraila.org/) top strategists in every election cycle to communicate powerful messages to the general electorate.

Political targets are identified. Massive campaigns of advertising, direct mail, and phone calls are developed. The NRA message blankets the media markets and moves numbers. Lawmakers win or lose.

It’s all on the line every Election Day. Not just in top-line presidential races, but also in senatorial, gubernatorial, and congressional races…not to mention nearly ten thousand elections for state legislative seats.

If a lawmaker can affect our freedoms, NRA-PVF (http://www.nrapvf.org/) is watching. And when a lawmaker threatens our rights, PVF stands ready to strike.




The bottom line is a politician must do exactly as the NRA demands or else the NRA will conduct an orchestrated campaign to destroy that politician. No wonder they are afraid that Obama will expose their dirty tricks.

[Sanslines]

NRA Sends Spy Into Anti-Gun Groups


NRA Infiltration of Gun-Control Group Sheds Light on Activist Espionage

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5499976&page=1

[Sanslines]

What does the NRA want?


Dear Ms. Metaksa:



I have concerns about your recent mailing regarding gun registration and taxation that will take effect on December 1. You state that "this is first time in American history that our government has attempted to impose National Gun Registration on the American people." This is not a true statement. The Militia Act of 1792 (http://www.potowmack.org/emerappc.html), enacted by the same people who ratified the Second Amendment, required all gun owners to be "enrolled"--that is, registered--for militia duty. This is a historical circumstance that must be well known the National Rifle Association. Don Kates, a prominent Second Amendment lawyer, is author of three law review articles (http://www.potowmack.org/emerappi.html#law46) listed in Wayne LaPierre's Guns, Crime, and Freedom. In one of these articles (Michigan Law Review, 1983), Kates wrote:

...the concept of anonymity or privacy in gun ownership profoundly departs from the conditions under which the Founders envisioned the amendment operating. Under the militia laws (first colonial, then state and eventually federal), every household, and/or male reaching the age of majority, was required to maintain at least one firearm in good condition. To prove compliance these firearms had to be submitted for inspection periodically.... Since one can scarcely argue that the First Militia Act (http://www.potowmack.org/597mil.html) violated the amendments, it is difficult to see that it would be unconstitutional for Congress even today to require every member of the present militia to possess a firearm and regularly present it for inspection to assure that it is being maintained in good working order. Alternately, and fully consistent with these purposes, a national gun registration scheme could allow federal authorities to mobilize selectively those members of the unorganized militia who are already armed and presumably familiar with the handling of weapons. In sum, the historical background of the second amendment seems inconsistent with any notion of anonymity or privacy insofar as the mere fact of one's possessing a firearm is concerned.
It would be completely consistent with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and historical practice if the Federal Government or state government or just the county sheriff were to requisition the membership lists of the National Rifle Association or other gun owner organizations in order to call out the militia or the posse comitatus.


The NRA's opposition to registration is not only in conflict with history but also in conflict with the recent proposal of Ron Stewart (http://www.potowmack.org/ronstew.html), president and CEO of Colt Manufacturing. Stewart proposed in an editorial in the American Firearms Industry magazine last December a national permitting system for gun ownership that would required mandatory training and testing. At least one gun manufacturer has responded to the very falsely based tactics of Handgun Control and the public health lobby to impose defectless liability on gun manufacturers with the intent to drive them out of business. I think Ron Stewart is on the right track. Registration including training and testing is not only the mechanism to remove liability from the gun manufacturers and place it on gun owners where I think it more appropriately belongs, but it also provides the mechanism to establish legal categories of gun ownership that can be used effectively to disarm the lawless. I provide for my self-defense as a gun owner under constitutional government by first disarming the lawless. Otherwise, if all citizens are armed for self-defense, as the NRA seems to want, and there are no rules and regulations to disarm the lawless then my insecurity becomes absolute. The armed predators will simply ambush their victims. I have not so much faith that the lawless are so stupid or timid that they will not resort to an extreme course. There is no inherent conflict between gun ownership for self-defense and legal standards established under constitutional government. It is not a question that gun laws do not work. A law that disarms the lawless is the first law that the 65 million gun owners in this country have to make work if they are to call themselves citizens and enjoy personal security as citizens.

The issues become what has changed in the past two hundred years that registration is a nightmare now when it was not in 1792 and what does the NRA really want that it has to misrepresent simple facts of history? What seems to be different is found in Charlton Heston's speech at the National Press Club (http://www.potowmack.org/398chest.html) in September, 1997. Heston describes a permanent pre-revolutionary situation derived from revolutionary events of 1775-76 not the constitution framing events of 1787-89. In the language of the Declaration of Independence when the people "altered or abolished" a government, they "institute new government." The new government derives its "just powers" from the "consent of the governed." The Constitution of the United States instituted new government. The permanent pre-revolutionary state that Charlton Heston seems to want places gun owners in a state of civic limbo. By keeping their guns outside of the law, gun owners refuse the consent to be governed and withhold themselves and their guns from any obligation to maintain the "just powers" of government. Without just powers government cannot secure rights or much of anything else including its own survival. At the same time, however, in Heston's conception gun owners do not declare a revolution to alter or abolish this government. The civic limbo the NRA seems to want to maintain creates the threat not only of armed lawless predators but also the threat of the private armies which we have seen in recent years. It is hard enough to be concerned with the threat of lawless individuals. I cannot defend myself against the threat of private armies. Private armies can acquire lists of gun owners the same as can the government. If there is no lawful authority to protect me from private armies whom do I call on when the private armies go door to door confiscating guns.

You make much of the possibility that registration will lead to confiscation. Let's be clear. To preserve this government and this Constitution, we need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal. Otherwise, private armies of unknown loyalty create the possibility of tyrannical usurpation. All a tyrant need do is issue a decree that all weapon owners are to join forces with the tyrant or surrender their weapons--and those found not cooperating will be summarily executed. An individual gun owner has no defenses in that circumstance except to take to the hills and join a revolutionary army. The revolutionary army then becomes the tyrant's target. A revolutionary struggle is a contest for power over who will confiscate the guns. Tyrants gain the power to confiscate guns because they have defeated a government that was too weak or corrupt or discredited to maintain its authority against private or revolutionary armies--whether Hitler's Storm Troopers or Mao's Red Army.

The NRA has an important mission to defeat bad legislation, misplaced legal strategies, and legally undefined bureaucratic intrusions. The tactics and the strategies of Handgun Control and the public health lobby will produce bad law and bad court decision. The FBI, the Clinton Administration and the Washington Post (http://www.potowmack.org/washpost.html) likewise have no conceptual foundations for what they want to accomplish and need to be held accountable for their true objectives. The burden of clarification falls on the NRA. The antidote to bad law and bad legal doctrine is good law and good legal doctrine, but to achieve good law and good legal doctrine the NRA has to explain what it really wants. It can start by explaining the "consent of the governed," the "just powers" of government, and the obligations of gun owners as citizens not as individuals armed outside of any law or lawful government. In the eighteenth century when there was a threat to the community the local political leadership commanded the men of the community to be armed, to undergo training and be available to secure the community against the threat. The militia gave the "just powers" of government an institutional structure that involved citizen participation. That was a very different concept of civic life from the NRA's individual freedom to be armed outside of the law.




These matters need to be explained. If the NRA cannot explain what it wants, it is sneaking in its own backdoor scheme just as are Handgun Control, the Clinton Administration and the FBI. Backdoor schemes of any sort do not deserve support. I await an explanation.











Yours truly,
An NRA member

[ki4kxq]

Is that all states? Different state have different requirements, although I think what you say is true for the vast majority of states. In Vermont, permits are prohibited by the state constitution. People have a right to carry without government permission.

I believe that all states that have a conceal carry permit are required to have some sort of training. In Texas, you must show safe handling of a firearm, marksmanship, plus they will teach you where you can and cannot carry. They also show you different scenarios of self defense and how the law applies.

That being said, the best place to go is Gunsight in Arizona. This place takes you for a weekend and puts you in various self defense scenarios. For instance, standing in line at a convenience store when an armed attacker comes in. From experience in this little exercise, you cannot beat this guy to the draw, he will win everytime. However, if you are in an aisle you can get to him first. This course will teach you by putting you into the situations you are likely to come across.

[ki4kxq]

You obviously do not know what a trained martial arts expert is capable of doing. I hope you never find out.

FYI there is a 'code of honor' that many martial arts experts adhere to. Breaking into homes to attack or rob people is a violation of the code. This is NOT what the study of martial arts is about.

You have just made my point. As law abiding citizens, if we were to meet, I would likely never know that you are a martial arts expert. Likewise, you would never know that I would be carrying a concealed handgun and was a trained marksman.

[ki4kxq]

With regards to emotional consequences for the shooter in a self defense situation, you will see in one of my first posts on this subject, that having to use your weapon is something that you don't take lightly and I pray that it never happens to me.

However, if it is my life or the life of a loved on vs the life of someone trying to harm us, it will be them. Again, that's something I hope I never have to do, but I am prepared regardless.

[Naturist Mark]

Crime stats prove that the 40 states that have some form of carry law, be it open or concealed have far less crime per capita than those states that do not.

1) 48 states have some form of Concealed Carry law.
2) Only Wisconsin and Illinois do not.
<blockquote>a) Illinois, as would be expected due to Chicago, is a fairly high violent crime state - ranks 13th in the nation.
b) Wisconsin is a very low crime state, ranking 32nd. US Census data (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html)</blockquote>

[Sanslines]

You have just made my point. As law abiding citizens, if we were to meet, I would likely never know that you are a martial arts expert. Likewise, you would never know that I would be carrying a concealed handgun and was a trained marksman.

You have missed my point. My point is that it takes years of serious and dedicated training in order to reach the upper echelons of martial arts expertise. The same can definiltely not be said of firearms training.

You need to seriously look beyond yourself and consider that there are many individuals who are not qualified (for a variety of reasons including level of maturity and personal responsibility) to posess guns. You need to acknowledge this. You also need to acknowledge that there are others who acquire guns for no other reasons then to commit crimes. Unless you do this, laws will be eventualy be changed that will ignore your demands.

I sincerely hope that you are aware of this and do understand that if you sincerely want to protect your freedom to responsible own a weapon for personal protection, then you must start dealing with the problem individuals within your own ranks. If you continue to ignore these problems, then you will suffer accordingly for the problem individuals within your ranks. Such is life.

You keep spekaing from your own personal experiences and beliefs as if this is representative of all gun owners. This is not the case. Life is not black and white and this issue can not be seperated into two classes of people - those who believe exactly as you do and those who do not. There is an entire spectrum of beliefs and attitudes in between and it is this understanding that you must acknowledge.

[ki4kxq]

1) 48 states have some form of Concealed Carry law.
2) Only Wisconsin and Illinois do not.
<blockquote>a) Illinois, as would be expected due to Chicago, is a fairly high violent crime state - ranks 13th in the nation.
b) Wisconsin is a very low crime state, ranking 32nd. US Census data (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html)</blockquote>

Yes, but only 40 states have shall carry statutes. The other states have may carry statutes. Those may carry states tend to make it almost impossible to get a carry permit. Therefore, they may as well not have a carry law at all.

[Boreas]

You keep spekaing from your own personal experiences and beliefs as if this is representative of all gun owners. This is not the case. Life is not black and white and this issue can not be seperated into two classes of people - those who believe exactly as you do and those who do not. There is an entire spectrum of beliefs and attitudes in between and it is this understanding that you must acknowledge.


That is a very good point. We all do tend to have pretty strong feelings on this. I for one, will not be buying a firearm to protect myself anytime soon. I cannot even imagine living with a worldview that suggests that danger is around every corner. I know there are neighbourhoods where this is a reality. I do not think guns are the reason or the solution for these neighbourhoods.

I am heading out on a drive across Canada and may not be in contact for a bit. Have a great summer.

[Sanslines]

That is a very good point. We all do tend to have pretty strong feelings on this. I for one, will not be buying a firearm to protect myself anytime soon. I cannot even imagine living with a worldview that suggests that danger is around every corner. I know there are neighbourhoods where this is a reality. I do not think guns are the reason or the solution for these neighbourhoods.

I am heading out on a drive across Canada and may not be in contact for a bit. Have a great summer.

Enjoy your safe drive across Canada. I will be coming to Canada again soon and will enjoy the peace and safety of such a civilized society.

I hope that you, along with other Canadians boycott coming to the USA. According to the gun people, the USA is drowning in violent crime. The only solution is to arm oneself and shoot to kill the viscious thugs who are lurking around every street corner. No doubt the bodies are piling up.

In Canada, people actually discuss and attempt to resolve the many social and economic problems that lead to violent crime. Such is not the case in the USA.

In short, just remember, if you come to the USA by all means arm yourself to the teeth and always shoot to kill first and ask questions later.

[Boreas]

Thanks Sanslines. I doubt we will be going through the states on our trip. My father keeps telling us we should do that because the gas is cheaper. If we did, we would maybe cross at Sault Ste. Marie......but then we'd miss some beautiful north shore of Lake Superior.....

I doubt that we'll want the hassle of crossing the border. It is not as easy as in the past. Plus, we will have a camper, so more to suspect.

Where will you be visiting in Canada? When you come, leave your guns at home. You will likely get a hassle at the border, and may have to leave it with the border folks. shocked

[NudeAl]

I think it is interesting how this subject has turned out. We seem to gravitate towards the controversial here. First off I think that the judge will make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. I also think only a fool would bring up the subject of gun control. Look at what happened in the congress once they passed further gun control the "control," in the congress went subsequently to the Republican Party and it stayed that way for almost a decade.

Ultimately prohibition never works, just look at the lawless 1920's or the continuing fiasco of the war on drugs. Outlawing guns would only make an exponentially bigger number of criminals. Gun ownership is totally ingrained in the American psyche we will never completely give up our guns. In fact the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and struck down a prohibitive Washington D.C. gun control law in D.C. Vs Heller. They also said that a certain level of control is necessary in order to regulate gun ownership. If the authorities simply enforce the regulations on the books then they will be reducing things as much as any regulation can. I am a responsible gun owner I also have a concealed carry permit and I do use it. I consider it my right and in some case my duty. I can appreciate how some here feel that living in a world with danger may seem scary. The courts have upheld the view that the police have no legal duty to protect you this was the result of a law suit against a police department for their failure to protect a woman who had a restraining order against an abusive former spouse. Ultimately you are responsible for you own safety. One more thing when we look at the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written it is against the back drop of the American Revolution when we had just narrowly defeated a strong centralized government. Our founding fathers were very apprehensive of a strong centralized government and in fact that was the purpose of the amendment. To remind those in power that, as Jefferson put it, "A just government derives its power from the consent of the governed." Or as old Ben Franklin put it, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."

[Sanslines]

Thanks Sanslines. I doubt we will be going through the states on our trip. My father keeps telling us we should do that because the gas is cheaper. If we did, we would maybe cross at Sault Ste. Marie......but then we'd miss some beautiful north shore of Lake Superior.....

I doubt that we'll want the hassle of crossing the border. It is not as easy as in the past. Plus, we will have a camper, so more to suspect.

Where will you be visiting in Canada? When you come, leave your guns at home. You will likely get a hassle at the border, and may have to leave it with the border folks. shocked

Later in August or September is when I will come. I usually cross at the Peace Bridge (Buffalo - Ft Erie) and then slowely make my way to different parts of Southern Ontario. Stratford is just one of many really nice towns.

As for guns, there are periodic attempts by the Canadian govenrment to slow down the entry of illegal firearms from the USA to Canada. For some strange reason, there does not seem to be much of a problem with guns being smuggled from Canada to the USA.

I have seen the RCMP show up in force and stand literally shoulder to shoulder on the Candian side of the border. They will stop and search any vehicle and person who appears to be the least bit suspicious.

Of course Americans will scream about 'their rights' but such screams fall on deaf ears in Canada. Some Americans seem to forget that Canada is a soverign nation that will enforce their own laws. Canada does not exist to blindly and obediently enforce American laws on their side of the border.

Don't worry about my bringing any guns to Canada as I don't need them. Canada is a civilized and peaceful country where the vast majority of people do not have to be concerned about violent crime. I hae never felt threatened or fearful in Canada. Perhaps the reason for this is because Canadians don't want to live in a nation consumed by violent crime and will try different things to control this difficult problem.

[nimrod]

Don't blame the problems on the guns!

I did not blame the problem on guns. If you had read any of my previous posts you would have seen that I told others that I do not think that violence or crime happens because of guns.

To explain this further there are problems in this society that need to be addressed and worked out so that people do not feel the need to turn to crime or violence as the only solution to their problems. Now that does not mean that everyone with problems can be helped it depends on what the problems are and how willing the person is to work on them. So if the problems were solved before the turn to violence or crime, the "need" to protect yourself would be lessened.

[Boreas]

Sanslines, you will be in my part of the country. Southern Ontario is our destination and we will be in Niagara Falls one day during that trip. I think I am going to have to take a side trip to Fort Erie to see if my grandparents' house is still around. My father grew up there and in Niagara Falls.

The Mounties seem to be more enamoured with their tasers these days.......though hopefully they will be more thoughtful about how and when they use them.

Yes, we are a sovereign nation, and we do not hold the same fascination with guns as you do in the US. I guess history shows us why. Your ancestors fought the British and threw tea into the Boston harbor. Mine fought on the side of the Crown in the Revolution and then came here in the 1780's.

Your hero is the cowboy, ours is the Mountie. Need I say more?

[Sanslines]

Boreas,

When you are in Toronto, you can sign the petition:

Canada-wide handgun ban

http://www.toronto.ca/handgunban/index.htm



FACT SHEET:
IMPACT OF FIREARMS IN CANADA


•

Canadian police services reported 8,105 victims of violent gun crime, ranging from assault to robbery and homicide in 2006 – a rate of almost 1 person per hour victimized by violent gun crime.


•


On average more than 1,200 Canadians are killed and over 1,000 injured with firearms each year. The economic costs of gun deaths and injuries in Canada are estimated at $6 billion per year.


Impact on Children and Youth


•


Firearms deaths are the third leading cause of death among young people aged 15-24.


•


Among 26 industrialized countries, Canada ranks fifth in the rate of firearm deaths among children under the age of 14 years. In 2004/2005, 49 Ontario children aged 10-14 required emergency department visits due to firearm injuries.


•


Youth (12-17 years) accused of committing a violent offence are more likely than adults to use a firearm. In 2006, Canadian police services reported 1,287 youth accused of a firearm-related violent offence – a rate of over 3 youths per day accused of a firearm-related violent offence.


•


The national rate of youth accused of a firearm-related violent crime increased by 32% between 2002 and 2006, with the 2006 rate being the highest point recorded since Statistics Canada began making data available in 1998.


•


The 2006 rates of youth accused of a firearm-related violent crime in Toronto (96.2 per 100,000 youth) is well above the national average (55.5) and higher than all other Canadian Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs).



Public Health Impact


•


Gun violence is a serious public health issue. Firearms are the agent of many injuries and deaths, including unintentional injuries (eg. Accidental discharge of firearms), suicide and suicide attempts, and assaults (eg. Partner violence, shootings).


•


Firearms are a significant public health concern for the City of Toronto. In an average year a person is taken to the emergency room every second day in Toronto due to a firearm injury, either intentional or unintentional.


•


In both Ontario and Toronto, more people visit emergency rooms with unintentional firearm injuries – in which the person discharging the firearm does not intend to hit anyone – than with intentional injuries such as assault. This demonstrates that the public safety threat from firearms does not depend on the intent of the user, but is related to the presence of the firearm itself.

•


The presence of a firearm makes it more likely that a suicide attempt or partner violence will result in serious injury or death.


Firearms in Toronto


•


In 2006, one-quarter of all firearms-related violent crimes in Canada occurred in the city of Toronto, as well as the highest proportion of violent crimes involving firearms – one-quarter of all firearm-related victimizations in Canada.


•


Handguns accounted for 86% of all firearm homicides in Toronto in 2006 (a much higher proportion than equivalent national figures).


•


Toronto has almost three times the national proportional rate of “restricted” and “prohibited” firearms. According to Canadian Firearms Registry data, there are almost 10,000 “restricted” or “prohibited” firearms registered to Toronto residents – over 1 in 4 of all firearms registered to Toronto residents.


Tracking the Sources of Illegal Firearms


•


The major sources of illegal firearms in Canada are smuggled firearms and theft from domestic sources. Approximately 60% to 66% (two-thirds) of guns seized by the Toronto Police Service enter Canada illegally across the Canada-U.S. border, and about one-third (up to 40%) are from domestic sources. In 2005, the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) seized 495 firearms at Canadian border crossings – a 55% drop in the number of firearms seized compared to 2004 (1,099 firearms).


•


Each day, about 5,500 new handguns are sold in the United States; there are 81,325 federally licensed dealers and pawnbrokers in the United States (three times the number of McDonald’s franchises) – and 238 active federally licensed firearms manufacturers across 43 states.


Approximately 160 handguns per hour were manufactured in the United States in 2006.


•


Approximately 85,000 firearms, including 44,000 restricted firearms (e.g. handguns) are recorded as stolen or missing in the Canadian Police Information Centre records (dating back to 1974).
http://www.toronto.ca/handgunban/pdf/factsheet.pdf (http://www.toronto.ca/handgunban/pdf/factsheet.pdf)


As the above fact sheet clearly indicates, there is a very serious problem of illegal gun entry from the USA to Canada. Canada is within her sovereign rights to do whatever is necessary to protect her citizens from this USA based cross border threat.

[Naturist Mark]

Yes, but only 40 states have shall carry statutes. The other states have may carry statutes. Those may carry states tend to make it almost impossible to get a carry permit. Therefore, they may as well not have a carry law at all.
39 states have "shall issue" carry laws.
2 states have no concealed carry laws (Wisconsin and Illinois)
9 states have "may issue" carry laws. 3 of which are "shall issue" in practice (Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa). And 3 of which almost never issue permits (Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii). The remaining 3, New York, Massachusetts and California very according to the whims of local officials, typically they are close to "shall issue" in rural areas and much less in urban areas.

Rank in violent crime rates by state

"may issue" states that are effectively "shall issue": average rank 31
Alabama 23
Connecticut 37
Iowa 33

"may issue" states that go either way: average rank 19
New York 22
Massachusetts 20
California 14

"may issue" states that rarely issue permits: average rank 23
Maryland 8
New Jersey 26
Hawaii 36

No carry states: average rank 22
Wisconsin 32
Illinois 13

Average rank of the 39 "shall carry" states? 25 - right in the middle.

Which is surprising since the "may issue" and "no issue" states include many of the largest most urban states. There doesn't appear to be any significant correlation between carry laws and the rate of violent crime.


US Census (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html)

[Sanslines]

You are wrong. Everyone that has a concealed carry permit must take a class to show marksmanship and how the law applies in various situations. Someone breaking into your home, especially while you are telling them to stop, whether they are armed or not, is a threat to your well being. That is reason to pull your weapon and fire. Proper training also tells you that if you have to pull your weapon because the situation is that dire, you are to fire to kill. Period.

I am NOT wrong. I have done the research. You obviously have not attempted to do so.

Requirements vary a great deal from state to state. Not all states require training. The types of training also vary a great deal from state to state.

From Wiki:

Training

Some states require concealed carry applicants to participate in a training course, which includes a classroom at a minimum. Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. Such courses are often completed in one to two days. The classroom topics typically include firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm) mechanics and terminology, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon.

Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues. Even when self-defense is justified there can be serious civil liabilities related to self-defense. For example, if innocent bystanders are hurt or killed there could be both civil and criminal liabilities even if the use of deadly force was completely justified. Some states also technically allow an assailant who is shot by a gun owner to bring civil action. However, a majority of states who allow concealed or open carry forbid suits being brought in such cases, either by barring lawsuits for damages resulting from a criminal act on the part of the plaintiff, or by granting the gun owner immunity from such a civil suit if it is found that he or she was justified in shooting.

Therefore, while state laws vary, generally use of deadly force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force) is recommended as a last resort, when life or limb is endangered, when escape or retreat are foreclosed, and warnings are given but ignored. However, increased passage of "Castle Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine)" laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to also use them to protect property, and/or to use them without first attempting to retreat.
During the range portion of the course the applicant typically learns and demonstrates safe handling and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency. Some states (e.g., Florida) recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable. Such states will allow a military ID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Privilege_and_Ide ntification_Card) for active persons or DD214 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD214) for legally discharged persons in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Active and retired law enforcement officers are also generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.

[Skinview]

39 states have "shall issue" carry laws.
2 states have no concealed carry laws (Wisconsin and Illinois)
9 states have "may issue" carry laws. 3 of which are "shall issue" in practice (Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa). And 3 of which almost never issue permits (Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii). The remaining 3, New York, Massachusetts and California very according to the whims of local officials, typically they are close to "shall issue" in rural areas and much less in urban areas.

Rank in violent crime rates by state

"may issue" states that are effectively "shall issue": average rank 31
Alabama 23
Connecticut 37
Iowa 33

"may issue" states that go either way: average rank 19
New York 22
Massachusetts 20
California 14

"may issue" states that rarely issue permits: average rank 23
Maryland 8
New Jersey 26
Hawaii 36

No carry states: average rank 22
Wisconsin 32
Illinois 13

Average rank of the 39 "shall carry" states? 25 - right in the middle.

Which is surprising since the "may issue" and "no issue" states include many of the largest most urban states. There doesn't appear to be any significant correlation between carry laws and the rate of violent crime.

US Census (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html)

Thanks Mark, that is an interesting post. But you left out the "unrestricted" catagory - states that have no requirement for a permit at all. Vermont has always been unrestricted, and it ranks 48th in violent crime. Alaska recently became unrestricted, and it ranks 6th.

The top fourteen safest states, in order, are:
Maine (safest)
North Dakota
Vermont
New Hampshire
South Dakota
Utah
Rhode Island
Wyoming
Idaho
Montana
Kentucky
West Virginia
Oregon
Connecticut

All but Rhode Island are either "shall issue" states, or "unrestricted", and all of the top six states are "shall issue", or "unrestricted". Clearly, the freedom to bear arms does not drive up violence. None of the "no issue" states are on the list. Gun control doesn't put a place in the company of the safest states.

The fourteen most violent states, in order:
South Carolina (worst)
Tennessee
Nevada
Florida
Louisiana
Alaska
Delaware
Maryland
New Mexico
Michigan
Arkansas
Missouri
Illinois
California

Of the fourteen most violent states, three are "may issue", and one (Illinois) is "no issue". If "no issue" DC were a state, it would be by far the most violent state in the country. If we compare the two lists, we see that a state with more restrictive gun control is four times more likely to land on the violent list than the safe list, and being a "no carry" won't get you on the "safe" list at all. But even so, I'm not going to disagree with Mark's conclusion, although there have been studies showing that lifting restrictions correlates with drops in crime rates. And the most violent place in the nation, DC, has the most draconian gun control, and the place with the least (none at all) gun control, Vermont, is very nearly the safest place in the country.

[Skinview]

Canadian police services reported 8,105 victims of violent gun crime, ranging from assault to robbery and homicide in 2006 – a rate of almost 1 person per hour victimized by violent gun crime...
As the above fact sheet clearly indicates, there is a very serious problem of illegal gun entry from the USA to Canada. Canada is within her sovereign rights to do whatever is necessary to protect her citizens from this USA based cross border threat.

Wow, it sounds like those guns are making Canada a terribly dangerous place, but then I am reassured by you that that is not so...


Canada is a civilized and peaceful country where the vast majority of people do not have to be concerned about violent crime. I hae never felt threatened or fearful in Canada.

I guess there isn't much need to sign your petition.

[Sanslines]

Wow, it sounds like those guns are making Canada a terribly dangerous place, but then I am reassured by you that that is not so...



I guess there isn't much need to sign your petition.



You may wish to reconsider signing the petition. You seem to acknowledge (based in part upon my assurances) that Canada is a relatively safe country. Certainly this is due in part to gun laws that are much more restrictive then in the USA. The Canadians believe that such gun laws are working and are attempting to strengthen their gun laws with further restrictions especially in areas such as Toronto. Thanks for indirectly acknowledging that strict gun laws work.

[gmoney]

why should Sanslines ever feel threatened or fearful.
He's the martial arts expert remember and can SNAP your neck before you know what happened.

His own post shows just how safe Canada is with its gun restrictions.lol

[gmoney]

It appears that you didn't read the posts very carefully for if you did you would have noticed that it is not my petition. You also didn't read the statistical information provided very carefully and apply common sense for you would understand that the majority of gun related crime occurs where the majority of people live ie in places such as Toronto. In very remote places where there are few people, such as the far north, the incidence of gun related crime is less. Therefore, making sweeping generalizations about 'Canada' (as you have done) is incorrect and misleading.

Please take a trip to Canada to inform yourself of the vast diversity of this nation. Just be certain to leave your guns at home.

The same can be said about America but you seem to let that little fact go over your head.

With only 33,000,000 people in Canada do the math....

[MoonShadow]

Why cant you fathom it is used for self defense only. I think most people need NO training to know when someone is trying to attack them.




RIGHT ON!!!!

I disagreed. If I feel threatened you have two options retreat or face death.
Simple logic!

Sure it is enough. The gun equalizes the unequal.Let the CRIMINAL make the choice of what to do.



Don't blame the problems on the guns!

Whewee! Glad I don't know you. Talk about trigger happy.

[Skinview]

Whewee! Glad I don't know you. Talk about trigger happy.??? How so? If he has reason to feel threatened with grave bodily injury or death, he has a right to use leathal force to defend himself. He has given no indication whether his judgement regarding what is a real threat is good or bad. If someone kicked down my door and charged me with a knife, I'd feel threatened. Wouldn't you? Who would blame someone for shooting in that situation?

[Skinview]

It appears that you didn't read the posts very carefully for if you did you would have noticed that it is not my petition.I was aware of that. If you have the petition in hand, so to speak, and you are asking people to sign it, then it would be regarded as "yours" in common English, even if you did not author it.



You also didn't read the statistical information provided very carefully and apply common sense for you would understand that the majority of gun related crime occurs where the majority of people live ie in places such as Toronto. In very remote places where there are few people, such as the far north, the incidence of gun related crime is less. Therefore, making sweeping generalizations about 'Canada' (as you have done) is incorrect and misleading.They are your sweeping generalizations. I guess you are incorrect and misleading. Maybe you should apply common sense next time.


Please take a trip to Canada to inform yourself of the vast diversity of this nation. Just be certain to leave your guns at home.I have been to Canada many times. But since I can't bring my guns, maybe I'll just stay home and spend my money in the US.

[Boreas]

Experts on Canada now, eh? How interesting.

To listen to a couple of you, it would sound like the wolves are the door ready to attack, so guns are necessary to ward off the IMMINENT evil.

If that IS your world, I will just avoid it. It is not my world. In fact, I am currently enjoying a fresh, clear, quiet Alberta morning. The birds and singing. Sure, there are neighbourhoods where there might be a risk of gun violence in Edmonton or Calgary, but that risk is small if you are not in the drug business.

Methinks there is a little paranoia around.

[Sanslines]

I was aware of that. If you have the petition in hand, so to speak, and you are asking people to sign it, then it would be regarded as "yours" in common English, even if you did not author it.


If you followed the link then you would know who authored it. I did not author it. If I asked anyone to sign a book that was authored by 'Joe Smith', does asking someone to sign that book make it my book? I think not. It clearly is still 'Joe Smith's' book even though I requested that someone sign it. Perhaps you attempt to take credit for other's work. I do not.



They are your sweeping generalizations. I guess you are incorrect and misleading. Maybe you should apply common sense next time.

Next time please read the post more carefully and you will understand the difference between sweeping generalizations about Canada versus the specifics given concerning the Province of Ontario and Toronto. The distinctions are clear to anyone who bothers to read such posts c.a.r.e.f.u.l.l.y.


I have been to Canada many times. But since I can't bring my guns, maybe I'll just stay home and spend my money in the US.

Then you must certainly have first hand experience as to how more restrictive gun laws work in Canada. No wonder you agree that Canada is an overall safe country in part due to more restrictive gun laws. No wonder there is a call for even more restrictive common sense gun laws in Canada.

You may also be aware of the article in the Toronto Sun about how some Americans were caught at the Canadian border attempting to improperly bring guns into Canada. The first thing that these people screamed was "Second Amendment Rights!" These people obviously did not understand that Canada is a soverign nation with their own laws and rights. American Laws and Rights do not automatically apply in Canada. Oh the outrageous ignorance about Canada and yet you want such people to have guns??

Now that I have finally cleared up your deliberate confusion we can all move on to more productive things.

[jon71]

The same can be said about America but you seem to let that little fact go over your head.

With only 33,000,000 people in Canada do the math....


In America we own the most handguns in the world by far and if not the highest homicide rate in the world close to in. That's not a coincidence.

[Naturist Mark]

Thanks Mark, that is an interesting post. But you left out the "unrestricted" catagory - states that have no requirement for a permit at all.

No, I included them along with the "shall issue" states, since "not needing" a permit is functionally equivalent to "shall issue".

[gmoney]

In America we own the most handguns in the world by far and if not the highest homicide rate in the world close to in. That's not a coincidence.

America ranks 24th in homicides. I wish the anti gun side would at least do some research before they blurt out answers...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

worth reading
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm

Not sure if handguns is the right word.
Lets say US has the most guns...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

[gmoney]

28th ranked has most homicides. How can that be?

18th ranked is #2. Where's this trend the antis speak of?

#3 in homicides dont even make top 34 countries with gun ownership.

[Naturist Mark]

America ranks 24th in homicides. I wish the anti gun side would at least do some research before they blurt out answers...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Just don't look too closely at who we are sharing company with - mostly nations undergoing massive socioeconomic upheaval, failed states, or nations with active insurgencies.

[Skinview]

Just don't look too closely at who we are sharing company with - mostly nations undergoing massive socioeconomic upheaval, failed states, or nations with active insurgencies.
Russia?
Mexico?
Panama?
Thailand?
Is there an insurgency in Lithuania?

[Skinview]

If you followed the link then you would know who authored it. I did not author it.I never said you authored it. Work on your reading disability.


If I asked anyone to sign a book that was authored by 'Joe Smith', does asking someone to sign that book make it my book? I think not.You think wrong. Work on your English. A dictionary might help you too.



Next time please read the post more carefully and you will understand the difference between sweeping generalizations about Canada versus the specifics given concerning the Province of Ontario and Toronto. The distinctions are clear to anyone who bothers to read such posts c.a.r.e.f.u.l.l.y.The person here with the reading disability is not me.



Then you must certainly have first hand experience as to how more restrictive gun laws work in Canada. No wonder you agree that Canada is an overall safe country in part due to more restrictive gun laws.I never said that. Again, please work on your reading disability.



You may also be aware of the article in the Toronto Sun about how some Americans were caught at the Canadian border attempting to improperly bring guns into Canada. The first thing that these people screamed was "Second Amendment Rights!" These people obviously did not understand that Canada is a soverign nation with their own laws and rights. American Laws and Rights do not automatically apply in Canada.The Second Amendment does not create an American right. It forbids the government from violating a preexisting natural right. It is a right of virtually all human beings all over the world.


Now that I have finally cleared up your deliberate confusion we can all move on to more productive things.I'm not confused, you have a reading disability.

[Skinview]

In America we own the most handguns in the world by far and if not the highest homicide rate in the world close to in. That's not a coincidence.Its not a coincidence, its a falsehood. I already pointed out on this thread that it is not so:

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=233061&postcount=183

And then you and I discussed it:

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=233121&postcount=194

And then you threw a tantrum and called me a liar:

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=233175&postcount=207


Here is the link that I posted earlier. According to Wikipedia, the US homocide rate ranks around 50th in the world. The homocide rate in Russia is nearly three times what it is in the US, and Russia only ranks 19th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

[jon71]

Its not a coincidence, its a falsehood. I already pointed out on this thread that it is not so:

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=233061&postcount=183

And then you and I discussed it:

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=233121&postcount=194

And then you threw a tantrum and called me a liar:

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=233175&postcount=207


Here is the link that I posted earlier. According to Wikipedia, the US homocide rate ranks around 50th in the world. The homocide rate in Russia is nearly three times what it is in the US, and Russia only ranks 19th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate



Which is a joke. Mexico and Russia are the only countries even close to America in the homicide rate. The rest of the world runs a single digit percentage of us and you know it. There's no tantrum here but I'm still calling you a liar, albeit a transparent one.

[jon71]

I never said you authored it. Work on your reading disability.

You think wrong. Work on your English. A dictionary might help you too.


The person here with the reading disability is not me.


I never said that. Again, please work on your reading disability.


The Second Amendment does not create an American right. It forbids the government from violating a preexisting natural right. It is a right of virtually all human beings all over the world.

I'm not confused, you have a reading disability.


That "natural right" is a figment of your imagination. You said previously you believed in natural law. There is no such thing. That's just a weak excuse used by people who don't have a leg to stand on in real law.

[Sanslines]

I never said you authored it. Work on your reading disability.

You think wrong. Work on your English. A dictionary might help you too.


The person here with the reading disability is not me.


I never said that. Again, please work on your reading disability.


The Second Amendment does not create an American right. It forbids the government from violating a preexisting natural right. It is a right of virtually all human beings all over the world.

I'm not confused, you have a reading disability.

I have no reading disability. Obviously your only means of dispute is to personally attack me. The problem that I (and others) have with your style of commuincation is that you are deliberately obtuse. You just seem incapable of communicating in a clear, specific, concise manner and do this deliberately so that you can dispute when others try to pin you down. In other words, you are deliberatley wishy washy.

I never said that you said that I authored it and you know it so please stop with your misguinded personal attacks about my having a reading disability. You are deliberately implying things that are not there.

I disputed your claim that the article is mine. I used my definition of petition ownership. I clarified my definition by the statement that I did not author the petition. I have written no statement that claims in any way, shape, or form where I specifically stated that I believed that you thought that I authored the article. Got it now. See how clear and specific writing works? Do you see how the obtuse mind also works?

Clearly you are playing games, are totally confused, or both. Certainly you continue to be deliberately obtuse because you can not dispute the facts so you resort to repeating the same tired nonsense about my having a reading disability. I wish you could do better then posting such nonsense - obviously not. You have a communication problem and there is absolutely nothing that I (or others) can do to make you realize that.

The rest of your replies are obvious misguided, wishy washy, nonsensical dribble that is not worth the time to post a reply.

[Sanslines]

That "natural right" is a figment of your imagination. You said previously you believed in natural law. There is no such thing. That's just a weak excuse used by people who don't have a leg to stand on in real law.

It's worse then that. It is deliberately vague and wishy washiness at work. Notice how there is no clear and consise definition of what the person who originally wrote 'natural right' thinks that such a statement means. A reasonable intelligent person would understand that such a statement means different things to different people. Knowing this and yet posting such a deliberately vague statement always creates a means for dispute. This is a classic style that some deliberately use. Such individuals can never be pinned down and they do not want to ever be pinned down. They always want to leave a 'way out' for themselves when someone clearly proves them wrong. They may even stoop so low as to resort to personal attack against others due to their own deliberate obtusiveness.

[Naturist Mark]

Russia? - insurgency in southern provinces - for example Chechnya, Ingushetia, and economic upheaval

Mexico? failed state, insurgency and narcowar

oland? socioeconomic upheaval

Thailand? socioeconomic upheaval

Is there an insurgency in Lithuania? socioeconomic upheaval

[Boreas]

I am on my BlackBerry and cannot remember who posted about the second amendment reflecting a natural right. I would encourage the author of that thought to try exercising that 'right' in Canada, if he can cross the border with the firearm in the first place. Good luck to you.

[gmoney]

- insurgency in southern provinces - for example Chechnya, Ingushetia, and economic upheaval
failed state, insurgency and narcowar
socioeconomic upheaval
socioeconomic upheaval
socioeconomic upheaval

Always finding an excuse to dispute the facts.
GET REAL!
You think that is not happening in the ghettos in the usa?

[gmoney]

It's worse then that. It is deliberately vague and wishy washiness at work. Notice how there is no clear and consise definition of what the person who originally wrote 'natural right' thinks that such a statement means. A reasonable intelligent person would understand that such a statement means different things to different people. Knowing this and yet posting such a deliberately vague statement always creates a means for dispute. This is a classic style that some deliberately use. Such individuals can never be pinned down and they do not want to ever be pinned down. They always want to leave a 'way out' for themselves when someone clearly proves them wrong. They may even stoop so low as to resort to personal attack against others due to their own deliberate obtusiveness.

you really need help.

What I find most troubling of your kind is how everything is OK for gays to have rights, and everything is ok for nudist to have rights but when it comes to my right to own firearms it's not ok.

That is WHY liberals just do not get it. If you beleive in fighting for people's rights then fight for all of them instead of picking and choosing like YOU do!

[jon71]

you really need help.

What I find most troubling of your kind is how everything is OK for gays to have rights, and everything is ok for nudist to have rights but when it comes to my right to own firearms it's not ok.

That is WHY liberals just do not get it. If you beleive in fighting for people's rights then fight for all of them instead of picking and choosing like YOU do!


It has something to do with the fact that we possess the ability to think. With gay rights it's easy. EQUALITY. If an adult hetero couple can be legally wed an adult gay couple should as well. Same for adoption, property rights, etc. There should be equality across the board. It's no more acceptable to deny people their basic rights based on sexual orientation than it would be based on gender, race, religion, or anything else.
Also if you were paying the least bit of attention you would know that no one wants to end your "right" to own guns, we just believe in common sense limits. I believe in free speech but if anybody tried to make kiddie porn and cite the first amendment I wouldn't blink, they belong in jail. If someone tried to give/sell military secrets to another country again, they belong in jail, the first amendment wouldn't protect them. If they shouted "fire" in a crowded theater, again, jail. If they committed libel, a monetary fine would probably suffice. There are more examples. I support the right to free speech but have the brains to know it's not absolute. I support your right to own a gun, but I'm smart enough to know there needs to be some limits on that. I'm sure we'll never agree on what those limits should be but know that you'll never be taken seriously unless you acknowledge there needs to be limits.

[Naturist Mark]

Always finding an excuse to dispute the facts.
GET REAL!
You think that is not happening in the ghettos in the usa?

LOL

GET REAL!
Always finding a reason to dispute my responses!

YES - I do think that is happening in the ghettos in the USA, and in the suburbs and rural areas too!

That is why I mentioned looking at the countries we are sharing company with. The right has spent 30 years turning us into a third world nation - and it worked!

[sdcal]

Jon71 - Amen. I believe we should be able to own (some) guns, but no one needs assault rifles, automatic weapons and the like. But so many claim the absolute right to have any weapons they wish. And that is dangerous.

So is the claim that we don't need waiting periods or background checks. There are too many ex-felons out there buying weapons they don't need for defense.

[gmoney]

It has something to do with the fact that we possess the ability to think. With gay rights it's easy. EQUALITY. If an adult hetero couple can be legally wed an adult gay couple should as well. Same for adoption, property rights, etc. There should be equality across the board. It's no more acceptable to deny people their basic rights based on sexual orientation than it would be based on gender, race, religion, or anything else.
Also if you were paying the least bit of attention you would know that no one wants to end your "right" to own guns, we just believe in common sense limits. I believe in free speech but if anybody tried to make kiddie porn and cite the first amendment I wouldn't blink, they belong in jail. If someone tried to give/sell military secrets to another country again, they belong in jail, the first amendment wouldn't protect them. If they shouted "fire" in a crowded theater, again, jail. If they committed libel, a monetary fine would probably suffice. There are more examples. I support the right to free speech but have the brains to know it's not absolute. I support your right to own a gun, but I'm smart enough to know there needs to be some limits on that. I'm sure we'll never agree on what those limits should be but know that you'll never be taken seriously unless you acknowledge there needs to be limits.
A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.

[NudeAl]

I am on my BlackBerry and cannot remember who posted about the second amendment reflecting a natural right. I would encourage the author of that thought to try exercising that 'right' in Canada, if he can cross the border with the firearm in the first place. Good luck to you.

Certainly you can cross the border with a firearm as long as you declare it and store it in a locked and sealed case and are enroute to the 49th US State Alaska no worries.

[NudeAl]

Jon71 - Amen. I believe we should be able to own (some) guns, but no one needs assault rifles, automatic weapons and the like. But so many claim the absolute right to have any weapons they wish. And that is dangerous.

So is the claim that we don't need waiting periods or background checks. There are too many ex-felons out there buying weapons they don't need for defense.

While I fully understand the reason for waiting periods and background checks we should realize these are not fool proof measures and there will be those disturbed individuals who slip thourgh the cracks. Another point here, what other Ammendment requires any such validation? I'm just saying what other freedom do we require a similar validation for? There isn't one. Should we require similiar background checks before someone is allowed to exercise their freedom of speech, unlawful search and seizure what next? It is indeed a slippery slope when we begin to tinker with these rights be very careful for once the genie is out of the bottle it will be damn near impossible to put him back. Eternal vigilence is the price of freedom.

[jon71]

A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.



Find something about what I said that isn't logical or Biblical. You can't do it.

[Fitz1980]

A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.

Biblical standards and logical standards are polar opposites. Conservatives like to use biblical standards for things make no logical sense because "it says so in the bible" or that's how it was always done" (even though a 500 year old tradition is traditional but hardly how things were ALWAYS done). There are loony lefties with some crazy ideas (9/11 truthers for example) but most right-wingers in this country have politics that are based on nothing but logical fallacies, religious superstition, urban legends and crazy social experiments from Ayn Rand's cult.

[MoonShadow]

There are loony lefties with some crazy ideas (9/11 truthers for example) but most right-wingers in this country have politics that are based on nothing but logical fallacies, religious superstition, urban legends and crazy social experiments from Ayn Rand's cult.


Well stated and love the Ayn Rand reference. LOL

[MoonShadow]

This afternoon is the vote on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. It's looking good!

[nimrod]

What I find most troubling of your kind is how everything is OK for gays to have rights, and everything is ok for nudist to have rights but when it comes to my right to own firearms it's not ok.

That is WHY liberals just do not get it. If you beleive in fighting for people's rights then fight for all of them instead of picking and choosing like YOU do!

Dude you really need to stop with the generalizations, I am a liberal and I agree that people should have the rights to own guns, but as Jon stated there should be restrictions,


A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.

Why do you feel the need to resort to insults that are not even based in reality? I do not know where you got your view of what a liberal is but it is not even close to the truth. Biblical standards are not alway based in logic. Is it self-centered to want everyone to have certain rights? Is that even a "liberal" concept?

I know for me that there has to be some thought behind the rights that we have. It does not make sence to have all rights for everyone, but it also does not make sence to take some rights away from everyone because some choose to abuse the rights they have.

[Sanslines]

This afternoon is the vote on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. It's looking good!

It's over! Soto is confirmed!!

[gmoney]

Dude you really need to stop with the generalizations, I am a liberal and I agree that people should have the rights to own guns, but as Jon stated there should be restrictions,



Why do you feel the need to resort to insults that are not even based in reality? I do not know where you got your view of what a liberal is but it is not even close to the truth. Biblical standards are not alway based in logic. Is it self-centered to want everyone to have certain rights? Is that even a "liberal" concept?

I know for me that there has to be some thought behind the rights that we have. It does not make sence to have all rights for everyone, but it also does not make sence to take some rights away from everyone because some choose to abuse the rights they have.

There are restrictions...Over 1,000 laws already in place. You don't get it.
Nothing NOTHING you enact is gonna stop CRIMINALS from getting guns.
You will only take rights away from law abiding citizens.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

And for the "insult" you refer to, that came from a dictionary.
I know the truth hurts but its real...

Everyone of you repeatingly say "we need common sense gun laws"
We already have them don't you know that?

[jon71]

There are restrictions...Over 1,000 laws already in place. You don't get it.
Nothing NOTHING you enact is gonna stop CRIMINALS from getting guns.
You will only take rights away from law abiding citizens.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

And for the "insult" you refer to, that came from a dictionary.
I know the truth hurts but its real...

Everyone of you repeatingly say "we need common sense gun laws"
We already have them don't you know that?


No, we don't. We have some token laws, that's not the same thing. It's currently a fig leaf of what we need.

[jon71]

Justice Sotomayor was just confirmed by the Senate in a vote of 68 to 31. Senator Kennedy was not present due to health reasons. Every Democrat voted to confirm as did nine Republicans. Congratulations to our newest Supreme court justice.

[walter05]

I am glad that there has been confirmation of the U.S.'s second Hispanic Justice.

Justice Benjamin Nathan Cordoza was the first Hispanic U.S. Justice.

Walter

[Fitz1980]

I am glad that there has been confirmation of the U.S.'s second Hispanic Justice.

Justice Benjamin Nathan Cordoza was the first Hispanic U.S. Justice.

Walter

Perhaps.

Taken from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo#The_question_of_Cardozo.27s_et hnicity

Cardozo was the second Jew, after Louis Brandeis, to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Although Cardozo was a member of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish community, there has been recent discussion as to whether Cardozo should be considered the 'first Hispanic justice,' a notion which is disputed.[15][16][17] Cardozo-biographer Kaufman, for example, questioned the usage of the term "Hispanic" in the justice's lifetime, stating: "Well, I think he regarded himself as a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors came from the Iberian Peninsula.”[18]

It has also been asserted that Cardozo himself "confessed in 1937 that his family preserved neither the Spanish language nor Iberian cultural traditions".[19] Both the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Hispanic National Bar Association consider Sonia Sotomayor to be the first unequivocally Hispanic justice.

Cordozo biographer Andrew Kaufman states that Cordozo was Portuguese, coming from Portugal on the Iberian peninsula, which brings up the problem inherent in the term Hispanic. What sort of ancestry qualifies as Hispanic? According to the U.S. Census of the Office of Management and Budget, "The term 'Hispanic' refers to persons who trace their origin or descent to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and other Spanish cultures." But Associated Press defines Hispanic as coming from a Spanish-speaking country, and distinguishes Hispanic from those of Brazilian and Portuguese descent, and Webster's dictionary defines Hispanic "Of or relating to the language, people, or culture of Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America." Therefore, even though Cordoza may not necessarily fit the given definition of Hispanic, he can presumably be referred to as Latin, which has a broader definition despite it's different meanings in different parts of the country.

[Naturist Mark]

I am glad that there has been confirmation of the U.S.'s second Hispanic Justice.

Justice Benjamin Nathan Cordoza was the first Hispanic U.S. Justice.

Walter

Perhaps. Depends of if you consider Portuguese to be "Hispanic". Iberian certainly.

[Skinview]

No, I included them along with the "shall issue" states, since "not needing" a permit is functionally equivalent to "shall issue".
They are not equivalent. By imposing a requirement for a permit, which often involves expensive classes, trips to the police station, fingerprinting, waiting, and generaly being treated like a criminal suspect, people are deterred from going through the trouble. And there are fees involved which can be expensive, which also deters people from getting a permit and supresses the right to bear arms. Here in Massachusetts, rising permit costs to simply possess a firearm have dramatically lowered the number of persons owning firearms. There is a real effectual difference between states that require permits and those that don't.

[Skinview]

Which is a joke. Mexico and Russia are the only countries even close to America in the homicide rate. The rest of the world runs a single digit percentage of us and you know it. There's no tantrum here but I'm still calling you a liar, albeit a transparent one.
And here folks, we have a most fascinating and extreme case of irrational denial. We have two different posters here providing links to two different sites that each show dozens of other nations with higher homocide rates than the US, yet jon71 continues to call me a liar when I point out that the US is not in the top three, nay, even near the top rank of nations with high homocide rates. He reminds me of a small child with frosting all over his face, denying that he has eaten some cake before dinner time. Tell us jon, how many people are involved in this conspiracy to fabricate homocide statistics? How deep a hole are you going to dig yourself into?

[Skinview]

That "natural right" is a figment of your imagination. You said previously you believed in natural law. There is no such thing. That's just a weak excuse used by people who don't have a leg to stand on in real law.

That would be people like John Locke and every signer of the Declaration of Independence. Read the preamble. This nation was founded on the idea of natural rights.

If two people land on Mars, and one tries to kill the other, it is still wrong, even if there were no laws, and everyone else on Earth were dead. Everyone has a right to live, and defend themselves, regardless of the law. Most rights don't come from pieces of paper. The Supreme Court has acknowledged this when they recognized that there is a right to privacy, and a right to use birth control, and a right to an abortion (contentious though that may be), and the Ninth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was adopted so that no one could say that a right didn't exist because its wasn't written in the Bill of Rights. And "that 'natural right'" to bear arms was acknowledged by the Supreme Court, in the Heller decision, to be a preexisting right. Its hardly a figment of my imagination.

[Skinview]

It's worse then that. It is deliberately vague and wishy washiness at work. Notice how there is no clear and consise definition of what the person who originally wrote 'natural right' thinks that such a statement means.
That person would be John Locke (unless someone here can think of an earlier writer), in his book, Of Civil Government. Its a classic in philosophy.


A reasonable intelligent person would understand that such a statement means different things to different people. Knowing this and yet posting such a deliberately vague statement always creates a means for dispute. This is a classic style that some deliberately use. Such individuals can never be pinned down and they do not want to ever be pinned down. They always want to leave a 'way out' for themselves when someone clearly proves them wrong.
I see a rude and vague pile of accusations here with no cited instance of any such thing.



They may even stoop so low as to resort to personal attack against others due to their own deliberate obtusiveness. You go on for line after line attacking me, and then you make another attack with:

They may even stoop so low as to resort to personal attack against others due to their own deliberate obtusiveness.
How amusing. Sort of like shouting that I am too loud at the top of your lungs.

[Skinview]

I am on my BlackBerry and cannot remember who posted about the second amendment reflecting a natural right. I would encourage the author of that thought to try exercising that 'right' in Canada, if he can cross the border with the firearm in the first place. Good luck to you.
We tried twice long ago, but I'm sure if the US tried again, we could cross the border with lots of firearms and liberate Canada with much better luck than we had before. Thanks for the invitation. ;)

Come to think of it, the last time we tried it, the author of the Second Amendment was President. If only he had advocated a powerful standing army, rather than the defensive militia force that we had at the time. The irony...

[Naturist Mark]

They are not equivalent. By imposing a requirement for a permit, which often involves expensive classes, trips to the police station, fingerprinting, waiting, and generaly being treated like a criminal suspect, people are deterred from going through the trouble. And there are fees involved which can be expensive, which also deters people from getting a permit and supresses the right to bear arms. Here in Massachusetts, rising permit costs to simply possess a firearm have dramatically lowered the number of persons owning firearms. There is a real effectual difference between states that require permits and those that don't.

They are functionally equivalent when contrasting them with states where you can't get a carry permit, or where it is difficult to get one. You can discount them from inclusion with the "shall issue" states if you wish, but that just makes the argument that "shall issue" makes you safer even harder to justify.

My conclusion is that the results are all over the map, and there is no clear trend showing that carry laws - permissive or restrictive - have any effect on rates of violent crime. Clearly there are other controlling factors involved.

[jon71]

And here folks, we have a most fascinating and extreme case of irrational denial. We have two different posters here providing links to two different sites that each show dozens of other nations with higher homocide rates than the US, yet jon71 continues to call me a liar when I point out that the US is not in the top three, nay, even near the top rank of nations with high homocide rates. He reminds me of a small child with frosting all over his face, denying that he has eaten some cake before dinner time. Tell us jon, how many people are involved in this conspiracy to fabricate homocide statistics? How deep a hole are you going to dig yourself into?



I'm not digging I'm too busy laughing at you. Just recently a man walked into a gym with a gun and shot several women, killing three. His only motive was misogyny. It wasn't too long ago a man shot up a Knoxville church because they weren't conservative like he was. It happens every day in America. Tell me Skinview, how often does this kind of thing happen in Poland or Lithuania or other "high crime" countries (snicker snicker) that you think is so much more violent than America.

[Skinview]

Jon71 - Amen. I believe we should be able to own (some) guns, but no one needs assault rifles, automatic weapons and the like.Since when is a right limited to what someone or some government decides we "need"?


But so many claim the absolute right to have any weapons they wish. And that is dangerous.Not as much as you would think. As has been written here before, Swiss citizens have heavy machine guns and assault rifles in their homes, and its very peaceful there.


So is the claim that we don't need waiting periodsConsidering that nearly half of all homes already have a firearm in them, and there is no waiting period to steal a gun, and gun stores are only open part of the day, and you hardly need a gun to kill someone anyway, there really isn't much point in violating people's rights with a waiting period. And what of people that need a firearm right away? What if some violent, abusive man threatens to kill his ex wife? Is she supposed to wait, defenseless, in fear for her life?



or background checks.The NRA supported the passage of the law that requires an instant background check.


There are too many ex-felons out there buying weapons they don't need for defense.It is already illegal to sell firearms to ex-felons, and there is a background check, and that doesn't stop ex-felons from getting guns.

[jon71]

That would be people like John Locke and every signer of the Declaration of Independence. Read the preamble. This nation was founded on the idea of natural rights.

If two people land on Mars, and one tries to kill the other, it is still wrong, even if there were no laws, and everyone else on Earth were dead. Everyone has a right to live, and defend themselves, regardless of the law. Most rights don't come from pieces of paper. The Supreme Court has acknowledged this when they recognized that there is a right to privacy, and a right to use birth control, and a right to an abortion (contentious though that may be), and the Ninth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was adopted so that no one could say that a right didn't exist because its wasn't written in the Bill of Rights. And "that 'natural right'" to bear arms was acknowledged by the Supreme Court, in the Heller decision, to be a preexisting right. Its hardly a figment of my imagination.


As you just admitted America was not founded on "natural law", America was founded with a constitution. The right to privacy, birth control and abortion are in the 9th Amendment as unwritten rights. That's not a natural right because the constitution SPECIFICALLY spells out that we have rights above and beyond those mentioned. If the ninth amendment hadn't been included those rights wouldn't exist. If that were ever repealed, poof, they're gone. They exist ONLY because our founders included that amendment.

[Skinview]

Biblical standards and logical standards are polar opposites. Conservatives like to use biblical standards for things make no logical sense because "it says so in the bible" or that's how it was always done" (even though a 500 year old tradition is traditional but hardly how things were ALWAYS done).Thats one reason I call myself a "libertaian", instead of a "conservative".


There are loony lefties with some crazy ideas (9/11 truthers for example) but most right-wingers in this country have politics that are based on nothing but logical fallacies, religious superstition, urban legends and crazy social experiments from Ayn Rand's cult.My mom is reading Atlas Shrugged right now. ;)

[Skinview]

I'm not digging I'm too busy laughing at you. Just recently a man walked into a gym with a gun and shot several women, killing three. His only motive was misogyny. It wasn't too long ago a man shot up a Knoxville church because they weren't conservative like he was. It happens every day in America. Tell me Skinview, how often does this kind of thing happen in Poland or Lithuania or other "high crime" countries (snicker snicker) that you think is so much more violent than America.
Well, the answer is that it happens about 62% more often in Lithuania. Their homocide rate is 9.38 per 100,000, and ours is 5.8.
I blundered with Poland. I'll have to go back and fix that. I ment Paraguay, or Panama, or Papua New Guinea, or Pakistan, or if you want another eastern European nation, Latvia. The US still ranks 51st in its homocide rate.

[Skinview]

As you just admitted America was not founded on "natural law", America was founded with a constitution.No, I didn't say that. I wrote that it was founded with the Declaration of Independance, and the rational for that Declaration was spelled out in the preamble of the Declaration as being based in natural law.


The right to privacy, birth control and abortion are in the 9th Amendment as unwritten rights.I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but the operative word is "unwritten". There is no particular right mentioned in the Ninth Amendment. They are not "in" the Ninth Amendment.



That's not a natural right because the constitution SPECIFICALLY spells out that we have rights above and beyond those mentioned. If the ninth amendment hadn't been included those rights wouldn't exist. If that were ever repealed, poof, they're gone. They exist ONLY because our founders included that amendment.Not at all. The Ninth Amendment says:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
- Amendment IX, US Constitution

It doesn't say, "there shall be, henceforth, a whole bunch of new rights, but we aren't telling you what they are."

The founders thought in a natural rights framework. If the 2nd and 9th Amendments were repealed, they wouldn't think their rights were gone, they would think their rights were being violated, and then they would overthrow the government. Violently.

[Skinview]

They are functionally equivalent when contrasting them with states where you can't get a carry permit, or where it is difficult to get one.
Thats like saying nine is functionally equivalent to five, because they are both more than zero. Yeah, the "unrestricted" are farther in the same direction, but I maintain there is a difference for the reasons that I stated.


You can discount them from inclusion with the "shall issue" states if you wish, but that just makes the argument that "shall issue" makes you safer even harder to justify.Granted. But they also make it harder to justify the argument (well, Vermont does), that more gun restrictions make you safer.


My conclusion is that the results are all over the map, and there is no clear trend showing that carry laws - permissive or restrictive - have any effect on rates of violent crime. Clearly there are other controlling factors involved.Agreed. Like most libertarians, I am for freedom more for moral, rather than utilitarian, reasons.

[Skinview]

- insurgency in southern provinces - for example Chechnya, Ingushetia, and economic upheaval
I suppose one could debate whether Chechnya is in Russia. I'd be curious to know if the folks who compiled the statistics thought so. But its been quite a while since the Soviet Union fell. I wouldn't say they are in a state of economic "upheaval".


failed state, insurgency and narcowar
Mexico is far from a failed state. And we have the same war on drugs. The "narcowar" wasn't nearly so hot a few years ago. The latest stats are from 2007, and they have a much lower homocide rate than those of previous years. The rate was 10 per 100,000 in 2007, compared to 17.5 in 2003.
There is an insurgency in Mexico?


socioeconomic upheaval
socioeconomic upheavalDitto re the end of the cold war 17 years ago.

[jon71]

No, I didn't say that. I wrote that it was founded with the Declaration of Independance, and the rational for that Declaration was spelled out in the preamble of the Declaration as being based in natural law.

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but the operative word is "unwritten". There is no particular right mentioned in the Ninth Amendment. They are not "in" the Ninth Amendment.


Not at all. The Ninth Amendment says:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
- Amendment IX, US Constitution

It doesn't say, "there shall be, henceforth, a whole bunch of new rights, but we aren't telling you what they are."

The founders thought in a natural rights framework. If the 2nd and 9th Amendments were repealed, they wouldn't think their rights were gone, they would think their rights were being violated, and then they would overthrow the government. Violently.


Regardless of semantics if we didn't have the 9th amendment we wouldn't have those rights. If the constitution was amended to remove the 9th amendment those "natural" rights would instantly disappear. I'd fight that tooth and nail by the way but that's the way it is.

[Sanslines]

........... And "that 'natural right'" to bear arms was acknowledged by the Supreme Court, in the Heller decision, to be a preexisting right. Its hardly a figment of my imagination.

Anyone who has read and understood the Heller decision knows very well the following:

"However, "like most rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right), the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

along with the following dissents:

"Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.

The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston,_Massachusetts) the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that "guns were 'responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'"
With these two supports, the Breyer dissent goes on to conclude, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach") of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime.

The Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#related_fallacies)."

There is NO natural right to bear arms. This is another vague and misleading statement. The Heller case addressed the specific issue of handguns in Washington DC. As the specifics of the Heller decision clearly show, there is no natural right to bear any and all arms. There are limits as to what kinds of arms that a person may bear and those limits have been maintained.

[walter05]

Fitz1980 said;

"Well, I think he regarded himself as a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors came from the Iberian Peninsula."

That seems to sound hispanic to me. No Hispanic American today is required to take a language or cultural test.

Sephardic Jewish is a cultural heritage from the Iberian peninsula from the time that the Moslems ruled the Iberian peninsula. At that time, there was no Spain or Portugal yet. Later when the Spain and Portugal were formed, Jews from those areas still considered themselves Sephardic.

Justic Sotomayer was not required to take a language or culture test to prove that she is Hispanic. Justice Cordoza was not either.

[Skinview]

Anyone who has read and understood the Heller decision knows very well the following:

"However, "like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."You misqoute the ruling:

" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884)."

The Supreme Court did not make a ruling that "...the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever...", it merely pointed out that some fraction of lower courts have thus ruled. The Vermont Supreme Court, on the other hand, has ruled to the contrary in regard to carrying arms. This is still an unresolved issue in regard to the Second Amendment. But we do agree with Scalia's point, which is uncontroversial, that there are limits. But that doesn't mean the government can impose any limit that it thinks might have some utility. As the Supreme Court ruled:

"the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."



along with the following dissents:The operative word is "dissents". A majority of the court disagreed with them.


"Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.

The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston,_Massachusetts) the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that "guns were 'responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'"
With these two supports, the Breyer dissent goes on to conclude, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach") of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime.And Scalia countered that point, discussing the inapplicability of those laws, which had trivial restrictions, to the case before them, and concluded on a broader note:

" We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would notapply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

Myself, I would point out that if one could find some examples of some early laws that were contrary to a strong gun rights interpretation, that would not shed much light on the intent of the founders for two reasons:
1)At that time, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States as it does now, and
2)Even if it did apply, it could certainly be the case that a legislature could have passed a law that was unconstitutional. At no time in history have all Americans been of the same mind. In early America, many states had laws against people of certain religious beliefs, and other laws favoring certain religions. Those laws are clearly, shockingly, contrary to the First Amendment, and stayed on the books well into the 19th century.


The Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#related_fallacies)."On this point, I entirely agree with Bryer, but probably with different objectives. Scalia seeks to justify limitations which are unsupportable.


There is NO natural right to bear arms. This is another vague and misleading statement. The Heller case addressed the specific issue of handguns in Washington DC. As the specifics of the Heller decision clearly show, there is no natural right to bear any and all arms. There are limits as to what kinds of arms that a person may bear and those limits have been maintained.The decision repeatedly referenced a natural right to bear arms:

"it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”"

"Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999) , cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,”"

" “The right to bear arms has always been the distinctive privilege of freemen. Aside from any necessity of self-protection to the person, it represents among all nations power coupled with the exercise of a certain jurisdiction. … It was not necessary that the right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution, for it had always existed.” J. Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation in the United States 241–242 (1891)."

[Sanslines]

" “The right to bear arms has always been the distinctive privilege of freemen. Aside from any necessity of self-protection to the person, it represents among all nations power coupled with the exercise of a certain jurisdiction. … It was not necessary that the right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution, for it had always existed.” J. Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation in the United States 241–242 (1891)."

As far as the above statement is concerned, the 'right to bear arms' does not specify what arms. It can reasonable be concluded that the only arms that are are allowed are the ones that existed when the right to bear arms statement was first made.

Subsequently, legal precedence has already established that there are reasonable limits as to what types of arms that a person can bear.

As far as Scalia is concerned, his ruling was very controversial.

What the "Gun Rights" People Really Want: A Heller Do-over (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/what-the-gun-rights-peopl_b_232202.html)

Guns And Sotomayor

"Why would the pro-gun folks want a Heller do-over? Didn't the Heller Court vindicate their vision of the Second Amendment? Not really. It is true that the Heller majority discovered a previously non-existent individual right to a gun in the home for self-defense. But the Court also reached out to affirm that a wide range of gun control laws -- from "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" to "prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons" -- are "presumptively lawful" even under the newly expansive reading of the Second Amendment. The "gun rights" crowd won a victory that may prove more symbol than substance."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/what-the-gun-rights-peopl_b_232202.html

[nimrod]

There are restrictions...Over 1,000 laws already in place. You don't get it.
Nothing NOTHING you enact is gonna stop CRIMINALS from getting guns.
You will only take rights away from law abiding citizens.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I do understand it, I do not know why you think I do not. One point is that a criminal should not be able to legally by a gun, that is just one restriction that I speak of.


And for the "insult" you refer to, that came from a dictionary.
I know the truth hurts but its real...

Well if it were the truth, it may hurt but since it is not I not much bothered by it as I am bothered by you trying to use the lie as an insult. I do not know which dictionary you looked that up in, but it is not in any dictionary I have seen. Do you have a special dictionary that is made by right-wingers for the purpose of insulting those on the left?

Liberal: 1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart; bountiful. 2. Appropriate or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind; as, a liberal education; liberal arts. 3. Free from narrowness, bigotry, or bondage to authority or creed, as in religion; inclined to democratic or republican ideas, as opposed to monarchical or aristocratic, as in politics; broad; popular; progressive. 4. Bestowed without stint; abundant. 5. Not restricted to the literal meaning; as, a liberal construction. 6. Free by or from birth; hence, of high character; refined; independent. See synonyms under AMPLE, CHARITABLE, GENEROUS.

That is the definition I get from my dictionary.


Everyone of you repeatingly say "we need common sense gun laws"
We already have them don't you know that?

There is only one of me so I do not know who you are refering to when you say "everyone of you". To the point, yes I do and I do not know why you think I would not, again. In my opinion there are some laws that do not seem like common sense to me. So I do not see why you are so upset and trying to argue those points with me, the laws excist. If you wish to repeal them thats on you.

[gmoney]

Backgrounds are already performed. How much more do you need?
They get the info they need from that?

[jon71]

Fitz1980 said;

"Well, I think he regarded himself as a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors came from the Iberian Peninsula."

That seems to sound hispanic to me. No Hispanic American today is required to take a language or cultural test.

Sephardic Jewish is a cultural heritage from the Iberian peninsula from the time that the Moslems ruled the Iberian peninsula. At that time, there was no Spain or Portugal yet. Later when the Spain and Portugal were formed, Jews from those areas still considered themselves Sephardic.

Justic Sotomayer was not required to take a language or culture test to prove that she is Hispanic. Justice Cordoza was not either.


I had always understood that "Hispanic" meant someone with a mixture of European and Central/South American ancestry. Wikipedia says it first meant someone descended from the Iberian peninsula, then it meant someone of Castillian (Spanish as in Spain) descent and then it meant someone from the Central/South American colonies ruled by Spain (Mexico, Peru, Columbia, Guatemala, presumably not Brazil). I don't think Cordozo considered himself Hispanic, for what that's worth.

[jon71]

You misqoute the ruling:

" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884)."

The Supreme Court did not make a ruling that "...the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever...", it merely pointed out that some fraction of lower courts have thus ruled. The Vermont Supreme Court, on the other hand, has ruled to the contrary in regard to carrying arms. This is still an unresolved issue in regard to the Second Amendment. But we do agree with Scalia's point, which is uncontroversial, that there are limits. But that doesn't mean the government can impose any limit that it thinks might have some utility. As the Supreme Court ruled:

"the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."


The operative word is "dissents". A majority of the court disagreed with them.

And Scalia countered that point, discussing the inapplicability of those laws, which had trivial restrictions, to the case before them, and concluded on a broader note:

" We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would notapply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

Myself, I would point out that if one could find some examples of some early laws that were contrary to a strong gun rights interpretation, that would not shed much light on the intent of the founders for two reasons:
1)At that time, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States as it does now, and
2)Even if it did apply, it could certainly be the case that a legislature could have passed a law that was unconstitutional. At no time in history have all Americans been of the same mind. In early America, many states had laws against people of certain religious beliefs, and other laws favoring certain religions. Those laws are clearly, shockingly, contrary to the First Amendment, and stayed on the books well into the 19th century.

On this point, I entirely agree with Bryer, but probably with different objectives. Scalia seeks to justify limitations which are unsupportable.

The decision repeatedly referenced a natural right to bear arms:

"it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”"

"Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999) , cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,”"

" “The right to bear arms has always been the distinctive privilege of freemen. Aside from any necessity of self-protection to the person, it represents among all nations power coupled with the exercise of a certain jurisdiction. … It was not necessary that the right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution, for it had always existed.” J. Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation in the United States 241–242 (1891)."


You're twisting yourself into a pretzel. You find one thing where you agree with Breyer, a liberal, something else where you disagree with Scalia, the conservative. You're working awfully hard to cherry pick the rulings to find what you like.

[jon71]

Backgrounds are already performed. How much more do you need?
They get the info they need from that?


Not always. Background checks need at least three business days to operate. Most statues just say three days. Criminals know this and love to apply for guns on Holiday weekends. A few years ago someone in charge of gun permits in Georgia kept the offices open over a holiday weekend to do background checks. Not only were a few hundred rejected for criminal convictions, restraining orders and the like, but several wanted criminals were apprehended as they applied for a gun. If the office had been closed as would usually be the case these wanted criminals would have "legally" gotten a gun on Monday by default. That's one loophole that desperately needs to be closed, it has to be no less than three business days to conduct the background check. Also mental instability needs to be a disqualifier. It is in some places and not in others. The gunman at V.A. Tech. "legally" got his guns despite being insane.

[Naturist Mark]

Hey ... I just realized something. Now that I have a "right" to own firearms, affirmed by the Supreme Court no less, it should be just like the other rights I have, like Life, Liberty, Speech, Habeas Corpus (that one is back right? It is mentioned twice in the Constitution), Religion, Not-to-have-soldiers-quartered-in-my-home, trial by jury, etc.

So just like all the others - that right should be free - it should be illegal to require me to pay for that right.

Therefore, the government owes me free guns.

Now don't be all wishy washy and say that I just have a right "buy guns". That is not what the Constitution and the Supreme Court said. A "right" that is infringed by prerequisites is not a right, it is merely a privilege.

Where are my free guns!

[Sanslines]

.........Where are my free guns!

They are waiting for you to pick them up.............in Canada.

[Skinview]

Hey ... I just realized something. Now that I have a "right" to own firearms, affirmed by the Supreme Court no less, it should be just like the other rights I have, like Life, Liberty, Speech, Habeas Corpus (that one is back right? It is mentioned twice in the Constitution), Religion, Not-to-have-soldiers-quartered-in-my-home, trial by jury, etc.

So just like all the others - that right should be free - it should be illegal to require me to pay for that right.

Therefore, the government owes me free guns.

Take note Nimrod - THAT is an example of how a modern liberal thinks! They have the idea that the world owes them something when they are born.

A good libertarian would eschew government programs, and donate guns to the needy. ;)

[Skinview]

Not always. Background checks need at least three business days to operate. Most statues just say three days.
Do you get this crap from somewhere, or do you just make it up yourself? Background checks take about two minutes. Thats why the current system is called an "instant background check". It runs seven days a week, except for Thanksgiving and Christmas. If there is a glitch in the system, the law requires that it be resolved in no longer than three days, or the gun buyer will then receive his purchase by default. If it is later determined that the buyer is unqualified, the gun must be retrieved.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=82

[bobk]

Canada has restrictive guns laws and has a lower murder rate; therefore the gun laws are the reason the murder rate is lower. That is a great logical leap that ignores many factors.

Maybe the lower murder rate is responsible for the restrictive gun laws. Think about it. If you have one handgun murder and a second handgun murder occurs, that is a cause for alarm and there are cries for stricter handgun control.

[jon71]

Do get this crap from somewhere, or do you just make it up yourself? Background checks take about two minutes. Thats why the current system is called an "instant background check". It runs seven days a week, except for Thanksgiving and Christmas. If there is a glitch in the system, the law requires that it be resolved in no longer than three days, or the gun buyer will then receive his purchase by default. If it is later determined that the buyer is unqualified, the gun must be retrieved.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=82


Simply not true. Read a newspaper sometime. If you got information from anything other than the N.R.A. maybe you'd know something. This happened a few years ago and it was well covered in the news. Anything instant would only give you what's on the surface, not everything. Databases are not thoroughly linked to one another, different states and govt. agencies get territorial and don't share, files are updated slowly or not at all. A lot is missed and criminals know this. Too often people who should never be approved, even wanted criminals either pass these background checks or dodge them by applying on weekends and holidays. It's common place. Of course the N.R.A. doesn't want thorough background checks because that would mean fewer gun owners. Hunters and sport shooters are shrinking so they see criminals as their fastest growing base. Sad. In case anyone is curious the link provided by Skinview is "information" straight from the N.R.A. Asking the N.R.A. to provide facts on gun issues is like asking the klan to give you data on hate crimes.

[Sanslines]

Forget the background checks. Just head to a Virginia gun show where you can go out into the parking lot and buy any gun you wish straight out of the trunk of a seller's car with no questions asked. This happens day in and day out. Need a street sweeper - no problem.

[Naturist Mark]

Take note Nimrod - THAT is an example of how a modern liberal thinks! They have the idea that the world owes them something when they are born.

A good libertarian would eschew government programs, and donate guns to the needy. ;)

So you think people should be charged to exercise their Constitutional rights?
You can respond after paying me a $5 free speech fee.

See - I can be an objective realist too! Just waiting on all that think tank money from the Ayn Rand institute.

[Skinview]

As far as the above statement is concerned, the 'right to bear arms' does not specify what arms. It can reasonable be concluded that the only arms that are are allowed are the ones that existed when the right to bear arms statement was first made.Much as the freedom of the press is only limited to hand crank, moveable type, screw, printing presses of the sort used by Ben Franklin? Thats absurd. The Supreme Court actually addressed this in the Heller ruling, but I am surprised they wasted the ink:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

[Skinview]

So you think people should be charged to exercise their Constitutional rights?
You can respond after paying me a $5 free speech fee.

See - I can be an objective realist too! Just waiting on all that think tank money from the Ayn Rand institute.

The government owes you free newspapers and books now? Next thing, you know, you'll be asking for free health care. ;)

[Skinview]

Forget the background checks. Just head to a Virginia gun show where you can go out into the parking lot and buy any gun you wish straight out of the trunk of a seller's car with no questions asked. This happens day in and day out. Need a street sweeper - no problem.You can go anywhere in most states and buy a firearm from another individual who is not a gun dealer, with no questions asked. It has nothing to do with gun shows.

[Sanslines]

Much as the freedom of the press is only limited to hand crank, moveable type, screw, printing presses of the sort used by Ben Franklin? Thats absurd. The Supreme Court actually addressed this in the Heller ruling, but I am surprised they wasted the ink:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

The exact same claim can be made that any restriction on any arm is 'frivolous' therby allowing individuals to own anything that can be classified as an 'arm'. Of course such is not clearly not the case as common sense comes into play and prohibits individuals from owning 'arms' such as nuclear cannons, RPG's, etc.

You really need to look beyond the limited viewpoint of the NRA backed propoganda and then you will understand just how many absurdities that your quote contains.

The Second Amendement never specified 'bearable arms' yet this is a limitiation that has been included in your above post. It appears that the authors of your post refer to the interpetation of the Second Amendment that restricts arm ownership to those types of weapons that were availible in the 18 th century as 'frivolous claims' yet such authors post their own interpretation by including the qualifier word 'bearable'. How hypocritical of them (to say the least) to make such absurd statements.

[Sanslines]

You can go anywhere in most states and buy a firearm from another individual who is not a gun dealer, with no questions asked. It has nothing to do with gun shows.

Exactly and you have just proved my point about the loopholes in background checks. Yet your NRA resists any attempts to close such loopholes and continues with their propoganda nonsense about enforcing existing laws. Informed and intelligent people know that many existing laws can not be enforced as is but then again this is a dirty little secret that the NRA hopes people don't discover.

BTW you really need to stop thinking in absolute terms. Stating that buying a gun without a background check has nothing to do with gun shows is a false statement. Such a statement demonstrates that you are not familiar with Virginia.

[Naturist Mark]

Take note Nimrod - THAT is an example of how a modern liberal thinks! They have the idea that the world owes them something when they are born.

A good libertarian would eschew government programs, and donate guns to the needy. ;)


So you think people should be charged to exercise their Constitutional rights?
You can respond after paying me a $5 free speech fee.

See - I can be an objective realist too! Just waiting on all that think tank money from the Ayn Rand institute.


The government owes you free newspapers and books now? Next thing, you know, you'll be asking for free health care. ;)

Thanks for the reply. I accept paypal.

I accepted your proposition that it is proper to charge people for the exercise of their Constitutional rights. So I made a statement about that and offered a free market opportunity for a free speech discourse on the subject.

As a libertarian objective realist that post was the product of my own work and I have the "right" to control it, and laissez faire capitalism is the only proper manner to establish any exchange based upon it.

The ONLY role of government is to provide police to protect against criminals, national defense to protect against foreign aggression, and courts to enforce contracts. By replying to my post with the very reasonable $5 response charge you agreed to that commercial contract.

I can also process payment by Discover, Visa or Mastercard.

[Skinview]

Simply not true. Read a newspaper sometime. If you got information from anything other than the N.R.A. maybe you'd know something.If you won't believe the NRA, then maybe you will believe the FBI (or maybe not, as you think anyone who disagrees with you is lying):

" The NICS is a computerized background check system designed to respond within 30 seconds on most background check inquiries so the FFLs receive an almost immediate response.

"In 2006, the NICS Section achieved a 91.58 percent Immediate Determination Rate (IDR), not only surpassing its goal of maintaining a 90 percent or better IDR, but surpassing the 91.48 percent IDR achieved in 2005."

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm



Of course the N.R.A. doesn't want thorough background checks because that would mean fewer gun owners. Hunters and sport shooters are shrinking so they see criminals as their fastest growing base. Sad.Absurd.



In case anyone is curious the link provided by Skinview is "information" straight from the N.R.A. Asking the N.R.A. to provide facts on gun issues is like asking the klan to give you data on hate crimes.And the NRA link says the same thing as the FBI link, which is just another example of the NRA telling it like it is.

[Skinview]

Thanks for the reply. I accept paypal.

I accepted your proposition that it is proper to charge people for the exercise of their Constitutional rights. So I made a statement about that and offered a free market opportunity for a free speech discourse on the subject.

As a libertarian objective realist that post was the product of my own work and I have the "right" to control it, and laissez faire capitalism is the only proper manner to establish any exchange based upon it.

The ONLY role of government is to provide police to protect against criminals, national defense to protect against foreign aggression, and courts to enforce contracts. By replying to my post with the very reasonable $5 response charge you agreed to that commercial contract.

I can also process payment by Discover, Visa or Mastercard.
Is that a pirate outfit that you are wearing?

[Sanslines]

If you won't believe the NRA, then maybe you will believe the FBI (or maybe not, as you think anyone who disagrees with you is lying):

" The NICS is a computerized background check system designed to respond within 30 seconds on most background check inquiries so the FFLs receive an almost immediate response.

"In 2006, the NICS Section achieved a 91.58 percent Immediate Determination Rate (IDR), not only surpassing its goal of maintaining a 90 percent or better IDR, but surpassing the 91.48 percent IDR achieved in 2005."

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm


Absurd.


And the NRA link says the same thing as the FBI link, which is just another example of the NRA telling it like it is.

You forgot to mention all of the problems with those instant background checks. This is yet another example of the NRA screaming about enforcing existing laws and yet remaining silent about the problems associated with enforcing those laws. Some laws can not be properly enforced. The NRA knows this and yet continues to destroy any efforts to remedy the problems by replacing unenforceable laws with new enforceable laws.

<CENTER>THE INSTANT BACKGROUND CHECK
FOR GUN PURCHASERS</CENTER>
<CENTER>A Boon For New Identity Seekers</CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER><CENTER>http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/BackgroundChk.html</CENTER>

[Skinview]

The exact same claim can be made that any restriction on any arm is 'frivolous'...Well yes, anyone can call anything frivolous. Its not a very meaningful criticisim you are making.


You really need to look beyond the limited viewpoint of the NRA backed propoganda and then you will understand just how many absurdities that your quote contains.Oh, grow up, will you? We can sit behind our keyboards and type rude things like "You really need to look beyond the limited viewpoint of the HCI backed propoganda and then you will understand just how many absurdities that your text contains" all day long, but I don't have time for such childishness.


The Second Amendement never specified 'bearable arms' yet this is a limitiation that has been included in your above post. It appears that the authorsThat is Justice Scalia, speaking for the US Supreme Court


of your post refer to the interpetation of the Second Amendment that restricts arm ownership to those types of weapons that were availible in the 18 th century as 'frivolous claims' yet such authors post their own interpretation by including the qualifier word 'bearable'. How hypocritical of them (to say the least) to make such absurd statements.I'm not seeing any logic in what you are saying. What is your connection between bearable arms and 18th century arms?

[Skinview]

You forgot to mention all of the problems with those instant background checks. This is yet another example of the NRA screaming about enforcing existing laws and yet remaining silent about the problems associated with enforcing those laws. Some laws can not be properly enforced. The NRA knows this and yet continues to destroy any efforts to remedy the problems by replacing unenforceable laws with new enforceable laws.Oh? Such as?


THE INSTANT BACKGROUND CHECK FOR GUN PURCHASERS
A Boon For New Identity Seekers
Interesting. But the alternative is not to have a background check. I'm ok with that, but I would think that a background check is something that you would want.

[Naturist Mark]

Is that a pirate outfit that you are wearing?

Nay! It is the uniform of a libertarian free market merchant sailor and marine security entrepreneur.

I also accept Western Union money orders.

[Skinview]

Exactly and you have just proved my point about the loopholes in background checks. Yet your NRA resists any attempts to close such loopholes
Please give an example of that, if you can.


and continues with their propoganda nonsense about enforcing existing laws. Informed and intelligent people know that many existing laws can not be enforced as is but then again this is a dirty little secret that the NRA hopes people don't discover.The NRA has said over and over that gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they only keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding.



BTW you really need to stop thinking in absolute terms.You really need to be less rude.


Stating that buying a gun without a background check has nothing to do with gun shows is a false statement. Such a statement demonstrates that you are not familiar with Virginia.Its not a false statement. There is no difference between and individual buying a gun from another invividual at a gun show and doing it in a living room. And what is so peculiar about Virginia? The sale of firearms between private individuals is legal everywhere I know of. Perhaps there is a state that outlaws that, but offhand, I'm not aware of one.

[Skinview]

Nay! It is the uniform of a libertarian free market merchant sailor and marine security entrepreneur.

I also accept Western Union money orders.
I have no gold for you, only lead.

[Sanslines]

Well yes, anyone can call anything frivolous. Its not a very meaningful criticisim you are making.

Then why did you post an article that refers to the interpetation that the Second Amendment is restricted to those guns that existed at the time that the Second Amendment was drafted as 'frivolous'. You are correct that you posted a rather meaningless criticism.


Oh, grow up, will you? We can sit behind our keyboards and type rude things like "You really need to look beyond the limited viewpoint of the HCI backed propoganda and then you will understand just how many absurdities that your text contains" all day long, but I don't have time for such childishness.

Then look beyond the NRA propoganda and try to understand what others are pointing out to you. You make ridiculous comparisions of printing presses to guns and expect others to take such a comparison seriously?


That is Justice Scalia, speaking for the US Supreme Court

Is this supposed to mean something? If you read the past posts about the controversy and bias surrounding Scalia's logic and decisions, you would realize that mentioning Scalia is not always a very wise thing to do.


I'm not seeing any logic in what you are saying. What is your connection between bearable arms and 18th century arms?

The Second Amendment states 'the right to bear arms'. Making the statement 'the right to bear arms' is not necessarily the same as making the statement 'the right to bearable arms'. Therefore it would be incorrect to use such statements interchangeable.

This is another example of how some are so certain that their interpretation of the Second Amendment is the only correct interpretation that they will not even acknowledge certain fundamntal facts about the English language. The same word in the English language can have totally different meanings based upon the context in which the word is used.

This actually brings up an entirely different aspect of how the Supreme Court interprets vague statements. There are rules as to how to interpret documents. Those rules are not sacred and can be modified though challenge.

[Naturist Mark]

I have no gold for you, only lead.

Aha! You are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist!

You voluntarily replied to my post with the contractual obligation to pay a free speech fee. Now you refuse payment! Either you believe that it is wrong to demand payment in exchange for use of a Constitutional right, or you are an admitted outlaw.

[Kouak]

Now that she has been confirmed and is taking the oath of office today, can we close this thread especially since it has totally gone off topic?

[Naturist Mark]

Now that she has been confirmed and is taking the oath of office today, can we close this thread especially since it has totally gone off topic?

Ah, but the subtext goes on and on and on.

Anything Obama does ---> ultra liberal ----> socialist ----->communist --------->freedom hating ----------> gun confiscating----------> racist ----------> labor camps ---------->killing senior citizens --------------->Death Panels ----------->drying up Americas vital juices

And the same goes for anyone Obama knows or has ever known. Thus Sotomayor, the centrist to conservative jurist with the longest history on the bench of any nominee for the last century, is judged as an ultra radical racist, despite the clear contradiction of her judicial record because Obama picked her and of one completely out of context sentence from a speech that was construed to mean exactly the opposite of what she clearly meant.

Nope. This thread was never about Sotomayor. It has always been about opposing anything touched by Obama without thought or evidence.

[Sanslines]

I have no gold for you, only lead.

Ah ha! So the real truth come out as to why Skinview wants his guns. Instead of fulfilling an agreed upon contractual agreement, he prefers to use his guns to threaten someone (ultimately with death). No wonder he is so opposed to any changes in gun laws. He would be the first to have his guns taken away.

[jon71]

If you won't believe the NRA, then maybe you will believe the FBI (or maybe not, as you think anyone who disagrees with you is lying):

" The NICS is a computerized background check system designed to respond within 30 seconds on most background check inquiries so the FFLs receive an almost immediate response.

"In 2006, the NICS Section achieved a 91.58 percent Immediate Determination Rate (IDR), not only surpassing its goal of maintaining a 90 percent or better IDR, but surpassing the 91.48 percent IDR achieved in 2005."

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm


Absurd.


And the NRA link says the same thing as the FBI link, which is just another example of the NRA telling it like it is.


If you think the N.R.A. "tells it like it is" then you clearly don't live in the real world. I pity you.

[jon71]

Honestly it's become an exercise in showing the world how disconnected from reality Skinview is and we've done that at least a dozen times already, maybe several dozen. I think it's a shame the original topic has been so scantily addressed but maybe that testifies that Justice Sontomayor herself isn't very controversial.

[nimrod]

Take note Nimrod - THAT is an example of how a modern liberal thinks! They have the idea that the world owes them something when they are born.

A good libertarian would eschew government programs, and donate guns to the needy. ;)

Take a note Skinview, that is what is known as sarcasm.

[Sanman]

We can know the original intent of the second amendment. The problem is schools today no longer make the Federalists papers (and anti-federalists papers) required reading material. Reading these will clear up any confusion over how one should "interpret" the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

[Sanslines]

Oh? Such as?

Such as specified in the above link that I provided for you.



Interesting. But the alternative is not to have a background check. I'm ok with that, but I would think that a background check is something that you would want.

No, the alternative is not to throw away the background check because of accuracy problems with the database. The obvious alternative is to fix the problems with the database.

[Sanslines]

Please give an example of that, if you can.

Severals problems and loopholes that exist with the background check database are elaborated upon in the above posted link that I provided for you.


The NRA has said over and over that gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they only keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding.

The NRA says many things - do you believe that everything they say is absolutely and completely true?


Its not a false statement. There is no difference between and individual buying a gun from another invividual at a gun show and doing it in a living room. And what is so peculiar about Virginia? The sale of firearms between private individuals is legal everywhere I know of. Perhaps there is a state that outlaws that, but offhand, I'm not aware of one.

You misunderstand that point. Read this article and then you will understand the point about gun shows and loopholes with the background check:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml

Here are just a couple of exerpts as to why Virginia is so peculair when it comes to guns:

".....people come to (gun) shows like the one in Virginia because that's where guns are easier to buy. Virginia is a main source of guns that end up in crimes in several northern states where gun controls are stricter.

"You probably can walk this parking lot and find people selling guns out of the trunk of their vehicles," Massengill told Stahl.

And that's legal. "There are no restrictions in Virginia against private sales as far as background checks. And again, that amazes me that in this day and time we would not want to know, as sellers, whom we're selling to," he said.

But imposing any restrictions on gun sales in Virginia is nearly impossible.

Consider what happened when a bill was introduced to close just the gun show loophole following the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.

With overwhelming public support, it was sure to pass, given the outrage over the worst shooting in modern U.S. history. Thirty-two students and teachers were shot and killed by a mentally disturbed student, Seung-Hui Cho.

Lily Habtu, who was shot in the jaw and survived, says the loophole must be closed. "Convicted felons can walk into a gun show. The mentally ill can go into a gun show and purchase whatever they want," she told Stahl. "Without a background check." ........."



"AKs [rifles] and other firearms, once forbidden under the ban, now fill entire tables at gun shows; you can buy them from private sellers without a background check."

"These assault weapons are essentially designed and made to kill numbers of people in close combat," Senator Dianne Feinstein of California told Stahl.

Sen. Feinstein was the author and champion of the assault weapons ban in 1994. "They become the guns of choice of drug cartels, of gangs, of people who are mentally incompetent. Our police on the streets are essentially outgunned. Lesley, Friday I was at a funeral in Oakland, California. Four police officers slain."



"The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."

[Skinview]

Severals problems and loopholes that exist with the background check database are elaborated upon in the above posted link that I provided for you.No, there aren't. The closest thing to a "loophole" mentioned is this:

"The most difficult file to be created would be that of mentally ill and insane individuals. A few individuals who are in long-term mental facilities might be readily identified, but what about someone who is placed in a mental hospital for 72 hours of observation? There is no effective way to maintain an accurate database of these people."

Certainly not everyone, and probably not most, who have ever been in a mental hospital for observation should be disqualified from gun ownership. An episode of depression does not make one a dangerous person.

But the author of the essay wasn't making a list of loopholes, he was making an argument against creating a background check system at all. The essay was written nine years ago, and since then, thanks in part to action by the NRA, Congress has moved to make NICS data, on individuals who are disqualified due to mentally illness, more comprehensive.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/politics/main2923101.shtml



Interesting. But the alternative is not to have a background check. I'm ok with that, but I would think that a background check is something that you would want.

No, the alternative is not to throw away the background check because of accuracy problems with the database. The obvious alternative is to fix the problems with the database.The author of the essay in YOUR link wants to toss the background check, and for several reasons in addition to database problems.



The NRA says many things - do you believe that everything they say is absolutely and completely true?I do not expect them to be impartial, but what they say is far more likely to be true than what you write.



You misunderstand that point. Read this article and then you will understand the point about gun shows and loopholes with the background check:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml

Here are just a couple of exerpts as to why Virginia is so peculair when it comes to guns:

".....people come to (gun) shows like the one in Virginia because that's where guns are easier to buy. Virginia is a main source of guns that end up in crimes in several northern states where gun controls are stricter.Notice it says "a" source. In the same article, it says there are thirty states that allow private sales without background checks.

"In Virginia and more than 30 other states, people who aren't gun dealers can sell firearms at gun shows without conducting background checks.

Actually, these private sellers can peddle their guns anywhere: at shows, in their private homes, or out of their cars."

Which is what I wrote in my earlier post. There is nothing special about Virginia or gun shows.

And here in Massachusetts, the anti gun people complain about guns coming from Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont (which all have lower violent crime rates than Massachusetts).
Virginia is not peculiar.


"You probably can walk this parking lot and find people selling guns out of the trunk of their vehicles," Massengill told Stahl.And in more than thirty other states.


And that's legal. "There are no restrictions in Virginia or more than thirty other states
against private sales as far as background checks. And again, that amazes me that in this day and time we would not want to know, as sellers, whom we're selling to," he said.Since when do I have to do a background check to know who I am selling to? I wouldn't hesitate to sell my gun to a friend or relative, and any parent ought to be able to give his son or daughter a gun without a background check. That's how I got my grandfather's deer rifle.


But imposing any restrictions on gun sales in Virginia is nearly impossible.Fortunately.


Consider what happened when a bill was introduced to close just the gun show loophole following the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.There is no gun show loophole.



Lily Habtu, who was shot in the jaw and survived, says the loophole must be closed. "Convicted felons can walk into a gun show. The mentally ill can go into a gun show and purchase whatever they want," she told Stahl. "Without a background check."Not from a dealer they can't.



"AKs [rifles] and other firearms, once forbidden under the ban, now fill entire tables at gun shows; you can buy them from private sellers without a background check."Or more than thirty other states.


"These assault weapons are essentially designed and made to kill numbers of people in close combat," Senator Dianne Feinstein of California told Stahl.Actually, no. "These assault weapons" aren't assault weapons. Their design has been modified to take the full auto capability out of them. Some are hunting rifles that have been made to look sexier by putting synthetic stocks on them. They are for collection and target shooting, and some are good for hunting or defense.


Sen. Feinstein was the author and champion of the assault weapons ban in 1994. "They become the guns of choice of drug cartels, of gangs,Complete and utter BS. Few sensible criminals want long guns. They can't be concealed very easily, and they are unweildy, too easy for someone else to grab or deflect in close quarters, and so on. Which is why they are very rarely used in crime. Feinstein is a shameless liar. The assault weapons ban was a deceptive peice of partisan propoganda that totally backfired on the Democrats. They narrowly passed it, and then gun owners threw the Democrats out of office.



of people who are mentally incompetent.Now THAT I believe. You would have to be mentally incompetant to want an assault rifle to commit a crime.



Our police on the streets are essentially outgunned. Lesley, Friday I was at a funeral in Oakland, California. Four police officers slain."With what? She doesn't say.

[Skinview]

Aha! You are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist!

You voluntarily replied to my post with the contractual obligation to pay a free speech fee. Now you refuse payment!I never agreed to your fee.



Either you believe that it is wrong to demand payment in exchange for use of a Constitutional right, or you are an admitted outlaw.Hey, if you can provide me with a good (like a gun, or a book) that I want, which is covered by Constitutional protection, I will be glad to pay you for it.

Oh, and on this point, anarchists and libertarians agree.

[Skinview]

Ah ha! So the real truth come out as to why Skinview wants his guns.Naaah. I'll poison him with it. ;)

[Skinview]

Take a note Skinview, that is what is known as sarcasm.

Yes nimrod, we know.

[Sanslines]

No, there aren't. The closest thing to a "loophole" mentioned is this:

"The most difficult file to be created would be that of mentally ill and insane individuals. A few individuals who are in long-term mental facilities might be readily identified, but what about someone who is placed in a mental hospital for 72 hours of observation? There is no effective way to maintain an accurate database of these people."

Certainly not everyone, and probably not most, who have ever been in a mental hospital for observation should be disqualified from gun ownership. An episode of depression does not make one a dangerous person.

Here we go again. I hate to cut and paste but you leave me no other option. The title of the link is:



<CENTER>THE INSTANT BACKGROUND CHECK
FOR GUN PURCHASERS</CENTER>


<CENTER>A Boon For New Identity Seekers</CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER>
The article clearly addresses the problems associated with making the transition from the old way of conducting background checks to the new, instant way. The article goes into detail as to how a new and accurate database did not exist. The article also mentions that human error will be a problem when creating such a database that will include millions of names. The article goes into some detail as to how individuals can exploit the instant background check by using a fake id. This is one of the loopholes that must be closed. The other problem or loophole that must be addressed is the reduction or elimination of human error associated with the creation of the database.




But the author of the essay wasn't making a list of loopholes, he was making an argument against creating a background check system at all. The essay was written nine years ago, and since then, thanks in part to action by the NRA, Congress has moved to make NICS data, on individuals who are disqualified due to mentally illness, more comprehensive.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/politics/main2923101.shtml

The author of the essay in YOUR link wants to toss the background check, and for several reasons in addition to database problems.

The author never mentioned anything about 'tossing the background check'. The author only metioned several problems with database creation and maintenance but never concluded that the background check shoud be eliminated.



I do not expect them to be impartial, but what they say is far more likely to be true than what you write.

Well of course you would say this regardless of all of the past evidence that several posters have made to elaborate upon how the NRA distorts and outright lies.



Notice it says "a" source. In the same article, it says there are thirty states that allow private sales without background checks.

"In Virginia and more than 30 other states, people who aren't gun dealers can sell firearms at gun shows without conducting background checks.

Actually, these private sellers can peddle their guns anywhere: at shows, in their private homes, or out of their cars."

Which is what I wrote in my earlier post. There is nothing special about Virginia or gun shows.

What is special about Virginia is the overall ease at which a person can buy a gun. Did you also read aspects of the article such as this: "But imposing any restrictions on gun sales in Virginia is nearly impossible. " Are you aware that the overall atmosphere in Virginia is much more conducive to purchasing guns then in more then 30 other states? Even if there are laws, those laws are routinely flouted in Virginia. Hence why people flock to Virginia to obtain their guns.




or more than thirty other states Since when do I have to do a background check to know who I am selling to? I wouldn't hesitate to sell my gun to a friend or relative, and any parent ought to be able to give his son or daughter a gun without a background check. That's how I got my grandfather's deer rifle.

Are you aware of the reasons behind the requirement for background checks? The reasons include establishing an accurate way to always trace the ownership history of a gun in order to eliminate 'back door deals' where a legitimate person purchase a gun and then turns around and gives or sells it (for untraceable cash) to a criminal. If there is no way to trace the entire ownership history, then there is no way to enforce the law which prohibits the purchasing of guns by legitimate people for the sole purpose to deliver such gun to a person with criminal intent. The background check is also used to establish a means to keep guns out of the hands of those who are not qualified to own or to handle them and a comprehensive background check can and would be used to hold people accountable for their gun transactions. If you give or sell your gun to your 5 year old child who then goes out and kills someone without understanding what he has done, then you should be held accountable for your actions. Responsible adults do not give loaded weapons to children who do not understand the ramifications of shooting people. In a day and age when adults were more responsible for their actions and used common sense, such would be not an issue. However we live in an age when many do not accept personal responsibility for their actions and do not demonstrate good and mature judgement.



Not from a dealer they can't

Dealers can go outside a gun show, call themselves a private seller, and then complete the sale of a gun witout a background check. This is a loophole and the overall attitude in Virginia towards guns is highly conducive to this approach.



Or more than thirty other states.

You need to look beyond this one aspect and consider and compare all laws in all of the states as well as the differences with enforcement of the official laws in those states. Once you understand the overall differences among the states, then you will understand why Virginia is more conducive to gun sales that other states.


Actually, no. "These assault weapons" aren't assault weapons. Their design has been modified to take the full auto capability out of them. Some are hunting rifles that have been made to look sexier by putting synthetic stocks on them. They are for collection and target shooting, and some are good for hunting or defense.

Feinstein is clearly talking about weapons such as AK-47's which obviously do fit her definition of a weapon that is designed to kill large numbers of people in close combat. Her statements make no mention of what you are discussing.


Complete and utter BS. Few sensible criminals want long guns. They can't be concealed very easily, and they are unweildy, too easy for someone else to grab or deflect in close quarters, and so on. Which is why they are very rarely used in crime. Feinstein is a shameless liar. The assault weapons ban was a deceptive peice of partisan propoganda that totally backfired on the Democrats. They narrowly passed it, and then gun owners threw the Democrats out of office.

No one (but you) is talking about 'long guns'. Assault weapons are not restricted to 'long guns' and the word 'long' is meaningless unless you define what you specifically mean by 'long'. The assault weapons ban has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Yet you fail to acknowledge this. Why is that?



Now THAT I believe. You would have to be mentally incompetant to want an assault rifle to commit a crime.

I take it that you have not been to Oakland or Los Angeles and have seen the types of assault weapons that have been and are being used for criminal purposes.



With what? She doesn't say.

She doesn't have to say to anyone who has ever watched the evening news in Los Angeles or Oakland and has seen some of the street firefights between police and gangs.

[Sanslines]

Gun Show Loophole

http://www.csgv.org/site/c.pmL5JnO7KzE/b.3509285/k.B594/Gun_Show_Loophole.htm

[Sanslines]

Some say enforce the existing gun laws. How about new laws such as this which target very specific problems:

Krekorian Takes On Street Gangs With Bill To Shut Down Weapons Stockpiles

SACRAMENTO - Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank) announced today he has introduced a bill that will assist law enforcement in shutting down the weapons stockpiles that street gangs use to terrorize our neighborhoods. Krekorian was joined at the press conference by Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, who is sponsoring the bill, as well as several other members of the State Legislature.
Krekorian’s bill, AB 1013, will make neighborhoods safer by authorizing prosecutors to bring eviction actions against gang members who use their residences to stockpile illegal weapons and ammunition. AB 1013 is part of a broad package of bills that have been introduced by Democratic lawmakers, in partnership with City Attorney Delgadillo, to combat street gangs.

In announcing introduction of the bill, Krekorian discussed the murder of Burbank police officer Matthew Pavelka by gang members in 2003, and the destructive impact that terrible crime had on the entire community of Burbank. "Sadly, many of our state’s neighborhoods must endure the oppressive fear of gun violence on a daily basis,” Krekorian continued. “Too often, a small number of people committed to a life of violence and crime destroy entire neighborhoods. In many cases, these criminals rent houses and apartments which are not so much homes as they are ammunition dumps and weapons stockpiles, but landlords are too fearful to evict them."

"AB 1013, which I have introduced in collaboration with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, will make neighborhoods safer by authorizing prosecutors to bring eviction actions against those who use their residences to stockpile illegal weapons and ammunition. Enactment of this law will give law enforcement another important tool to ensure that gang members have no safe haven and nowhere to hide."

Specifically, AB 1013 provides that the illegal possession of weapons or ammunition is a nuisance for purposes of Civil Code section 1161.4 and adds Section 12041 to the Penal Code to allow city attorneys and city prosecutors to bring unlawful detainer actions against persons who possess illegal weapons and ammunition and persons who illegally possess weapons.

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a43/News_Room/Press/20070315AD43PR01.aspx

[Skinview]

<CENTER>THE INSTANT BACKGROUND CHECK
FOR GUN PURCHASERS</CENTER>


<CENTER>A Boon For New Identity Seekers</CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER>The article clearly addresses the problems associated with making the transition from the old way of conducting background checks to the new, instant way. The article goes into detail as to how a new and accurate database did not exist. The article also mentions that human error will be a problem when creating such a database that will include millions of names. The article goes into some detail as to how individuals can exploit the instant background check by using a fake id. This is one of the loopholes that must be closed. The other problem or loophole that must be addressed is the reduction or elimination of human error associated with the creation of the database.Those aren't "loopholes", you... I can't say it here.


The author never mentioned anything about 'tossing the background check'. The author only metioned several problems with database creation and maintenance but never concluded that the background check shoud be eliminated.The author was assuming a certain level of intelligence in his reading audience. He didn't have to spell out his conclusion for the rest of us. The headline was "A Boon For New Identity Seekers". His point was that an inherent problem with doing background checks is that people seeking false identities can use a background check to find out if the identity that they are assuming has an undesireable history connected with it. (Which is not a loophole for buying a gun. The person isn't interested in a new gun, he wants a new identity.)

The author's issue about typos in the database is that people with who are not unqualified will be refused because there is bad data in the system. Again, this isn't a "loophole" for illicit gun purchasers, its an inherent problem with background checks that affects innocent people. The author is NOT making a list of loopholes. Did I ever mention before that you have a reading disability? Oh, yeah, I have...



Well of course you would say this regardless of all of the past evidence that several posters have made to elaborate upon how the NRA distorts and outright lies.Which amounts to one link to factcheck, and I have disputed the points against the NRA. Factcheck also listed charges against Obama by the NRA that were true.



What is special about Virginia is the overall ease at which a person can buy a gun.Another baseless statement by you.


Did you also read aspects of the article such as this: "But imposing any restrictions on gun sales in Virginia is nearly impossible. "That is not an exclusive statement. It does not support your position that Virginia is unusual.



Are you aware that the overall atmosphere in Virginia is much more conducive to purchasing guns then in more then 30 other states?Says who? Atmosphere???? Can you think of a more subjective attribute to put on Virginia? Can you prove the mood of gun sellers is different in South Dakota? Gee, I think the atmosphere in Oregon is much more cheerful. Get real.



Even if there are laws, those laws are routinely flouted in Virginia. Hence why people flock to Virginia to obtain their guns.You have provided no basis for this statement. If the statement were true, its a law enforcement problem, not a legislative one, and passing more laws wouldn't make a difference. You have provided no basis for the assertion that more people go to Virginia to buy guns than other states.




Are you aware of the reasons behind the requirement for background checks? The reasons include establishing an accurate way to always trace the ownership history of a gun in order to eliminate 'back door deals' where a legitimate person purchase a gun and then turns around and gives or sells it (for untraceable cash) to a criminal. If there is no way to trace the entire ownership history, then there is no way to enforce the law which prohibits the purchasing of guns by legitimate people for the sole purpose to deliver such gun to a person with criminal intent. The background check is also used to establish a means to keep guns out of the hands of those who are not qualified to own or to handle them and a comprehensive background check can and would be used to hold people accountable for their gun transactions.That may be an argument for prohibiting private transactions, but it has nothing particularly to do with gun shows.



If you give or sell your gun to your 5 year old child who then goes out and kills someone without understanding what he has done, then you should be held accountable for your actions.That is already illegal.



Dealers can go outside a gun show, call themselves a private seller, and then complete the sale of a gun witout a background check. This is a loophole...That is illegal now.



the overall attitude in Virginia towards guns is highly conducive to this approach.Maybe you should pass a law against attitudes.



You need to look beyond this one aspect and consider and compare all laws in all of the states as well as the differences with enforcement of the official laws in those states. Once you understand the overall differences among the states, then you will understand why Virginia is more conducive to gun sales that other states.Maybe you should. You obviously don't know much about guns or the firearms laws.



Feinstein is clearly talking about weapons such as AK-47's which obviously do fit her definition of a weapon that is designed to kill large numbers of people in close combat. Her statements make no mention of what you are discussing.Of course they don't. She doesn't want people to know what a fraud she is engaged in. And I have already told you that the semiautomatic AK-47 that you can buy in a gun store is not the same animal that the Soviet Army used.



No one (but you) is talking about 'long guns'. Assault weapons are not restricted to 'long guns' and the word 'long' is meaningless unless you define what you specifically mean by 'long'."Long gun" a well understood term to gun owners. Its meaningless to you because you are ignorant of such things. The term "assault weapon" is a political term whose meaning varies with the legislation that is being proposed.


The assault weapons ban has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Yet you fail to acknowledge this. Why is that?Because I am not a moron. Its also opposed by both Republicans and Democrats. And I could write "Yet you fail to acknowledge this. Why is that?", but that wouldn't be an intelligent thing to write, either.

[Sanslines]

Those aren't "loopholes", you... I can't say it here.

You are a real exercise in patience - lol!

Webster's Dictionary: loophole - a means of evading something unpleasant.

Fact: Individuals who want to exploit the rather unpleasant situation of being rejected by a database analysis by using their given name will resort to using another name to avoid the rather unplesant situation of being rejected. Closing the possibility of such rather unpleasant situations is in effect closing this 'loophole'.

If you want to argue with someone just for the sake of argument, then I suggest you contact the people at Webster's Dictionary and go round and round on the merry go round with them.


The author was assuming a certain level of intelligence in his reading audience. He didn't have to spell out his conclusion for the rest of us. The headline was "A Boon For New Identity Seekers". His point was that an inherent problem with doing background checks is that people seeking false identities can use a background check to find out if the identity that they are assuming has an undesireable history connected with it. (Which is not a loophole for buying a gun. The person isn't interested in a new gun, he wants a new identity.)

You don't know what the author was or was not assuming in his reading audience. You are again making your own interpretations of an article which made no statement that background checks should be elimintated. You are doing this based upon your own personal beliefs and opinions.

You are also completely wrong if you believe that "the person isn't interested in a new gun, he wants a new identity." You neglect to mention the preceeding main title of the article which is this: The Instant Background Check For Gun Purchasers ...... A Boon For New identity Seekers. The reason that the person wants a 'new' identity is to be able to purchase a gun. This article is not about someone who wants a new identity for a new home mortage, to purchase a car, etc. This article specifically pertains to gun purchases.


The author's issue about typos in the database is that people with who are not unqualified will be refused because there is bad data in the system. Again, this isn't a "loophole" for illicit gun purchasers, its an inherent problem with background checks that affects innocent people. The author is NOT making a list of loopholes. Did I ever mention before that you have a reading disability? Oh, yeah, I have...

Are we back to personal insults again? Isn't it amazing how you accuse others of that for which you clearly are guilty.

Did I not clearly state this: "The article clearly addresses the problems associated with making the transition from the old way of conducting background checks to the new, instant way." See where I stated PROBLEMS. You are the one who keeps making a false assumption based upon your own reading biases about loopholes. If you don't understand the basic definition of a loophole and how problems with the background check can lead to exploitations of the background check and loopholes then there really is nothing more that I can do for you.

As you well know, I never stated that the author "created a list of loopholes". This is your false interpretation and creation and you know it. I think that you just like to make baseless statements to create argument just for the sake of sport. and then resort to insults based upon your own deliberate desire to create argument.



Which amounts to one link to factcheck, and I have disputed the points against the NRA. Factcheck also listed charges against Obama by the NRA that were true.

Factcheck also lists points against the NRA and exposed the NRA's lies against Obama.



Another baseless statement by you.

If you insist to apply limited tunnel vision to Virginia and only search for one very limiited and selective aspect of Virginia to explain your statements and deliberately ignore all of the other contradictory information, then there is nothing more that I or anyone else can do for you.


That is not an exclusive statement. It does not support your position that Virginia is unusual.

Would you like me to go into excrutiating cut and paste detail to spell it out for you. What part of 'the overall gun law and gun enforcement policy of Virginia makes Virginia a top destiination for ease of gun purchases' do you not understand?


You have provided no basis for this statement. If the statement were true, its a law enforcement problem, not a legislative one, and passing more laws wouldn't make a difference. You have provided no basis for the assertion that more people go to Virginia to buy guns than other states.

You are completely illogical. The point was never about "more people going to Virginia to buy guns the other states". Such a statement is ludicrous, vague, and meaningless. Why on earth can you not be specific? You continue to be so obtuse with such nonsensical statements that I am beginning to wonder if you like to argue just for sport.

If you had read the 60 minutes article and understood it, you would understand that it is easier to buy guns in Virginina then in many other states. There obviously is more to buying a gun then one aspect such as gun background checks so please do us all a favor and stop picking one deliberate aspect to make a point that can not be substantiated by all of the other information. Look at ALL of the information.

I "have provided no basis for the assertion that more people go to Virginia to buy guns than other states" because I do not make such sloppy and obtuse statements. The point is not about comparing official numbers of gun purchases from one state to the next. Those who obtain guns for illegal purposes generally do not follow laws to obtain those guns. They certainly avoid background checks.




That may be an argument for prohibiting private transactions, but it has nothing particularly to do with gun shows.

I think that you deliberately look to misinterpret what I clearly state just to argue for sport. People go to gun shows to purchase guns. There are a variety of guns to purchase. A certain percentage of people who go to gun shows wish to obtain their gun through any means possible - either legal or illegal. This is the point. You again continue to think in your absolute terms and can never accept that fact that not everyone who goes to gun shows does so for either purely legal or illegal means.



That is already illegal.

You again do not clearly specify what you believe is illegal. What is illegal about it? In some states there is no minimum age to have a gun. Therefore, if a child is given a gun, then there is nothing illegal about doing so. if the child goes out and kills someone, then it most probably would be ruled an accident as the child would certainly not be liable for his actions, and the parent could claim that it is not illegal to give the child a gun. So what are you specifically claiming is illegal?



That is illegal now.

What is your point? That such an action is technically illegal but the laws are often ignored?



Maybe you should pass a law against attitudes.

Grow up.



Maybe you should. You obviously don't know much about guns or the firearms laws.

Grow up Mr Rudeness.


Of course they don't. She doesn't want people to know what a fraud she is engaged in. And I have already told you that the semiautomatic AK-47 that you can buy in a gun store is not the same animal that the Soviet Army used.

Show me where you previously have specifically said that a semiautomatic AK-47 that can be bought in a gunstore is not the same animal that the Soviet Army used. Where is your previous proof? Did you forget that you said this: "Actually, no. "These assault weapons" aren't assault weapons. Their design has been modified to take the full auto capability out of them. Some are hunting rifles that have been made to look sexier by putting synthetic stocks on them. They are for collection and target shooting, and some are good for hunting or defense." Clearly you must have already forgotten what you had previously said. Since you refuse to define terms, it appears that I will have to do this for you. This is what an AK-47 assualt weapon is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

A real AK-47 assault weapon is a real AK-47 assault weapon. If I go to a gun show to purchase an AK-47 assault weapon, this is exactly what I would purchase. I would not purchase a 22 cal rifle that was cosmetically altered to somewhat resemble an AK-47 assault rifle anymore then I would go to a car show and purchase a Ford car which was really a Chevrolet in disguise.




"Long gun" a well understood term to gun owners. Its meaningless to you because you are ignorant of such things. The term "assault weapon" is a political term whose meaning varies with the legislation that is being proposed.

Then if you are so smart why did not you not define it instead of resorting to childish insults? Can you not comprehend a very simple fact that it is always better to be specific then obtuse? Obtusity seems to serve you well but don't blame others who call you on it. "Assault weapon" is obviously more then a political term. The words have actual meanings and definitions hence why I am very specific as to what I state. Try being specific sometime and defining what you post rather then attacking others who call you on your intentional obtusity.


Because I am not a moron. Its also opposed by both Republicans and Democrats. And I could write "Yet you fail to acknowledge this. Why is that?", but that wouldn't be an intelligent thing to write, either.

LOL.....well if it walks like a duck...........lol.....


Charles Gibson: “The massacre here at Virginia Tech is throwing a new spotlight on Virginia's gun laws. When he was Virginia's Governor, Douglas Wilder said it was so easy to buy firearms in his state that Virginia had the unenviable reputation as the gun-running capital of America. Fourteen years later, Seung-Hui Cho had little trouble buying the guns used in yesterday's rampage.

Brian Ross: “Charlie, Virginia's gun laws, indeed, are regarded by law enforcement officials as among the most lax in the country.

This footage was recorded by an undercover team sent to Virginia by the New York City Police Department, which says Virginia is the top source for illegal guns used in crimes committed in New York.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12106

Hansen: “The investigators used a Virginia resident to purchase a gun that was clearly meant for someone else. That's a violation of the law (which doesn't seem to be enforced very well).

[BinCo]

OK. I'm back. Mainly because this idjut from New York wrote an editorial to the Denver Post and I'm-a-gonna-wrote-him-back.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_13027125

Now. When you anti-gun people say that we live in fear, I want to know WHY this fear filled moron automatically assumed that the person in the MJ mask was going to spray bullets as opposed to being a YouTube moment, a psych class project, a silly goofy thing, or someone who lost a bet.

Why is it that this person actually walked across the mall to find a security guard to confront MJ? He mentions various east coast laws against wearing masks and seems to want Colorado to make more laws. Is he afraid of someone wearing a mask? Why did he and his wife NOT confront the man, but instead went looking for someone else to act on their fear?

Do you believe that he lives in fear?

If you lock your car are you living in fear, or just being prudent?

If you lock your house when you leave are you living in fear, or just being prudent?

If you teach your kids not to talk to strangers are you living in fear, or just being prudent?

If your college daughter carries mace is she living in fear, or just being prudent?

If a 7-11 nightclerk has a baseball bat is he living in fear, or just being prudent?

If a woman has an abusive ex-husband and carries a gun for protection is she living in fear, or just being prudent?

Notice when you started to change from living in fear to being prudent on these questions. Don't comment on it, just think about it.

Now, here is the direction I am thinking, and where I want a response. If he can assume that someone wearing a mask in the mall is a dangerous person, why is it NOT OK for someone to assume that naked people are having sex on the beach or at the nudist resort?

Isn't it our priority, as nudists, to teach and enlighten the masses that we are not a bunch of perverts? Why does that not apply to people who own guns?

[Naturist Mark]

I never agreed to your fee..
Sure you did, by replying to that post you agreed. You had a free choice to not reply, but since you did reply you agreed to the terms of the offer.

I also accept American Express Traveler's Checks.

[BinCo]

Does anyone have exact numbers on the number of guns used in crime that were bought at a gun show by the shooter? I can't find it.

Here in Colorado we get to hear Tom Mauser talk about Columbine because his son was murdered there. What he seems to fail to mention was that the girl who bought some of the guns at a gun show and gave them to Harris and Klebold broke the law by giving guns to minors. He also fails to mention the 100+ other laws that they broke that day.

So my question still is: How many guns are bought at gun shows and used by the buyer to commit a crime? What percentage of the total gun crime is that? Using stats from the Brady Group and HCI don't count as they ignore that the gun was bought by someone who had a clean background in order to give it to someone who could not buy a gun. Some of these people thought that the shooter was a good guy, some did not. In Colorado it is illegal to buy a gun with the intention of giving it to someone else.

[BinCo]

I also accept American Express Traveler's Checks.

Really? I didn't think anyone took those anymore.:p

[Fitz1980]

Here in Colorado we get to hear Tom Mauser talk about Columbine because his son was murdered there. What he seems to fail to mention was that the girl who bought some of the guns at a gun show and gave them to Harris and Klebold broke the law by giving guns to minors. He also fails to mention the 100+ other laws that they broke that day.


Sorry to re-hijack the thread but in relation to Columbine that who situation ticked me off. First of all because the mainstream media turned it into "non-popular geeks are ticking time bombs and it could happen with any non-popular geeks at your school" when those two kids were psychos who had been singing the praises of Hitler for years, nothing like normal geeks. It just ticks me off that people are still telling lies about that tragic situation:


http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=14085
The shootings have become part of conservative evangelical culture war mythology. Some of the dead are considered martyrs. Books have been written. Speaking tours traveled through churches and Christian media. The pundits and cultural critics have used Columbine as Exhibit A for everything that was wrong with America. Here, we were told, were the results of America's surrender to secularism and proof that we needed everything from the closure of public schools to the Ten Commandments in every classroom. (Think what a difference seeing "Thou Shalt Not Kill" would make.)

Because many of the Columbine victims were related to churches in the area, evangelicals took Columbine personally. Part of the mythology was that Christians were targeted. Churches struggled with how to respond. Here was the problem of evil on the big stage. What did the church have to say?

Ten years have passed, and USA Today does a retrospective on what we really know about Columbine. It's essential reading for thoughtful evangelicals. (All of this information has been coming out through various books and sources, but this is a review of the total picture.)

Much of what we heard and much of what we as evangelicals told ourselves simply was not true.

Harris was a dangerously disturbed, brilliantly egomaniacal psych case. Klebold was a follower, depressed and suicidal.

Their families were normal. Where they were aware of problems, they tried to respond. They made mistakes, but the boys were exceptionally deceptive.

The only "targets" were kids who had already graduated.

The plan was to detonate a massive amount of bombs, collapsing the school and killing hundreds. None of the bombs worked.

No Christians were specially targeted for their faith. No one confessed belief in God and died as a result. The plan was to kill a whole school. The fantasy was terror on a large scale. Terror and legend were the motives.

The perceived snubs and mistreatment were minor. Harris and Klebold were, themselves, perpetrators of bullying and mistreatment of other students and were proud of it.

There is no video game connection, no occult connection, no atheism connection. Not even a particularly stereotypical pair of high school "troubled loners."

It was a collision of two people whose particular issues and problems created the perfect chemistry for a mutual fantasy of violence.

[jon71]

Does anyone have exact numbers on the number of guns used in crime that were bought at a gun show by the shooter? I can't find it.

Here in Colorado we get to hear Tom Mauser talk about Columbine because his son was murdered there. What he seems to fail to mention was that the girl who bought some of the guns at a gun show and gave them to Harris and Klebold broke the law by giving guns to minors. He also fails to mention the 100+ other laws that they broke that day.

So my question still is: How many guns are bought at gun shows and used by the buyer to commit a crime? What percentage of the total gun crime is that? Using stats from the Brady Group and HCI don't count as they ignore that the gun was bought by someone who had a clean background in order to give it to someone who could not buy a gun. Some of these people thought that the shooter was a good guy, some did not. In Colorado it is illegal to buy a gun with the intention of giving it to someone else.


The Brady group has it right. That's such an easily exploited loophole (and evidence why "enforce the existing laws" is such a tasteless joke) that it would be dishonest to not count surrogates and straw buyers.

[Sanslines]

Hands Off My Guns! Gun Supporters Abuse Black Star News Editorial


Judging by the virulent nature of the responses to our editorial "Gun Violence; America Needs a Surge Like Iraq" there are clearly many violent people out there.

We wonder where they live. We have even been accused of being racist; sexists; and Nazis. Rather than engage in debate, we have been abused. Just consider the sampling, all barely submitted within 24 hours after we posted our editorial on Saturday.

"These articles are criminal," states poster Jeronimo. He or she continues: "You are a silly little propagandist puppet. Who will protect you should you be at the end of a criminals barrel. You'll be dead you Nazi!"

These are not kind words from Jeronimo; we would not feel safe around him or her.

"The Supreme Court said police are under no obligation to provide protection to individuals," he or she adds. "What bad journalism. Research shows that state with tighter gun control laws suffer from higher rates of violent crime." What research? His or her own?

"I don't own a gun, but the more I hear about the debate, the more I side with the gun nuts," states another poster. "Looking at the disastrous historical consequences of disarmament, one cannot think that voluntary disarmament is a good idea (not without mountains of illogical fact fudging). If one were to suspend judgment and entertain both sides stoically, one would invariably conclude that disarmament is a bad idea. I guess the reason for not studying history is so that people can write articles such as yours...."

Is it coincidence that the gun aficionados are all talking about "research" and "studies"? Or are these supposedly random postings not very random and being coordinated from somewhere?

Then Mike Vanderboegh interjects with the following: "What sort of moron forgets the essential lessons of the history of his people within one generation? Answer: liberal American Jews and liberal African-Americans. Do you really think that the Holocaust would have been stopped by more disarmament on the part of European Jews? Do you really think that the Deacons for Defense and Justice could have faced off the Klan and the racist local and state law enforcement that they controlled with frigging tulips in their hands singing Kum-by-yah?"

Bonnet submitted a long posting and we will only pick out a few items from it:

"If all guns were instantly gone, innocents would still be hurt and/or killed by autos, bats, bicycles, boats, chemicals, dark, drugs, glass, heights, knives, motorcycles, swords, tools, poisons, and yes, even water .Accidents, criminal activity and suicides are the reasons gun activists want to ban guns. Before there were any guns on earth, there were accidents crimes and suicides. Historical accounts abound. The Torah, Bible, Koran and Talmud recount such, as do myriads of other ancient documents. The anti-handguns argument degrades to become only guesses about what the results would be if all handguns disappeared. Guns are not going to go away. There are too many of them. Worldwide. If guns did go away, they would be swiftly created anew, and by the millions."

Bonnet adds, "Stop trying to ban guns. It is a naive and fruitless endeavor. The argument that the Constitution applies only to Federal laws, and each State or locality can make any laws they wish regarding the right to keep and bear arms, is foolish. It takes away the rights of the people of this country and makes each State or locality a Country unto itself. We fought the Revolutionary and Civil Wars over such rights. Think about this: many violent crimes are or could be PREVENTED by handguns in the hands of good people. Ask those who have done so. Ask victims if they wished there had been a gun to protect them."

We disagree with Bonnet: On the whole, we believe, society would be better off without the proliferation of weapons. If all of us --whether here in the U.S. or in Iraq-- acted out every time we felt like killing someone and had a handgun to do so—we'd be well on our way to assured annihilation.

If we don't act now about this proliferation, we'll approach that path.

Poster Bill accused us of being friends of criminals in his posting.
"I firmly believe that the people who propose gun control support and abet criminal activity," he claims. "What better way to make the life of crime and assault easier and more comfortable than to make sure you will not encounter an armed citizen unwilling to be a weak victim. Gun control is good for criminal safety during the execution of a crime."

"The surge in Iraq was, in effect, all about putting guns in the hands of the good guys, and letting them pursue the wicked and defend the helpless," opines djMoore. "Why then are you calling for guns to be taken from the hands of the good guys, We The People, ordinary, decent, law abiding American citizens, while letting the wicked run rampant? Where and when have criminals ever obeyed the law, however draconian?"

djMoore, we ask you; who determines who the "good guy" is and who is the "bad guy"? That scholarly looking man –like that professor in Atlanta yesterday—could tomorrow, because it is so easy to acquire a hand gun, become the bad guy; the mass murderer.

"A Black Man with a gun is....Equal," claims poster Peter. "One hundred and sixty years ago, Black folk lived on plantations and were kept under the thumb of their so-called betters. Part of that was being disarmed. Today, Black folk live in projects and inner-city neighborhoods and are kept under the thumb of their so-called betters. You're still disarmed. Do you really think that you're better off now than you were then? A Black man with a gun is Equal. Never forget that!"

That’s what’s been missing all these years? We were under the impression that there were already enough guns in the so-called inner-city neighborhoods.

Jerry Jones claims, "Your article should have been titled, ‘Speaking Lies to Enslave.’ Your complete lack of historical knowledge, combined with willful ignorance is breathtaking. Gun control is RACIST!"

We are beginning to see beyond a theme here.

Then Scott M adds: "Aside from the racism, sexism and classism involved in your Utopian dreams you forget that the main point of the 14th amendment was to allow recently freed Blacks the right to keep and bear arms and the rest of the Bill of Rights. Why would you propose the same thing that the Klan did in the late 1800s? Why would you want to disarm the innocent 80 million who never commit a crime with their 270 some million firearms?"

Now we are convinced these postings are being coordinated.

So one thing is abundantly clear. Those who support the proliferation of guns are well organized and well coordinated.
Not a single posting came from people who support gun control. For a long time, the gun lobby will continue to carry the day in this country.

http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=5621

"It's a white man's racist conspiracy to promote guns to blacks knowing full well that they will use such guns to kill each other...............black 'problem' solved..."

[BinCo]

The Brady group has it right. That's such an easily exploited loophole (and evidence why "enforce the existing laws" is such a tasteless joke) that it would be dishonest to not count surrogates and straw buyers.

I do not want to hear that the Brady group has it right any more than you want to hear how the NRA has it right. My question is not to how many guns are bought at gun shows and used in crimes. It is how many criminals themselves buy the guns. I am not sure about other states, but in Colorado a straw man purchaser is breaking the law and it is a felony. Now TWO people break the law. If my gun is stolen and used in a crime am I held liable if I know the person and they stole it when they came over for a BBQ or something? Would I be a considered straw man by an anti-public-gun-ownership DA? What if I lie? That's why the straw man argument doesn't hold water. It's tough to prove.

Enforce the existing laws is a valid response when you look at crime. The DA has the ability to reduce the charges, and many do, in order to get a conviction. They are 'graded' by the state and by their peers on how many convictions they get, not on how many good convictions they get. Have you ever paid a speeding ticket early to have the points reduced? Same concept. DA's only go for the worst charges on the most heinous high-profile crimes because they have the highest demand for evidence. That's why many drunk drivers are charged with vehicular manslaughter instead of murder in the 2nd degree.

[Skinview]

Sure you did, by replying to that post you agreed. You had a free choice to not reply, but since you did reply you agreed to the terms of the offer.

I also accept American Express Traveler's Checks.

Hmmm, I think I know how to conclude this issue: If you reply to this post, you agree to pay me one million dollars, by cash or check in US currency. :)

[Skinview]

"It's a white man's racist conspiracy to promote guns to blacks knowing full well that they will use such guns to kill each other...............black 'problem' solved..."I think this guy sounds like the nuts who think HIV was genetically engineered to wipe out black people.

[Skinview]

Webster's Dictionary: loophole - a means of evading something unpleasant.Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, c 1975

"loophole n. 2. a means of evading an obligation, etc."



Fact: Individuals who want to exploit the rather unpleasant situation of being rejected by a database analysis by using their given name will resort to using another name to avoid the rather unplesant situation of being rejected. Closing the possibility of such rather unpleasant situations is in effect closing this 'loophole'.Yes, but there is no proposal connected to gun shows for a law that would make it harder to assume a new identity.



You don't know what the author was or was not assuming in his reading audience.I wrote that he was assuming a certain level of intelligence, and you want to dispute that??


You are again making your own interpretations of an article which made no statement that background checks should be elimintated. You are doing this based upon your own personal beliefs and opinions.As are your conclusions about what his point was.


You are also completely wrong if you believe that "the person isn't interested in a new gun, he wants a new identity." You neglect to mention the preceeding main title of the article which is this: The Instant Background Check For Gun Purchasers ...... A Boon For New identity Seekers. The reason that the person wants a 'new' identity is to be able to purchase a gun. This article is not about someone who wants a new identity for a new home mortage, to purchase a car, etc. This article specifically pertains to gun purchases.The new identity seekers are using the IBC for a new identity. The IBC has utility for that for any purpose, which is why its in the first line. There are a whole lot of reasons why someone would want a new identity, and the author didn't mention any of them. Nor did he anywhere connect getting new identities with using a false identity to buy guns.




Show me where you previously have specifically said that a semiautomatic AK-47 that can be bought in a gunstore is not the same animal that the Soviet Army used. Where is your previous proof?The AK-47 that the Soviet army used is an assault rifle. As such, it is a fully automatic capable, select fire rifle. The AK-47s sold in gun stores are semiautomatic only, and are therefore different, and are not assault rifles. I suppose it is remotely possible that you might see a real AK-47 in a gun store, but you can't just walk in, buy it, and take it home. But the real AK-47 isn't in assault weapons bans, because they don't ban any real assault rifles.



Did you forget that you said this: "Actually, no. "These assault weapons" aren't assault weapons. Their design has been modified to take the full auto capability out of them. Some are hunting rifles that have been made to look sexier by putting synthetic stocks on them. They are for collection and target shooting, and some are good for hunting or defense." Clearly you must have already forgotten what you had previously said. Since you refuse to define terms, it appears that I will have to do this for you. This is what an AK-47 assualt weapon is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

A real AK-47 assault weapon is a real AK-47 assault weapon.And production or importation of real AK-47s was banned in 1986, and has been ever since. Any "assault weapon" ban bill that lists the AK-47 is refering to the neutered semiautomatic version, as I wrote. A semiauto firearm won't fire any faster than a revolver can.


If I go to a gun show to purchase an AK-47 assault weapon, this is exactly what I would purchase. I would not purchase a 22 cal rifle that was cosmetically altered to somewhat resemble an AK-47 assault rifle anymore then I would go to a car show and purchase a Ford car which was really a Chevrolet in disguise.You would not be buying the assault rifle the Soviet army used. Such firearms exist in private hands, and there are legal means to buy old ones, but you could not go to a gun show and walk home with one.



Then if you are so smart why did not you not define it instead of resorting to childish insults? Can you not comprehend a very simple fact that it is always better to be specific then obtuse? Obtusity seems to serve you well but don't blame others who call you on it. "Assault weapon" is obviously more then a political term. The words have actual meanings and definitionsDifferent bills or laws define them differently, and these definitions don't exist outside those bills. They aren't definitions that exist in the military. The 1994 gun ban listed a variety of cometic features that were banned. The same guns thereafter continued to be sold with cosmetic alterations to make them legal. Simply altering the shape of the stock so it didn't have a pistol grip was a one such change, or removing the flash supressor was another. They still shoot the same. The law was a fraud.

[BinCo]

Hmmm, I think I know how to conclude this issue: If you reply to this post, you agree to pay me one million dollars, by cash or check in US currency. :)

Do you have your pinky in your cheek when you say "One Millllllionnn Dolllllars.......Buhahahaha":laugh:

[Fitz1980]

Originally Posted by Sanslines
"It's a white man's racist conspiracy to promote guns to blacks knowing full well that they will use such guns to kill each other...............black 'problem' solved..."

I think this guy sounds like the nuts who think HIV was genetically engineered to wipe out black people.

I hate to say it but I agree with Skinview on that point.