Judge Sonia Sotomayor

[Bob S.]

Any thoughts on her?

Of the negative press she has received, I have to say the one thing that has resounded with me is her comment to her 2001 Law and Cultural Diversity lecture at UC Berkeley School of law:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

That is a disturbing line. Judges are supposed to be colorblind when making rulings from the bench but this says almost the opposite to that. Judges on the bench are not black, white, Asian, or Hispanic. They are supposed to be neutral, deciding only on the evidence. How does ethnic background come into play when making a finding on the evidence? Yes, they can have discretion in sentencing, but that is much different than deciding a case.

I am with others who say that this is not only racist (a term I hate but will use for now) but also classist (a term I made up). Rich white men just don't know enough to come up with a proper decision regarding a poor Hispanic woman. That is what I am getting from that quote.

Bob S.

[Agde]

Sotomayor is incontestably one of the finest legal minds in the country. Her record is incredibly balanced and without any hint of ethnic, gender, class, etc bias.. As a "white male", I actually appreciate that she has real world experience with lots of things I've never experienced. I think her Berkeley statement (particularly in context) kind of states the obvious, that the more life experience a judge has, the more balanced and less abstract their legal judgments. I look forward to reading some of her dissenting opinions.

[Naturist Mark]

Any thoughts on her?

Of the negative press she has received, I have to say the one thing that has resounded with me is her comment to her 2001 Law and Cultural Diversity lecture at UC Berkeley School of law:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

They are taking that quote completely out of context by leaving out what she says before and after. If you read the whole statement (http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_12452881) you will see that she is saying that she hopes her life experience would lead her to reach better conclusions, but that it may not, which it why it is so important to be very recognizant of the effect of your background on your decision making process in order to monitor it and not allow it to distort your judgment.

Not quoted by the nay sayers: <blockquote>Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which i am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. but I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that i reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.</blockquote>
Isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of what the nay sayers are claiming? (And by nay sayers I mean racists).

My only problem with Sotomayor is that she is a conservative. She votes with follow conservative Republican judges 95% of the time, and is arguably more conservative than Souter. She does not represent a movement to a more progressive court. But ... she is much more resistant to judicial activism (http://washingtonindependent.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards) than the Scalia block (Gang of Four), and brings more scholarship, experience, and judicial temperment than any Supreme Court nominee in the last Century.

[Home Nudist]

Sotomayor herself, doesn't concern me. The Reps and Dems will fight it out /sort it out, as they always do. Anyone up for anything today is under so much bitter criticism and scrutiny. It's tedious.

I am more disturbed by the news media saying that Obama "owed" it to the Latino Community to choose a Latino -- and woman to boot.

True or not, we are supposed to be a "color blind" society. Or, does it only "pay" to be "of color" when it is to someone's advantage?

It you are going to say that a Latino has to be appointed, what about the Italians, Irish, Poles, et cetera? We want them to be represented. We don't want to offend them, do we? And, while we're at it, why not appoint an openly Lesbian or Gay Man, or someone who is physically handicapped? Don't they deserve representation, too?

I'm so sick of the hypocrisy and lip service that this country gives to being a "melting pot."

The BEST QUALIFIED should be appointed/elected. Maybe I live in a dream world, but it should have nothing to do with one's sex, race, religion, sexual preference, or anything else.

This sentiment has been festering in me all week, and I feel grateful to be able to [vent] express it here.

[Smiley]

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.

[nudeM]

Ok, she's a Hispanic and a female. How does that make her any more quialified than anyone else? I believe she was chosen just because she is a female. The Hispanic part, I don't think that played any role in the choosing. The media is playing the role like a circus. They are trying to split sides by contrasting her negatives and positives, as they should. But personally, they are trying it make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Just one word of thought, what do you think of her record of having 60% of her rulings reversed by the Supreme Court? By that account, she is not a conservative.:smoking:

[Naturist Mark]

The BEST QUALIFIED should be appointed/elected. Maybe I live in a dream world, but it should have nothing to do with one's sex, race, religion, sexual preference, or anything else.

Then you should be jubilant about the Sotomayer nomination. She is the most experienced person to be nominated for the Supreme Court in over a century.

[marko486]

Nicely done fellow Mark. There is and will be much more taken out of context statements to come. Is she a bit classist? I think so , but I am ok with that. Good to have a different perspective. The old rich white men are well represented on the court. Thing is about best qualifies is that there are people available from all stripes and races and such so why not use diversity as one of many criteria. That would seem the most realistic way to go. Regarding the "Interpret Laws" post, that is much more nuanced issue. Fact is many laws are poorly written, many on purpose and much of the interpreting is putting into relation of other laws that contradict, not just the constitution. How many years did this country go reading the constitution to say slavery was alright? One of my biggest issues with Bush administration was that took it upon themselves to re-interpret laws though signing statements and hokey legal opinions, basically side-lining the judiciary, whose job it was.

I don't believe she is the most brilliant mind in legal circles but she is experienced, well qualified and a solid choice. As I side note I also love how it ties up the conservatives on how to attack her. Was being a woman and Latino probably one of the main criteria for her being picked. I am certain it was, but funny how no one recalls Reagan explicitly promised to have a female judge in his campaign promises. This was fullfilled with the very pragmatic Sandra Day O’Conner, a very excellent judge by any standard.

[Naturist Mark]

Ok, she's a Hispanic and a female. How does that make her any more quialified than anyone else? I believe she was chosen just because she is a female. The Hispanic part, I don't think that played any role in the choosing. The media is playing the role like a circus. They are trying to split sides by contrasting her negatives and positives, as they should. But personally, they are trying it make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Just one word of thought, what do you think of her record of having 60% of her rulings reversed by the Supreme Court? By that account, she is not a conservative.:smoking:

It is not true that 60% of her rulings have been reversed by the supreme court. She is the most experienced nominee to the Supreme Court in over a century, she has a record of well over 380 Federal Court rulings. Only 3 have been reversed. That is less than 1%.

[marko486]

Fun with math. Each side can play it either way. That is why I like Nate Silvers site because he delves into the #'s and gives a much better assesment then either statement made here regarding the overturn rate.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/washington-times-supremes-uphold.html

[Fitz1980]

Fun with math. Each side can play it either way. That is why I like Nate Silvers site because he delves into the #'s and gives a much better assesment then either statement made here regarding the overturn rate.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/washington-times-supremes-uphold.html

I wouldn't exactly say that each side can spin it either way. The original quote was "60% of her rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court." I'm assuming that quote has been all over the conservative echo chamber of Fox News, Talk Radio, right wing internet sites and newspapers as I've seen it all over the place. She's made 380 rulings since she's been a federal judge, of those 3 were overturned, 1 let stand and 1 is pending. That is not 60% no matter how you spin it.

If you want to say that "60% of her cases that the Supreme Court have reviewed have been overturned" that's a perfectly honest statement to make, but it's not one that the right wants to make because the supreme court overturns between 70-80% of all cases that it reviews so she's still below par.

[marko486]

That is the point of the article I linked. Also, since the supreme court only reviewed 5 of her rulings, it is hardly statistically significant. Stepping back even further, who really cares about this stat to begin with? It's pointless. She has a substantial record has a judge, one would think they would start going after that. Well, if there was something there, I suppose. The whole process has been made silly by politics and both sides of the debate are to blame for that. Now if she was a secret nudist, we could all get behind that. Who knows what they wear under the robes.

[BinCo]

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!

Smiley, You are misunderstanding the purpose of the federal judicial system. One of the primary objectives of the Supreme Court, as I understand it, is to interpret the laws as they are written and determining if those laws are a) constitutional, b) clear and c) applicable to the current case. This is how people bring challenges to the court. In the naturist case you could surmise that a case that pits a nudist against a city for nude sunbathing in their backyard could end up in the supreme court. The defendant could argue that the law does not apply to me because the nudity was in my backyard, which is fully fenced, which is not visible to anyone without a ladder. I also was nude at night, at 3am when I could reasonable expect that no one could see me. That the complaint was issued by the little prude down the road who I found a receipt for night vision goggles in her garbage that blew across my yard. Etc, etc, etc.

This is why a judge who has the most experience is a really good thing, unlike many of the more recent judges.

The laws are also written as vague (or as poorly) as possible to have them open to interpretation. For instance, Prop 8, was probably written by people who wanted to nullify all gay marraige in Cali. They neglected to mention it, word for word, so all the current marraiges stand.

Laws written 50 years ago regarding television and telephone regulations could not foresee the changes that have happened. So the current justices have to interpret the laws as how and whether they apply today. Same thing for the 4th ammendment. Most reasonable people would never think that the government could come into a doctor office and take the files looking for crimes or that the government could restrict your rights to birth control (which is pretty private). These had to be brought before the court to have an interpretation made as it regards to new situations. It's part of growth and why our founding fathers had these powers written into the constitution.

[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.

Maybe you should reread the Constitution. The word are not "quite clear" but on a lot of questions are vague generalities. Statutes passed by Congress are often messy political compromises made possible by lack of clarity. Thoughtful human beings are necessary to give clear meaning to both of these. Obviously, a judge in doing so makes decisions based on personal experience and philosophy. If it were not this way, judges could be replaced by computers and a lot of money, not to speak of uncertainty, could be eliminated.

Talk by right-wingers against so-called "activist" judges is usually nonsense; their favorites are by objective statistics more "activist" than are "liberal" judges.

[Illinois59]

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.

I'll disagree with Smiley. I guess it would be nice and simple if everything was either black or white but the real world has lots of shades of gray between black and white. You know, like when the highway speed limit sign says 70, should you be stupid enough to drive 70 mph when there is freezing rain coming down?

[Naturist Mark]

If you want to say that "60% of her cases that the Supreme Court have reviewed have been overturned" that's a perfectly honest statement to make, but it's not one that the right wants to make because the supreme court overturns between 70-80% of all cases that it reviews so she's still below par.

Sotomayor's rulings have an above average record of being sustained by higher courts. The 60% "rejection" rate is BS. It is based on only 5 out of 380 rulings - meaning that the Supreme Court - which picks which cases it agrees to hear, found no compelling reason to question her judgment on at least 375 rulings. Only 5 were subjected to review and only 3 reversed.

Added: Rachel explains it best

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/30971534#30971534" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>

The last justice confirmed - Samuel Alito, was reversed on 100% of his decisions chosen for review by the Supreme Court. I think the conservatives will probably want to remove him from the court, right?

[Agde]

Of course our lofty musings may be missing the hidden agenda altogether. A Hawaiian nominating a Puerto Rican? It may be a sinister conspiracy of small islanders against unsuspecting mainlanders! :)

[PeteINA]

Just one word of thought, what do you think of her record of having 60% of her rulings reversed by the Supreme Court?
Hey, ... as Naturist Mark said ... while a 60% reversal rate seems (unacceptably) high, in reality it's is really an absurd and unwarranted attack, as described by U.S. News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/28/the-myth-of-sotomayors-60-percent-supreme-court-reversal-rate.html) (5/28/2009).

And, with only five of the hundreds of cases in which Sotomayor has participated, only three of those five is hardly a suitable sample size to consider. Apparently, only three of 150 cases in which she wrote the conservative majority opinion, were reversed by the more liberal judges on the panel. That puts the reversal rate at a more likely 2%!

[Fitz1980]

Well you have to cut the right some slack here. They had been gearing up ever since it was announced that Obama would nominate a Justice. They were already going on Fox News denouncing his pick as a reactionary, activist judge who pushes an ultra-liberal agenda BEFORE he had even made a selection. Just because he picks someone who is at best a centrist that won't stop them from saying that she's a far-left liberal, any more than they call ACORN a criminal organization, the news media a liberal conspiracy or the current court (majority of Bush Reagen appointees) as a liberal supreme court.

[nakedstudent]

Then you should be jubilant about the Sotomayer nomination. She is the most experienced person to be nominated for the Supreme Court in over a century.

I think that his post was reflective of the "I want a judge with empathy" quote from our commander in chief. While it is important in ANY job to remember where you came from, a Supreme Court Justice is responsible for the most cherished document in US history. This is much bigger than any 1 individual.

I'm not 100% sure about the nominee. I think that judging by information presented on ALL major networks and media outlets, there are some extremely valid questions that should be brought up in the vetting process and I will support any republican or democrat who asks one.

I think her position on the New Haven Fire Department promotions was a mistake. While I'm not 100% sure that it was motivated out of discrimination against whites, some of the other statements she's made in the past sure make it seem that way.

She seems like a fair nominee. I think strategically it is a brilliant nomination from Obama. He's putting the Republican party exactly where they need to be right now. It's between principles and voting base. Republicans lost the Hispanic vote for the first time in ages last election. It will be interesting to see if Republicans pick the voters or their party values if they discover Sotomayor to be outside of those values.

[nakedstudent]

Well you have to cut the right some slack here. They had been gearing up ever since it was announced that Obama would nominate a Justice. They were already going on Fox News denouncing his pick as a reactionary, activist judge who pushes an ultra-liberal agenda BEFORE he had even made a selection. Just because he picks someone who is at best a centrist that won't stop them from saying that she's a far-left liberal, any more than they call ACORN a criminal organization, the news media a liberal conspiracy or the current court (majority of Bush Reagen appointees) as a liberal supreme court.

Fitz there were obvious irregularities in voting in the last election cycle.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/10/09/indiana-more-registered-vote-eligible-media-misses-story

But the media has dropped the ball on so many things it really wasn't surprising to not see much coverage.

[Illinois59]

Fitz there were obvious irregularities in voting in the last election cycle.


The faster we go back to marking paper ballots and dump electronic voting the better off we will be. The marks on a paper ballot stay the same no matter who looks at the ballot. Electronic voting? Do we really know what the software is doing?

[Centauri4]

I believe a judge's background is what they use to "connect with" each side of the case being heard. It is their individual experience backgrounds that provide the passion necessary to feel empathy for victims and plaintiffs, to understand when people feel pain and to interpret the law as it "applies" to human-driven situations.

I think we need a diversity of humanity to be sitting on this court, and also an understanding that the highest court in the land's mission is to "adjust" our existing laws to compensate for the changing needs of humanity. This is true now and it will remain true in the future.

The Supreme Court does not decide the simple cases that others might consider "open and shut" (i.e. someone was shot and killed and someone pulled the trigger), but rather the complex cases that end up redefining the way less clearly worded laws should be applied to new and never before explored situations. The types of situations that are the result of BOTH changing technology and changing social values, such as same-sex marriage, topless rights for women and the use of technology in areas such as biological research and medicine.

A judge may be guided by their past experiences but this is no guarantee of how they will rule in the light of new facts, new technology and NEW peers they have as a member of THIS court. I like to think that the high court judge we, as a society nominate and then approve, will be somewhat unpredictable and more thoughtful than those who have served before them.

That's my two cents. Best wishes to us all!

~

[jon71]

I'm glad to see that most people recognize the complexity that our justices have to deal with. Legal findings are determined sometimes by a single word in a law and I've heard tales of decisions being made based on the placement of a punctuation mark. The clearest example that immediately comes to mind is the 8th amendment which bars "cruel AND unusual punishment". That is generally interpret to mean that a punishment has to be both cruel and unusual to be unconstitutional. A punishment that is cruel but ordinary would be allowed. Some state constitutions bar "cruel OR unusual punishment" which means if it is either cruel or unusual it is verboten. The choice of a conjunction, just 2 or 3 letters, makes a huge difference in how punishment of crime is done in America. Imagine doing this with hastily written laws coming out of congress. Imagine going through dozens of pages of "legalese" to find out what the law really means. Imagine finding areas where the law contradicts itself or fails to cover some contingencies altogether. Take all of that into consideration and you realize it isn't remotely "black and white".

[BinCo]

Imagine finding areas where the law contradicts itself or fails to cover some contingencies altogether. Take all of that into consideration and you realize it isn't remotely "black and white".

Glad to see someone else realizes that it isn't black and white. We live in a world of shades of grey. Killing someone is illegal, but killing in the name of self defense is. Gun ownership is legal, until you are a felon. Parents have ultimate say with thier kids, until they cross a line about medical, educational or physical issues.

Judges don't write the law, but they make the laws applicable. DA's don't just try everyone, they look at what they think stands the best chance of a guilty verdict. This is why we have murder 1 and 2 and 3 manslaughter charges. It's all very complicated and it's a shame to see so many talking heads try to make the issue simple and black and white. it really goes back to the attitude of Bush 43. You're either with us or against us.

In listening to a variety of sources it seems that the Justice selection is a very intelligent and middle of the road pick. I hope the best for her.

[Naturist Mark]

I think her position on the New Haven Fire Department promotions was a mistake. While I'm not 100% sure that it was motivated out of discrimination against whites, some of the other statements she's made in the past sure make it seem that way.

What is interesting about the New Haven case is that the unanimous decision of the 2nd circuit appeals court was to uphold the law as written. In other words, they refused to be "activist" judges who create new law or change policy from the bench.

The law in question is a federal law that prohibits the use of employment tests that show a clear pattern or strong evidence of racial bias. That was indisputably the situation in the New Haven fire fighters exam. It should be noted that all the test results were thrown out since the test was found to be defective - the New Haven government did so in order to comply with federal law and to prevent lawsuits for using a defective test - no one was advanced despite a poor result - there were no "quota" or "affirmative action" elevations of any less qualified candidates.

That case is now before the current Supreme Court. It is quite likely that the so-called strict constructionist Scalia Block will prove that they are judicial activists yet again by requiring New Haven to use the results of a proven defective test. This will open New Haven up to new lawsuits for using a known defective test - a Supreme Court ruling will not immunize them against that liability.

[sdcal]

Thank you Mark - I appreciate that you take the time and effort to set the record straight. There are too many wild accusations floating around.

[nakedstudent]

The law in question is a federal law that prohibits the use of employment tests that show a clear pattern or strong evidence of racial bias. That was indisputably the situation in the New Haven fire fighters exam.

Does 1 year of results really show "racial bias"? For example, what if the previous year (under the same exam) more Blacks or Hispanics than whites were given promotions?

I think it is unfair to judge any test by the results of a single year of testing. That is just as "statistically invalid" as the 5 cases Sotomayor had reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Whether we like it or not, the demographics of some regions of the country still make it hard for "racial equality" to work with promotion tests, etc. For example, north central PA is VERY highly white. Should a test be thrown out there if the demographics don't support the ideal situation that this "federal law" (that I have yet to see cited anywhere) requires?

[Naturist Mark]

Does 1 year of results really show "racial bias"? For example, what if the previous year (under the same exam) more Blacks or Hispanics than whites were given promotions?

It was a new test, being used under a new promotion policy for the first time. Bad Test (http://www.slate.com/id/2219062)

Should a test be thrown out there if the demographics don't support the ideal situation that this "federal law" (that I have yet to see cited anywhere) requires?
The law in question is Title VII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_VII#Title_VII) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No, the law doesn't require quotas to be filled or that the workplace represent an "ideal" demographic mix. Just that the hiring and promotion practices used not be discriminatory on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin -
UNLESS 1) there is a direct relationship to the ability to perform the job
AND 2) it is essential to the "essence" or "core mission" of the business,
AND 3) there is no less restrictive or reasonable alternative,
OR 4) they are Communists (really - I'm not kidding - you are allowed to use tests that discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin IF you are giving them to Communists).

[Bob S.]

Aah! I don't know why I want to call her Santomayor. I even looked it up before I wrote it down and still put her name wrong! I'm changing the title soon.

nakedstudent: "Republicans lost the Hispanic vote for the first time in ages last election. It will be interesting to see if Republicans pick the voters or their party values if they discover Sotomayor to be outside of those values."

They lost the Hispanic vote because of a good campaign by Obama and a not-so-good campaign by McCain. Why did Bush not get credit for giving the country its first Hispanic Atty General? McCain was also for amnsesty programs for illegal immigrants. Both of these are great for hispanics, but sudenly, they are going to lose the vote even more if they disagree with a single pick? I doubt it.

Mark, I'll read her whole lecture tomorrow and comment about it then.

Bob S.

[nakedstudent]

nakedstudent: "Republicans lost the Hispanic vote for the first time in ages last election. It will be interesting to see if Republicans pick the voters or their party values if they discover Sotomayor to be outside of those values."

They lost the Hispanic vote because of a good campaign by Obama and a not-so-good campaign by McCain. Why did Bush not get credit for giving the country its first Hispanic Atty General? McCain was also for amnsesty programs for illegal immigrants. Both of these are great for hispanics, but sudenly, they are going to lose the vote even more if they disagree with a single pick? I doubt it.

Mark, I'll read her whole lecture tomorrow and comment about it then.

Bob S.

I completely agree with this Bob. Bush was the Hispanic's president. He did put Gonzalez in office which is the highest position in the executive branch that any Hispanic has ever served.

The thing I don't understand is how they could so viciously go after Gonzalez for firing a few attorneys (as any president has the right to do during his presidency) but any Republican criticizm of Sotomayor comes from "Right wing zealots, racist, or neo-cons."

By some measures, Gonzalez may even have been more liberal than Sotomayor is. His views on gay marriage and abortion were well known. This is the only reason HE wasn't the first Hispanic appointed to the high court under Bush. Republicans still controlled congress when Sandra Day O'Connor retired and vowed to fight the appointment for these reasons.

Sotomayor's views on abortion and gay marriage aren't yet publicly known.

But it really is a stroke of brilliance in campaign. The Republican party's view on ILLEGAL immigration has been falsely tied to it's view on legal immigration. This is something the party needs to work hard to fix.

[Naturist Mark]

If only Alberto wasn't a criminal ...

Bush was far from the first to appoint hispanic cabinet members. Bill Richardson is a prominent example. But yeah, Supreme Court Justice is a pretty major milestone - even if Justice Cordozo might count as the first by some (he was of Portuguese - not Spanish - ancestry).

I'm surprised no slack jaws are kicking dirt on the Sotomayor nomination on the grounds that she would be the 6th Catholic on the Robert's Court ... But they are going full bore on painting her as an "angry Latina" racist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Jce236HZ8&NR=1) almost as bad as "the KKK without the hoods or nooses. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/28/tancredo-latino-kkk/)" based on lazy reading of out of context edited snippets from speeches and a profound ignorance about "La Raza" - an Hispanic civil rights organization. One idiot (http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/g-gordon-liddy-lets-hope-key-conference) even played the menstruation card (if you don't understand why this is ridiculous on so many levels - especially with respect to a 54 year old - ask your mother). It looks like the GOP is burning all bridges to the Latino (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/gop-hispanic-strategists_n_209240.html) community, and women, and is doubling down as the party of "angry white men (http://nuestravoice.com/?p=2641)" and no one else.

Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018386.php) sums it up thus:<blockquote>It's like we're watching a test play out in real time -- can the right criticize a Democratic president's Supreme Court nominee on the merits, and steer clear of racism?

Just three days into the process, it's a test too many on the right are failing. Badly.</blockquote>

[Fitz1980]

The thing I don't understand is how they could so viciously go after Gonzalez for firing a few attorneys (as any president has the right to do during his presidency)

Excuse me but do you really believe that? Are you aware of what that scandal was about? When a new president takes office they ask the current US atorneys to step down and appoint their own people but after that you let them do their jobs without political interference. Gonzalez and co went on to fire a group of US attorneys for failing to push BS political prosecutions against democrats and for failing to look the other way on prosecutions of Republicans who committed actual crimes.

[Navigator]

Just three days into the process, it's a test too many on the right are failing. Badly.</blockquote>


Yes...but that's a good thing.:D

[gmoney]

The BEST QUALIFIED should be appointed/elected. Maybe I live in a dream world, but it should have nothing to do with one's sex, race, religion, sexual preference, or anything else.

This sentiment has been festering in me all week, and I feel grateful to be able to [vent] express it here.

that's the point. She disagrees with you and thinks the white firefighters werent discriminated against.
She doesn't believe in BEST QUALIFIED!

[Naturist Mark]

that's the point. She disagrees with you and thinks the white firefighters werent discriminated against.
She doesn't believe in BEST QUALIFIED!

No, She agreed that New Haven followed the law by rejecting a brand new test to proved to be flawed in its ability to identify the best qualified.

[gmoney]

No, She agreed that New Haven followed the law by rejecting a brand new test to proved to be flawed in its ability to identify the best qualified.

LOL thats what test are for, to show the smartest and most qualified.

[Bob S.]

Mark: "But they are going full bore on painting her as an "angry Latina" racist"

So no one would have taken this out of context if someone said:

"I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a black woman who hasn't lived that life."

However out of context it may have been (and I haven't read the full lecture yet), if a man who was up for Supreme Court justice ever uttered those words, there would be angry calls for him to step aside or for the president to immediately pull his nomination.

Why should the treatment of Sotomayor be any different than that of anyone else? The only reason the Dems are not outraged is because Obama is the one who chose her. The outrage goes for the opposing party.

Is she racist? I don't know her views well enough to suggest yea or nay, but her quote can be seen through those eyes, especially when the descriptors are altered as I showed above. Remember, sacntimonius attitudes are shared by many people in politics.

Bob S.

[Navigator]

However out of context it may have been (and I haven't read the full lecture yet), if a man who was up for Supreme Court justice ever uttered those words, there would be angry calls for him to step aside or for the president to immediately pull his nomination.

Why should the treatment of Sotomayor be any different than that of anyone else?


Here's Justice Samuel Alito commenting on his experiences at the hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNfyZWnQVnQ

[Naturist Mark]

Mark: "But they are going full bore on painting her as an "angry Latina" racist"

So no one would have taken this out of context if someone said:

"I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a black woman who hasn't lived that life."

Her statement began with "I would hope" not "I will be". And it was expanded upon later in her speech with:<blockquote>We should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.

Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which i am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. but I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that i reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.</blockquote>However out of context it may have been (and I haven't read the full lecture yet), if a man who was up for Supreme Court justice ever uttered those words, there would be angry calls for him to step aside or for the president to immediately pull his nomination.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vNfyZWnQVnQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vNfyZWnQVnQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<blockquote>When I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.</blockquote>
Pretty much the same sentiment ... except that Alito didn't express a sense of responsibility to be constantly vigilant about checking his assumptions, presumptions and perspectives in order to prevent being discriminatory. Point to Sotomayor.

[jon71]

LOL thats what test are for, to show the smartest and most qualified.

That particular test FAILED to do that. It was a lousy test and the law demand it be thrown out. This did not give those promotions to people of color, it required New Haven to use a fair, unbiased test.

[jon71]

I apologize if it's already on this thread but here's an example of how experience matters. There was a case years ago concerning a $50 fine in filing for bankruptcy. Most of the justices were immediately inclined to accept this, what the big deal. Thurgood Marshall used his life experience to educate them that to many Americans, including a lot of the poorest people most likely to need to use bankruptcy, $50 was a VERY big deal. If the court had 9 well-to-do white guys it would have stood without a seconds thought but instead it came down. That's where diversity impacts things, more information and different perspectives are brought into consideration.

[Ultra41]

The faster we go back to marking paper ballots and dump electronic voting the better off we will be. The marks on a paper ballot stay the same no matter who looks at the ballot. Electronic voting? Do we really know what the software is doing?

Do the words "Hanging Chad" mean anything to you? Paper is not the end all either.

[Illinois59]

Do the words "Hanging Chad" mean anything to you? Paper is not the end all either.

Yes, I do remember "Hanging Chad" and partially blacked in circles, marks outside the circles, circled candidates names, etc. but like I said, what is marked is what is marked and visible to all who look at it. Computer software like in touch screen voting is a whole different game. Computer code can be written to shift counts a few percentage points one way or another and it would be nearly impossible to verify that the shifing occurred. Eliminate 99.99+ per cent of the population of the country who don't have access to the voting machine's computer code and cannot analyze it anyway opens the door to fraudulent practices. Even if the voter gets a printout of his selections on the voting machine, there is no guarantee that his choices are not being manipulated by the software.

[Naturist Mark]

Computer software like in touch screen voting is a whole different game. Computer code can be written to shift counts a few percentage points one way or another and it would be nearly impossible to verify that the shifing occurred. Eliminate 99.99+ per cent of the population of the country who don't have access to the voting machine's computer code and cannot analyze it anyway opens the door to fraudulent practices. Even if the voter gets a printout of his selections on the voting machine, there is no guarantee that his choices are not being manipulated by the software.

It is even worse than that ... the private companies that make electronic voting machines refuse to let outside experts audit their software to ensure its accuracy and integrity under the claim that it is "proprietary" and "trade secret". OUR voting rights are THEIR "trade secrets". This is another case of a basic government function being outsourced to private interests that do not necessarily coincide with the public interest.

One of the very first uses of touchscreen voting machines was in the 2002 Georgia election (http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Cybersecurity_expert_raises_allegations_of_2004_07 17.html) - using 100% Diebold machines. That is the election where the popular triple amputee war hero Max Cleland was defeated by the unknown draft dodger Saxby Chambliss, despite a solid lead in statewide polls. The Gubernatorial race was also upset, with Democratic governor Roy Barnes losing to Sonny Perdue despite an 11 point lead in the polls. It turns out that the CEO of Diebold personally flew to Georgia just before the election to install software patches on machines in two heavily Democrat leaning counties to fix a a "clock problem" - which wasn't fixed. A Diebold whistleblower leaked the software to cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore, who found sections of the code helpfully labeled screw Georgia. (Spoonamore by the way, is a Republican, and has received commendations from the Defense Dept. and Homeland Security for his work, and served as an advisor to John McCain). These irregularities were reported to Georgia's secretary of state and to the Bush Justice department (which ignored it). Since there was no audit trail or paper records there was no way to do a recount.

But that is nothing compared to what happened later in my state of Ohio. But I've made plenty of posts about that elsewhere.

Suffice it to say that when you outsource the means of voting, you are outsourcing democracy.

[nakedstudent]

It is even worse than that ... the private companies that make electronic voting machines refuse to let outside experts audit their software to ensure its accuracy and integrity under the claim that it is "proprietary" and "trade secret". OUR voting rights are THEIR "trade secrets". This is another case of a basic government function being outsourced to private interests that do not necessarily coincide with the public interest.

One of the very first uses of touchscreen voting machines was in the 2002 Georgia election (http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Cybersecurity_expert_raises_allegations_of_2004_07 17.html) - using 100% Diebold machines. That is the election where the popular triple amputee war hero Max Cleland was defeated by the unknown draft dodger Saxby Chambliss, despite a solid lead in statewide polls. The Gubernatorial race was also upset, with Democratic governor Roy Barnes losing to Sonny Perdue despite an 11 point lead in the polls. It turns out that the CEO of Diebold personally flew to Georgia just before the election to install software patches on machines in two heavily Democrat leaning counties to fix a a "clock problem" - which wasn't fixed. A Diebold whistleblower leaked the software to cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore, who found sections of the code helpfully labeled screw Georgia. (Spoonamore by the way, is a Republican, and has received commendations from the Defense Dept. and Homeland Security for his work, and served as an advisor to John McCain). These irregularities were reported to Georgia's secretary of state and to the Bush Justice department (which ignored it). Since there was no audit trail or paper records there was no way to do a recount.

But that is nothing compared to what happened later in my state of Ohio. But I've made plenty of posts about that elsewhere.

Suffice it to say that when you outsource the means of voting, you are outsourcing democracy.

Just to play devil's advocate, what does Chambliss's runoff win following the 08 election mean about the voice of the people in Georgia about politics?

Either system has room for mistakes and such to occur. Look at the problem with paper ballots in the Coleman/Franken race. There are questions of validity with a paper based voting system. Each vote in an (audited) electronic system would be timestamped and guaranteed.

[nakedstudent]

I apologize if it's already on this thread but here's an example of how experience matters. There was a case years ago concerning a $50 fine in filing for bankruptcy. Most of the justices were immediately inclined to accept this, what the big deal. Thurgood Marshall used his life experience to educate them that to many Americans, including a lot of the poorest people most likely to need to use bankruptcy, $50 was a VERY big deal. If the court had 9 well-to-do white guys it would have stood without a seconds thought but instead it came down. That's where diversity impacts things, more information and different perspectives are brought into consideration.

Here's an idea... If you don't want to be accountable for filling for your own bankruptcy, don't blow money in the first place. I'm so tired of hearing of ruthless exploitations of poor people when much of their suffering is their own doing.

Personal accountability for one's actions should be color blind.

[Naturist Mark]

Either system has room for mistakes and such to occur. Look at the problem with paper ballots in the Coleman/Franken race. There are questions of validity with a paper based voting system. Each vote in an (audited) electronic system would be timestamped and guaranteed.

The Minnesota Senate election is an example of how paper ballots are better. The election was incredibly close, so there was a recount mandated by law. Every ballot cast was available to to rechecked, and was. The "problems" have to do with absentee ballots - many of which were improperly done. This would have been an issue whether there had been paper or electronic voting.

The reason the election is still unresolved has nothing at all to do with the reliability of the voting method and everything to do with using the legal system to delay an official result for the sole purpose of delaying the result.

The only sure way to audit an electronic voting system is to print paper receipts, and have the paper, not the internal count in the machines, counted.

[Navigator]

Here's an idea... If you don't want to be accountable for filling for your own bankruptcy, don't blow money in the first place. I'm so tired of hearing of ruthless exploitations of poor people when much of their suffering is their own doing.



Hhmmm....does this bit of wisdom, in your view, apply to the roughly 50% of all bankruptcy's that are caused by the cost of a major medical problem?

I'll hope that you and your's never get seriously ill with something that costs more to fix than you can scrape together....but if you or yours did....would you say something like: "Screw that...I'm not going to "blow" my hard earned money on health care like poor people do?"

[Naturist Mark]

Here's an idea... If you don't want to be accountable for filling for your own bankruptcy, don't blow money in the first place. I'm so tired of hearing of ruthless exploitations of poor people when much of their suffering is their own doing.

Personal accountability for one's actions should be color blind.

Color blind? Just what are you assuming?

You are aware that a little more than half of the "suffering that is their doing" that leads to bankruptcy is due to catastrophic medical expenses (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html) - even though 75% of them have medical insurance. Right? And a good deal of the rest is due to divorce.

Of course if they would just have the good sense to have been born wealthy in the first place they wouldn't be such bad people.

[Naturist Mark]

Navigator! This is the second time this weekend that we have simulposted the same replies.

[Navigator]

Navigator! This is the second time this weekend that we have simulposted the same replies.

I noticed that...and I almost just posted what you said a minute or two ago also.:D

[jon71]

Here's an idea... If you don't want to be accountable for filling for your own bankruptcy, don't blow money in the first place. I'm so tired of hearing of ruthless exploitations of poor people when much of their suffering is their own doing.

Personal accountability for one's actions should be color blind.

You can't possibly live in the real world. Bankruptcy happens for many reasons, one of the least of which is being foolish with money. Right now in America more people than ever before are filing for bankruptcy either directly or indirectly because of the lousy economy. If reality offends you go back to whatever planet you came from.

[jon71]

Just to play devil's advocate, what does Chambliss's runoff win following the 08 election mean about the voice of the people in Georgia about politics?

Either system has room for mistakes and such to occur. Look at the problem with paper ballots in the Coleman/Franken race. There are questions of validity with a paper based voting system. Each vote in an (audited) electronic system would be timestamped and guaranteed.


Chambliss' runoff win had to do with the fact that he had been in office for six years (and in the news often as is typical of any senator, at least in local and state news anyway) was facing a much less well known candidate with a much smaller war chest and Chambliss still barely squeeked by. As stated, he needed a runoff to do it.
As for electronic systems ask yourself "what is the guarantee worth". It reminds me of things, sports memorabilia for instance that are advertised and if you buy it you get a "certificate of authenticity" with it. Guess what, if you're a counterfeiter the "certificate of authenticity" is BY FAR the easiest thing to fake. With computer systems people you don't know are doing things you don't understand with your vote but hey it's alright because they "guarantee" it's o.k.

[Croydon]

Here's an idea... If you don't want to be accountable for filling for your own bankruptcy, don't blow money in the first place. I'm so tired of hearing of ruthless exploitations of poor people when much of their suffering is their own doing.

Personal accountability for one's actions should be color blind.

I have largely stayed away from participating in the forums but your ignorance continues to surprise me. I am absolutely amazed that you are entrusted to teach young minds.

The world is not so black and white as you might think. Over 50% of bankruptcy filings have nothing to do with people "blowing their money" due to irresponsible consumer behaviors. Majority of bankruptcy filling are from people who experienced an unexpected medical setback that has placed them in great debt, despite the fact that they have medical insurance.

I myself have experienced this. A relative of mine filed for bankruptcy over 10 years ago. Her husband was unexpectedly diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus. Unexpected because it isn't a cancer one can check yearly like prostate or breast. By the time the person is experiencing symptoms, the cancer has spread. Most people diagnosed with this cancer die. In the case of my aunt, her husband became ill quickly. Medical bills racked up due to the chemo and other procedures. Once there were no options, he needed around the clock care. My aunt had a visiting nurse to take care of him and he was then later transferred to a hospice. Meanwhile, she had two kids in high school and a daughter in college. Insurance doesn't cover everything. One is left with serious debt they can not afford. After her husband died, she filed for bankruptcy.

She was NOT some irresponsible poor person. She and her husband lived comfortably, had great jobs, and did quite well for themselves. Things change when you then become sole breadwinner, your husband can no longer work, two young kids to care for and you have a daughter in college and paying her tuition and more than $60,000 in medical bills. My aunt cashed in on 401K and nearly wiped out her savings to catch up on medical bills.

I continue to discount your often ignorant statements and think that your young age and lack of real world experience keeps your mind so closed. For someone who lives in a sheltered home of their parents, I don't think you have seen the world yet. I do hope that you nor any member of your family ever experience such a medical situation that leaves them unable to pay bills. Perhaps it may take such an experience for you to see how the real world works.

[Sanslines]

She was NOT some irresponsible poor person. She and her husband lived comfortably, had great jobs, and did quite well for themselves. Things change when you then become sole breadwinner, your husband can no longer work, two young kids to care for and you have a daughter in college and paying her tuition and more than $60,000 in medical bills. My aunt cashed in on 401K and nearly wiped out her savings to catch up on medical bills.


This story is typical of many who are wiped out from medical expense induced bankruptcy. Yet, why on earth do so many people remain so silent about changing our present broken health care system? Why are there not 10 million people on the National Mall right now demamding change? Why are so many people unwilling to put forth any effort to wrestle the health care system away from insurance companies? Is it because those that have wonderful medical insurance really don't care about those who don't and will fight any change to THEIR insurance covered benefits tooth and nail? There are reasons as to why we have such a broken health care system and unless more people are willing to put forth some effort to work for change, there will never be any change other then the cost of medical care will continue to spiral upward, more people will have no medical coverage, and we all will have absolutely no one to blame but ourselves.

I will be on the mall joining others who will stand in front of the Capitol Building and demand an end to the present broken system that brings in untold billions to the insurance / pharama / medical establishment while more and more people get sicker and die prematurely from lack of basic coverage. Will you or anyone else join us???

[Sanslines]

What's really odd about this whole process to those who are honestly objective is this. Conservatives are honest about their lack of support for Obama and his policies. They will never support Obama's policies, such as health care reform, and everyone knows this up front. However, many of the Obama supporters support him in name only but will do nothing to stand behind him in order for Obama to stand up to the powerful interests and really make some changes. Without real support, Obama will accomplish little, if anything. Obama needs that real support. Yet so many of those who claim to support Obama would rather engage in pissing contests with Conservatives then spend their time on legislation that they claim to support. Why not expend the effort to accomplish real change then waste valuable time attacking individuals such as Rush Limbaugh - who is only taken seriously by a small group of followers for his purpose is to merely provide entertainment for the masses. The majority would not take the Rush Limbaugh's seriously and yet so may waste such valuable time on him.

A good analogy to this entire process would be the nudist movement. Many people complain about lack of nudist facilities and beaches and yet will not even come to a nudist beach and physically be on the beach to support the beach. How can anyone establish a beach if there are few attendees? It just won't work. Why are the same few individuals always the ones who are active in AANR and TNS? Why does the majority expect others to do the work for them?

The real success or failure of Obama will be based upon the numbers of people who honestly want real change and are willing to contribute something of value towards achieving those goals. If Obama is not successful, then those who claim to support Obama but have done nothing to actually stand behind him will only have themselves to blame.

[Fitz1980]

Here's an idea... If you don't want to be accountable for filling for your own bankruptcy, don't blow money in the first place. I'm so tired of hearing of ruthless exploitations of poor people when much of their suffering is their own doing.

Personal accountability for one's actions should be color blind.

Everybody else has done a good job at pointing out your ignorance on why people file for bankruptcy but what does being "color blind" have to do with anything.

Fitz there were obvious irregularities in voting in the last election cycle.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/10/09/indiana-more-registered-vote-eligible-media-misses-story

But the media has dropped the ball on so many things it really wasn't surprising to not see much coverage.

Or perhaps because there isn't much of a story once you get past the tin foil hat nonsense.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/indianapolis_voter_registration_at_105/

Of course, there are perfectly likely non-fraudulent reasons that could be. The 2007 census baseline numbers Ogden’s relying on could understate the current population. The voter rolls likely include large numbers of people who have died or moved but will in fact not vote.

Ken Dixon, reporting for the Connecticut Post, notes that there are indeed several ACORN-related “phony registrations” in that state, including the registration of a “7-year-old girl in the Marina Village housing complex, whose age was listed as 27 on the voter card.” Malkin points to other reports in Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana from credible sources.

In all cases but the last, the numbers are negligible: a handful of obviously fraudulent registrations out of thousands generated from ACORN drives. In Indiana, ACORN turned in 2000 registrations in Lake County, with 1100 of them “no good.”

Elections board Director Sally LaSota “said the flawed forms are incomplete or contain unreadable handwriting — similar to hundreds of other forms ACORN produced prior to this week. She said some ACORN vote canvassers apparently pulled names and addresses from telephone books and forged signatures.”

ACORN says such practices go against their policies and that they have fired those involved. Color me skeptical. Still, it’s unclear to me what the upshot of getting away with fraudulent registrations is. Are we going to have significant number of phantom votes cast, presumably by absentee ballot? There doesn’t seem to be much history of that sort of thing.

[nimrod]

Here's an idea... If you don't want to be accountable for filling for your own bankruptcy, don't blow money in the first place. I'm so tired of hearing of ruthless exploitations of poor people when much of their suffering is their own doing.

Personal accountability for one's actions should be color blind.

One other point to show your ignorance. There are those that do live within their means then one or both are laid off and are just unable to keep up with the bills they have accured over the years. Some are able to adjust and find ways to lower their bills like selling their houses and other ways, but sometimes that is not enough and the only other choice they have is to file for bankruptcy.

[nakedstudent]

You can't possibly live in the real world. Bankruptcy happens for many reasons, one of the least of which is being foolish with money. Right now in America more people than ever before are filing for bankruptcy either directly or indirectly because of the lousy economy. If reality offends you go back to whatever planet you came from.

I for one refuse to participate in this "lousy economy." I write out a monthly budget in which my necessary expenses are less than my income and I stick to it. Period.

By doing this (on less than 30,000 a year) I have payed off 20% of my college debt and also managed to save and invest a considerable amount of money. This can not be said for many people who borrow much more than they need.

Everyday I see students and parents who claim to be "poor" or "economically disadvantaged" yet they have the newest cell phones and mp3 players, etc.

The world would be much better off if every individual and government followed the advice of Dave Ramsey. Borrowing one's way to prosperity is impossible.

[nakedstudent]

One other point to show your ignorance. There are those that do live within their means then one or both are laid off and are just unable to keep up with the bills they have accured over the years. Some are able to adjust and find ways to lower their bills like selling their houses and other ways, but sometimes that is not enough and the only other choice they have is to file for bankruptcy.

But that is just the point. There should be no accrual. Income should always exceed expenses on a monthly basis. If it doesn't, you are NOT living within your means.

This culture of credit and borrowing power is toxic. The world would be much better off if credit was eliminated. Credit delays and intensifies the responsibility of making a purchase of any kind.

I will be debt free by 25 and WILL retire as a millionaire and will never reach a 6 figure salary. It takes a simple reversal in thought process. You alter the lifestyle to fit your income. Not the other way around. You can't artificially increase your income with credit cards to feed some lifestyle CHOICE that you are free to make or not make.

This is one of the biggest hoaxes and exploitations by the pop culture we are constantly exposed to. Also the government who encourages it and then tightens the noose around us by decreasing our income to pay for "social welfare" programs which are supposed to be more efficient at spending money than individual humans are.

[Fitz1980]

This culture of credit and borrowing power is toxic. The world would be much better off if credit was eliminated. Credit delays and intensifies the responsibility of making a purchase of any kind.

Credit used to be something that you had to work to get. Thanks to deregulation of the financial industry predatory lending ruled the day. BTW we can thank the Republicans and Democrats who acted like Republicans for that one.


The world would be much better off if every individual and government followed the advice of Dave Ramsey. Borrowing one's way to prosperity is impossible.

Tell that to Donald Trump. Heck tell that to almost any successful business owner. Some are trust fund babies who never have to work for start up money, but most businesses are started by folks who had to borrow to get the capital to make their ideas into reality. Ironically Mr. Conservative (yea you, Nakedstudent) has a pretty decent plan for retiring as a millionaire. Live off of your parents until you can get ahead in the game, invest part of your earnings into the financial markets (which are made and broken by others who borrow their way to prosperity) and (as a teacher) suckle off the government teat, all while telling those other lazy bums to 'get a job, live within your means and stop going to the government for help.'

[jon71]

I for one refuse to participate in this "lousy economy." I write out a monthly budget in which my necessary expenses are less than my income and I stick to it. Period.

By doing this (on less than 30,000 a year) I have payed off 20% of my college debt and also managed to save and invest a considerable amount of money. This can not be said for many people who borrow much more than they need.

Everyday I see students and parents who claim to be "poor" or "economically disadvantaged" yet they have the newest cell phones and mp3 players, etc.

The world would be much better off if every individual and government followed the advice of Dave Ramsey. Borrowing one's way to prosperity is impossible.

What about people who are laid off. Should they politely starve to death because their income is now zero. How are they supposed to live below that? For that matter even for people who are hit with pay cuts or lost hours there is only so much adjusting that can be done. The vast majority of people can't just choose to pay less in mortgage or rent because of having fewer hours. People can eat cheaper but there is a limit to how far that can go. People still have to have enough gas in their car to get to work, get the kids to school (unless they're on the bus) and certain essentials they can't do without. The more you post the more it's clear you just don't deal with reality. This isn't about people running up massive credit card bills to buy junk (yes I know that happens too) this is about people struggling to have a roof over their head and food on the table, just that. There are good, hard working, intelligent, dilligent people who are one medical bill or one lost paycheck from disaster and it's not because of poor decisions, that's just the reality of the world we all live in.

[Illinois59]

People like nakedstudent don't seem to realize that one's life can take a radical change of direction in a matter of a second or two and the best laid plans are destroyed. Those of us who have gone through such events do what we can to cope with the new reality we have to face and sometimes bankruptcy is the last resort. An accidental twist of a knee can result in knee surgeries costing far more than nakedstudent's $30,000 annual income. Then again, $30,000 is small compared to a bill for far more serious problems. Let nakedstudent be cocky while he can. Reality will catch up with him someday.

[Croydon]

People like nakedstudent don't seem to realize that one's life can take a radical change of direction in a matter of a second or two and the best laid plans are destroyed. Those of us who have gone through such events do what we can to cope with the new reality we have to face and sometimes bankruptcy is the last resort. An accidental twist of a knee can result knee surgeries costing far more than nakedstudent's $30,000 annual income. Then again, $30,000 is small compared to a bill for far more serious problems. Let nakedstudent be cocky while he can. Reality will catch up with him someday.
Sooner or later, he will find himself in a situation that will turn his world upside down. Nakedstudent is quite naive and ignorant. Part of it is his age but the other part of it is that he lives a sheltered life. Lives at home with his parents still. Sadly for him, he has not lived in real world nor has he opened his sheltered eyes to see how real people live and how real problems develop. He refuses to open his mind to see outside is black and white beliefs.

NO ONE intends to get bankrupt. As you stated, it just takes a mere second for one's life to be turned completely upside down. In the case of my aunt, it took her husband's illness to take her from financially independent to completely broke and struggling.

[BinCo]

Oh, Nakedstudent, you poor fool. I remember being so young and foolish and thinking the world was black and white. I can name you more people than I would like who have lived within their means, saved money every month, never spent more than necessary, never bought a new car, bought small homes and still had life toss them on their heads. Most lost everything because the company laid them off, for any one of a number of reasons. Several lost because of medical issues. Several lost one job and the new one didn't provide health insurance, or only paid 1/2, and then they now get to have a $600+ monthly payment for insurance that was not in the budget.

You will find these things out as you teach students and learn more about them than you think. I'm not sure what grades you will be teaching, but you will find out that kids can't afford to eat a good breakfest, get that skinned elbow stitched up, get shoes that fit, get a decent winter jacket, buy school supplies and any one of a number of things because their mom or dad lost their job, has no insurance, has a job that can't make ends meet and needs to work 2 of them leaving the kids to watch themselves and any of a miriade of things that you're little bit of empathy will not understand.

I hope the best for you, but remember, Karma is a bi&&%.

NOW CAN WE RETURN THIS THREAD TO SOTOMAYOR??? I'll start a new thread to pull this one away from the topic it's been dragged into.

[MoonShadow]

Wow! After reading this thread, it is like witnessing a stoning but with words instead of rocks.

Everyone of you are right! Yes, even Nakedstudent. He sees bankruptcy from the perspective of those who abuse their income, budgets, and over-extend themselves. But these are the exception rather than the rule and yes, bankruptcies occur from such irresponsibility.

The rest of you see bankruptcy from real world reasons that FORCE people who are responsible for their budgets and living within their means into bankruptcy. This is more the rule than the exception.

And yes, back to topic :D

[Sanslines]

Reasons For Bankruptcy:


WHO FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY?


People file for bankruptcy for a great many reasons.

Obviously, most people file for bankruptcy when they don't have enough money to pay their bills. Some incur too much credit card debt. Others have problems stemming from loss of employment such as being laid off or fired from a job. Some lose their employment because their business has downsized. Others lose their jobs due to age discrimination, even though it is illegal.

For many, bankruptcy comes when they are faced with medical problems or the loss of work due to illness, either temporary or long term. Some are thrust into bankruptcy when they based their standard of living on funds from overtime work, which ultimately ended. Many buy a house with a mortgage that's too big. Unexpected, large expenses with a home or car, drive many into bankruptcy.

Some file for bankruptcy because of personal problems that get out of control such as gambling, drinking and drugs. Many seem to have an addiction to spending money. Others seem to simply have poor money management skills. Some have a calamity befall them, such as unknowingly moving into a house contaminated with toxic mold.

Whatever the reasons, and there are many more, they need to consider filing for bankruptcy.

HOW MANY PEOPLE FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY EACH YEAR?

The United States Census estimates that in 2002 there were about 288,000,000 people in the U.S. In the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2002, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts determined that there were 39,091 business bankruptcy filings and 1,508,578 non-business bankruptcy filings in this country in that year. Assuming that each non-business bankruptcy filing means one person filed for bankruptcy, then one out of every 191 individuals in the country, including the number of children, filed for bankruptcy in fiscal 2002. A bankruptcy filing can include a husband and wife, and therefore the number of filings of 1,508,578, means that more than that number of individuals filed for bankruptcy that year.

You probably know several individuals who have filed for bankruptcy, they just didn't tell you. A bankruptcy filing can be a fairly well-kept secret, notwithstanding that it is a matter of public record. It is unlike a divorce filing, where one party usually moves out of the marital house. A household in bankruptcy can look pretty much the same before bankruptcy as it does after bankruptcy.

THE BENEFITS OF BANKRUPTCY

The primary benefits of bankruptcy are four fold.

The first benefit is that on the filing of bankruptcy, creditors are generally barred from debt collection by what is called the automatic stay in bankruptcy. Creditors' telephone calls stop, debt collection stops, car repossessions stop and mortgage foreclosures and other law suits are stopped. Some of these actions are stopped permanently when the discharge of debts is issued, but others are only stopped temporarily even if the discharge of debts is eventually issued.

The second benefit is that most consumer bankruptcy cases end with the issuance of the discharge of debts. The discharge extinguishes most credit card debt and medical debts as well as many other types of debt.

The third benefit is that each individual debtor filing for bankruptcy can exempt certain property from the claims of creditors. Exemptions are discussed elsewhere at this web site.

The fourth benefit, available in a reorganization type bankruptcy only, such as chapter 13, is that a bankruptcy repayment plan will allow a debtor to payoff taxes or the arrearages on his mortgage over a period of up to five years.

If I file for bankruptcy, is my credit ruined forever?

No. If you otherwise keep your credit clean after the filing of bankruptcy, your credit will be largely rehabilitated in about two years after you receive the discharge of debts in bankruptcy. If you have kept your credit clean since the bankruptcy filing, your credit will probably be better in two years after the issuance of the discharge than it would have been had you not filed for bankruptcy, but retained your unpaid bills.


http://www.thebankruptcylawyer.net/frequently_asked_questions1.htm

[nimrod]

But that is just the point. There should be no accrual. Income should always exceed expenses on a monthly basis. If it doesn't, you are NOT living within your means.

This culture of credit and borrowing power is toxic. The world would be much better off if credit was eliminated. Credit delays and intensifies the responsibility of making a purchase of any kind.

I will be debt free by 25 and WILL retire as a millionaire and will never reach a 6 figure salary. It takes a simple reversal in thought process. You alter the lifestyle to fit your income. Not the other way around. You can't artificially increase your income with credit cards to feed some lifestyle CHOICE that you are free to make or not make.

This is one of the biggest hoaxes and exploitations by the pop culture we are constantly exposed to. Also the government who encourages it and then tightens the noose around us by decreasing our income to pay for "social welfare" programs which are supposed to be more efficient at spending money than individual humans are.

This is exactly why I had stopped trying to debate you, you just do not seem to understand or you put your own spin on it that has nothing to do with reality.

People accure dept it does happen in life, not everyone does but it happens. I am not just talking about credit cards that is why I used selling a house to elimenate some of the accured debt.

You are slamming people for recieving credit while you yourself have debt, it is called a student loan you said you are paying on it now. Without credit how would you be able to have gone to school? Why did you not take some personal responcibilty and saved enough to pay for your schooling without accure dept? Think before you speak, and then rethink about what you are going to say it might save yourself some embarassment.

Yes credit, like anything else, can be toxic when over indulged in, but it is not the only reason why people find themselves in financial problems.

If you do not like your taxes going towards "social welfare" programs, stop paying taxes and see what that gets you. But you also have to remember your taxes are used for other purposes that you may agree with and want to support. I know I would rather see my taxes go towards social welfare programs that work then giving the idiot politicians another raise or to buy another bullet that will be used to kill someone in a war that we should never have been in.

[nakedstudent]

Ironically Mr. Conservative (yea you, Nakedstudent) has a pretty decent plan for retiring as a millionaire. Live off of your parents until you can get ahead in the game, invest part of your earnings into the financial markets (which are made and broken by others who borrow their way to prosperity) and (as a teacher) suckle off the government teat, all while telling those other lazy bums to 'get a job, live within your means and stop going to the government for help.'

1. Has vs have verb usage.

2. I am not living off of my parents. You know nothing about what I pay them for rent and utilities in comparison to market rates in my area.

3. I am getting out of education so don't give me this "sucking teat" argument. Even so, the vocation that I THOUGHT I was called to is almost exclusively controlled by the government. So seeing as how I thought teaching was my CALLING in life, I had very little choice as to whether I worked in the public or private sector.

4. Working a government job and living within the income I make doing it is NO COMPARISON to welfare or a public sector employee needing 6 credit cards to pay bills or buying an expensive home on a small salary.

5. I didn't say "lazy bums get a job" anywhere in my previous posts. My posts were with the exclusive view of living within means. This doesn't speak to the millions in this country who are unemployed or underemployed. Many of these people are still doing things the right way. They are driving down expenses and using savings and the little income they do have to do what they can for themselves.

There are others who have lost the concept of self reliance and independence. The most powerful way to create wealth is with income. When you're constantly paying off backed debt, you have little to no control over your future. I.E. DON'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE! That's a principle everyone should be able to live by...

[nakedstudent]

This is exactly why I had stopped trying to debate you, you just do not seem to understand or you put your own spin on it that has nothing to do with reality.

People accure dept it does happen in life, not everyone does but it happens. I am not just talking about credit cards that is why I used selling a house to elimenate some of the accured debt.

You are slamming people for recieving credit while you yourself have debt, it is called a student loan you said you are paying on it now. Without credit how would you be able to have gone to school? Why did you not take some personal responcibilty and saved enough to pay for your schooling without accure dept? Think before you speak, and then rethink about what you are going to say it might save yourself some embarassment.


I accrued less than 20% of the entire cost of my education in school loans. This is a very small percentage. And I worked my tail off to do so, working 3 and 4 summer jobs and earning scholarships along the way. The small amount of debt that I did take on is less than 50% of my annual income. These numbers are extremely rare today. Many students will graduate with more than 100% of their educational cost in loans between apartment costs and living money. Many also have over 100% of their beginning annual salary in loans too.


[/QUOTE]
If you do not like your taxes going towards "social welfare" programs, stop paying taxes and see what that gets you. But you also have to remember your taxes are used for other purposes that you may agree with and want to support. I know I would rather see my taxes go towards social welfare programs that work then giving the idiot politicians another raise or to buy another bullet that will be used to kill someone in a war that we should never have been in.[/QUOTE]

Please tell me where in the construct of government (the US Constitution) it says that we should be forced to buy auto companies with our tax moneys? Please tell me where it says that the national government should have the power to force its citizens to spend all the "stimulus" money on anything let alone projects such as pig odor research, catfish, genome research, or building bridges nowhere near to the vast majority of those who pay for it?

If you are naive enough to think you can't survive without the works of our great politicians, more power to them. I happen to feel that I could find much better investments for my own money than writing a stimulus check to someone who's been dead for 40 years...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8iAM-pwUQ

[jon71]

I accrued less than 20% of the entire cost of my education in school loans. This is a very small percentage. And I worked my tail off to do so, working 3 and 4 summer jobs and earning scholarships along the way. The small amount of debt that I did take on is less than 50% of my annual income. These numbers are extremely rare today. Many students will graduate with more than 100% of their educational cost in loans between apartment costs and living money. Many also have over 100% of their beginning annual salary in loans too.



If you do not like your taxes going towards "social welfare" programs, stop paying taxes and see what that gets you. But you also have to remember your taxes are used for other purposes that you may agree with and want to support. I know I would rather see my taxes go towards social welfare programs that work then giving the idiot politicians another raise or to buy another bullet that will be used to kill someone in a war that we should never have been in.[/QUOTE]

Please tell me where in the construct of government (the US Constitution) it says that we should be forced to buy auto companies with our tax moneys? Please tell me where it says that the national government should have the power to force its citizens to spend all the "stimulus" money on anything let alone projects such as pig odor research, catfish, genome research, or building bridges nowhere near to the vast majority of those who pay for it?

If you are naive enough to think you can't survive without the works of our great politicians, more power to them. I happen to feel that I could find much better investments for my own money than writing a stimulus check to someone who's been dead for 40 years...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8iAM-pwUQ[/QUOTE]



To answer your question about "where in the constitution..." the answer is "to provide for the general welfare..." in the preamble. That's used for the welfare system for starters but can conceivable cover just about anything that's for the good of the American people.

[jon71]

I don't know why but the dividing line between what I said and what Nakedstudent said in the last post aren't clear. I began with "To answer your question...".

[alfredr]

A technicality, or my memory versus yours, jon71. I think it says, " ...promote the general welfare, provide for the common defense..."

[nimrod]

I accrued less than 20% of the entire cost of my education in school loans. This is a very small percentage. And I worked my tail off to do so, working 3 and 4 summer jobs and earning scholarships along the way. The small amount of debt that I did take on is less than 50% of my annual income. These numbers are extremely rare today. Many students will graduate with more than 100% of their educational cost in loans between apartment costs and living money. Many also have over 100% of their beginning annual salary in loans too.

It does not matter what others did or how they did it, compared to what you did or are doing, if you took on debt you are a hypocrite.

Please tell me where in the construct of government (the US Constitution) it says that we should be forced to buy auto companies with our tax moneys? Please tell me where it says that the national government should have the power to force its citizens to spend all the "stimulus" money on anything let alone projects such as pig odor research, catfish, genome research, or building bridges nowhere near to the vast majority of those who pay for it?

I will say that I do not like seeing my taxes used unwisely and that was the point I was trying to make. I am not sure where you are going with the stimulus money and we as citizens are being force to spend it on anything, it is usually the idiots in government making those kind of decisions that will give themselves raises while the state falls into bankruptcy and then blame it all on social services instead of seeing the big picture which is it is not just one thing.

If you are naive enough to think you can't survive without the works of our great politicians, more power to them. I happen to feel that I could find much better investments for my own money than writing a stimulus check to someone who's been dead for 40 years...

The problem is that the great politicians are far and few between. But we are still talking about the same thing, wasteful spending of our taxes by idiot politicians. One thing that you failed to see in my previous post is that I said social programs that work, not all and any social program. I do not know why I bother with you and trying to debate you, you just are unable to leave your interpretations out of my posts.

[nakedstudent]

To answer your question about "where in the constitution..." the answer is "to provide for the general welfare..." in the preamble. That's used for the welfare system for starters but can conceivable cover just about anything that's for the good of the American people.

River walks around small towns, the John Murtha Airport (in my own backyard) and a suicide prevention net sound pretty specific to me.

I don't see how one can possibly justify the level of spending that the US government has undertaken in the past 60 or so years with 6 words from a document that is as long as the constitution is.

You've taken those 6 words completely out of context.

[nakedstudent]

People like nakedstudent don't seem to realize that one's life can take a radical change of direction in a matter of a second or two and the best laid plans are destroyed. Those of us who have gone through such events do what we can to cope with the new reality we have to face and sometimes bankruptcy is the last resort. An accidental twist of a knee can result in knee surgeries costing far more than nakedstudent's $30,000 annual income. Then again, $30,000 is small compared to a bill for far more serious problems. Let nakedstudent be cocky while he can. Reality will catch up with him someday.

Oh I realize it can happen. If think I am not aware of this, you are mistaken. What I advocate is preparation. The best way to be prepared for a huge expense is to be debt free and saving as much money a month as possible.

[nakedstudent]

It does not matter what others did or how they did it, compared to what you did or are doing, if you took on debt you are a hypocrite.



I believe my first "financial" post in this thread said "Don't blow cash." It said nothing about credit.

Granted, I said the world would be much better off if credit was banned (which I defend), but I never said I had any animosity towards all who use it. Credit is not for me personally, but it could be valuable when used responsibly.

I have relatives who have put themselves in a position where they will be working until they fall into the grave because of credit cards. They will literally be typing or in some other fashion working at a desk and the chair will tilt back to put them in the ground. This lifestyle CHOICE has been passed on to their children both with consequences of not having savings to invest in their own education and also in the amount of money they can spend in a sitting.

[nimrod]

Credit is not for me personally.

And yet you do not see how you are being a hypocrite. If you say it is not for you but then you use credit you are a hypocrite.

[jon71]

A technicality, or my memory versus yours, jon71. I think it says, " ...promote the general welfare, provide for the common defense..."

I think you're right.

[jon71]

River walks around small towns, the John Murtha Airport (in my own backyard) and a suicide prevention net sound pretty specific to me.

I don't see how one can possibly justify the level of spending that the US government has undertaken in the past 60 or so years with 6 words from a document that is as long as the constitution is.

You've taken those 6 words completely out of context.

Congress has to be specific when they establish a budget. They can't very well say "spend some money on stuff" and expect the country to function. They have to say "spend x$ on Y-project". The constitution is an outline or a mission statement pointing us in the right general direction. Modern politicians have to use that to govern and take us in directions our founding fathers would never have conceived of. Taking care of the general welfare is a good part of our mission statement. From that congress (and the President) have pretty close to carte blanche on how to accomplish that.

[Sanslines]

Congress has to be specific when they establish a budget. They can't very well say "spend some money on stuff" and expect the country to function. They have to say "spend x$ on Y-project". The constitution is an outline or a mission statement pointing us in the right general direction. Modern politicians have to use that to govern and take us in directions our founding fathers would never have conceived of. Taking care of the general welfare is a good part of our mission statement. From that congress (and the President) have pretty close to carte blanche on how to accomplish that.

I think the issue is not a black and white issue about either providing or not providing for the welfare of the nation. The issue at hand is what specific aspects of welfare are to be provided, at what level or degree, and who will pay for this welfare.

[nakedstudent]

And yet you do not see how you are being a hypocrite. If you say it is not for you but then you use credit you are a hypocrite.

Once again nimrod, I am finding the same results as many other discussions with you in the past. Thanks so much for responding to my post in it's entirety.

With that, I bid these political discussions adieu for a while... they're starting to negatively affect my mental sanity... though who could blame me with the number of crooks in DC? My congressman has been tied to intense investigation of some sort or another for about 6 months now.

[jon71]

I think the issue is not a black and white issue about either providing or not providing for the welfare of the nation. The issue at hand is what specific aspects of welfare are to be provided, at what level or degree, and who will pay for this welfare.

Good point. In something as huge as the stimulus I'm sure all of us could find things we agree with and things we disagree with and that's o.k., that's how it works.

[nakedstudent]

It does not matter what others did or how they did it, compared to what you did or are doing, if you took on debt you are a hypocrite.




For the record, taking school debt before experiencing the real world does not make me a hypocrite. That assumes I was as firm ideologically as I am now at the age of 17. I am a much different person at 23 than I was at 17. This makes me a person who has seen the error of his ways and has realized that it is easily corrected. It does NOT make me a hypocrite.

[Bob S.]

Mark: "They are taking that quote completely out of context by leaving out what she says before and after. If you read the whole statement (http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_12452881) you will see that she is saying that she hopes her life experience would lead her to reach better conclusions, but that it may not, which it why it is so important to be very recognizant of the effect of your background on your decision making process in order to monitor it and not allow it to distort your judgment."
Mark, all through her lecture, she constantly argues that her experiences will shape her decisions. In fact, she argues that it is impossible for it not to:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greate degree of fairness and inegrity based on he reason of law. Although I agree with and aspire to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to law and society.

Judges need to ignore their personal prejudices that may interfere (something she says she may do even in the conclusion that you provided) and use only their prejudices regarding their take on the Constitution and the law. Thus, being a woman or Latino should make absolutely no difference in how one applies the law to the case, which is exactly the opposite of what she stated in the above quote, and something which she argued in the lecture, including the conclusion you provided.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

Mark, all through her lecture, she constantly argues that her experiences will shape her decisions. In fact, she argues that it is impossible for it not to:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greate degree of fairness and inegrity based on he reason of law. Although I agree with and aspire to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to law and society.Yes, Judge Sotomayor recognizes that every judge's perceptions are colored by their experiences, unavoidably. She hopes her own experiences will make her a better judge - as would any other judge. But she also notes her great responsibility to monitor with vigilence how her experiences shade her perceptions in order to insure her decisions are made with fairness and integrity.

In other words, her speech totally rejects the notion that she claims her life experience automatically makes her superior to white men, as those who accuse her of racism contend.

Judges need to ignore their personal prejudices that may interfere (something she says she may do even in the conclusion that you provided) and use only their prejudices regarding their take on the Constitution and the law. Thus, being a woman or Latino should make absolutely no difference in how one applies the law to the case, which is exactly the opposite of what she stated in the above quote, and something which she argued in the lecture, including the conclusion you provided.

Bob S.Not so. Being a woman or latino could very well provide her with context that another judge may miss. No judge can erase who they are and deny that it will color their perceptions, the best ones will use it when it helps and recognize and guard against it when it doesn't. It is only inappropriate when it it prevents understanding. Such background was not called into question when Justices Alito and Scalia spoke of their experience in having immigrant family members, and was held up as a resounding plus for Justice Thomas.

[nimrod]

For the record, taking school debt before experiencing the real world does not make me a hypocrite. That assumes I was as firm ideologically as I am now at the age of 17. I am a much different person at 23 than I was at 17. This makes me a person who has seen the error of his ways and has realized that it is easily corrected. It does NOT make me a hypocrite.

Whatever gets you through the night student. If it is that important to you not to be a hypocrite you can rationalize it all you want. For the record untill you have lived truelly on your own you have not really experienced the real world.

[Bob S.]

Mark: "Being a woman or latino could very well provide her with context that another judge may miss."

Like what? The law is not written in Woman or Latino language. It is always one' s preconceptions that is gained by life that one must dismiss as a judge. Ms. Sotomayor stated that should not necessarily be the case. How your life influences your leaning of the law is one thing, but to allow that to influence your decision is another.

If that is the case, judges will look for a constitutional way to get around a certain issue even if it isn't argued in the specific case. Judges should only look at the evidence of each case, in terms of law and arguments made, and not look into their own background or prejudices for answers.

Mark: "Such background was not called into question when Justices Alito and Scalia spoke of their experience in having immigrant family members, and was held up as a resounding plus for Justice Thomas."

Actually, Joe Biden, our now VP, was critical of the nomination of Clarence Thomas. (quote found by Rush, but is out there) "I think the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black. I don't believe he coulda won had he been white. The reason I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush."

But realize that nobody of consequence is saying anything bad about Sotomayor because she is Latina. If you can find someone, please let me know. What people are complaining about are her words.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

Mark: "Being a woman or latino could very well provide her with context that another judge may miss."

Like what? The law is not written in Woman or Latino language. Are you sure about that? Don't you think that having direct knowledge of being a woman or Latino might add additional insight when dealing with discrimination cases? Wouldn't such a person have a different, and possibly better understanding of the situations that arise than the "typical white male"?

Are you actually arguing that judges should NOT have any understanding of the situations of the people who bring cases before them? That "blind justice" means deliberate ignorance?
Mark: "Such background was not called into question when Justices Alito and Scalia spoke of their experience in having immigrant family members, and was held up as a resounding plus for Justice Thomas."

Actually, Joe Biden, our now VP, was critical of the nomination of Clarence Thomas. (quote found by Rush, but is out there) "I think the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black. I don't believe he coulda won had he been white. The reason I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush."Biden didn't oppose Thomas because of his potential for empathy (which was promoted as one of his qualifications by GHW Bush), Biden opposed him because of his obvious lack of qualifications and deficient intellect.

But realize that nobody of consequence is saying anything bad about Sotomayor because she is Latina. If you can find someone, please let me know. What people are complaining about are her words. Their complaints are based on a deliberate mischaracterization of her words - not her actual statements.

Then there is this from "radio host" G. Gordon Liddy which is pretty clearly just barely veiled misogyny and anti-latino bias:

<center><object height="60" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9temHOTjVF0&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9temHOTjVF0&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="60" width="320"></object></center>

And then there is the always fine Christian gentleman Tom Tancredo

<center><object width="320" height="60"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JZgtxwqGDiQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JZgtxwqGDiQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="60"></embed></object></center>
By the way ... the slurring of Sotomayor for her association with the "racist" latino "KKK" group "La Raza" is racism of the worst sort, based on an imaginary confabulation (http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/28/sotomayor-la-raza-member/) about La Raza that has no basis in reality. (http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/42500/)

[Sanslines]

........Don't you think that having direct knowledge of being a woman or Latino might add additional insight when dealing with discrimination cases? Wouldn't such a person have a different, and possibly better understanding of the situations that arise than the "typical white male"?


Only if the woman or Latino had first hand experiences of being discriminated against. A non typical white male who had such experiences would certainly be qualified. Hence, the issue of being white, a woman, Latino, is really irrelevant. What is important is that the person have first hand experiences of discrimination regardless of race, gender, etc.

[Naturist Mark]

Only if the woman or Latino had first hand experiences of being discriminated against.

Gee, what are the chances of that?


lol


You'll note that both Alito made of virtue of the empathy he has in immigrant issue NOT because of his first hand experience, but because of his family history - his immigrant grandparents.

[Fitz1980]

Gee, what are the chances of that?


lol


You'll note that both Alito made of virtue of the empathy he has in immigrant issue NOT because of his first hand experience, but because of his family history - his immigrant grandparents.

Also notice that no one in the mainstream media raised hell over that one. That's our "Liberal Media (TM)" at work.

[Sanslines]

Gee, what are the chances of that?


lol


You'll note that both Alito made of virtue of the empathy he has in immigrant issue NOT because of his first hand experience, but because of his family history - his immigrant grandparents.

Willie Brown is a good example of someone who claimed deprivation while he was young so that he could garner votes from the poor. Yet he lived the life of total luxury as a politician. His $1000 plus suits and chauffer driven limos were the reality and people who experience such luxury quickly forget their roots.

[Naturist Mark]

Gingrich Accuses Sotomayor of Faking Broken Ankle (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/gingrich-accuses-sotomayo_b_212749.html)

WASHINGTON, June 8, 2009 — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accused Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor today of faking a broken ankle in order to get sympathy votes during her Senate confirmation.

"She's only wearing that fake cast to help her rack up votes," Mr. Gingrich said. "The minute she's confirmed, she'll whip it off and start dancing a jig."

While Ms. Sotomayor reportedly broke her ankle while rushing to catch a plane, the former House Speaker said, "The fake-ankle-cast thing is the oldest trick in the book."

Mr. Gingrich said that if Ms. Sotomayor was counting on arousing the empathy of Republican senators by faking a broken ankle, she was "sorely mistaken."

"Ms. Sotomayor needs to brush up on her law," he said. "Last time I checked, empathy was unconstitutional."

[Sanslines]

Gingrich Accuses Sotomayor of Faking Broken Ankle (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/gingrich-accuses-sotomayo_b_212749.html)

WASHINGTON, June 8, 2009 — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accused Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor today of faking a broken ankle in order to get sympathy votes during her Senate confirmation.

"She's only wearing that fake cast to help her rack up votes," Mr. Gingrich said. "The minute she's confirmed, she'll whip it off and start dancing a jig."

While Ms. Sotomayor reportedly broke her ankle while rushing to catch a plane, the former House Speaker said, "The fake-ankle-cast thing is the oldest trick in the book."

Mr. Gingrich said that if Ms. Sotomayor was counting on arousing the empathy of Republican senators by faking a broken ankle, she was "sorely mistaken."

"Ms. Sotomayor needs to brush up on her law," he said. "Last time I checked, empathy was unconstitutional."

If her ankle is really broken, then all she needs to do is to release an xray of her broken ankle to the media followed by a clear and brief letter stating that Newt Gingrich is a liar, a fake, and a fraud who should be banned from politics.

[Naturist Mark]

Newt Gingrich is a liar, a fake, and a fraud who should be banned from politics.

Can't argue with that, but in his defense, the article above is satire. But with the way Newt has been behaving recently it's hard to tell the difference.

[Sanslines]

Can't argue with that, but in his defense, the article above is satire. But with the way Newt has been behaving recently it's hard to tell the difference.

Then whoever wrote this satire piece should be banned from ever writing satire again!

[Naturist Mark]

Then whoever wrote this satire piece should be banned from ever writing satire again!

Good luck with that! More from Andy Borowitz (http://borowitzreport.com/archives.aspx)

[Illinois59]

I heard Rush Limbaugh say today that during the 8 years of George Bush, 32 million jobs were saved or created. He didn't say in what country, however. I don't believe the country is the USA. How can anybody believe what these guys say?

[Bob S.]

Mark: "Don't you think that having direct knowledge of being a woman or Latino might add additional insight when dealing with discrimination cases? Wouldn't such a person have a different, and possibly better understanding of the situations that arise than the "typical white male"?"

And therein lies the crux of the argument. A typical white male can be discriminated against. The case that came up in Sotomayor's court (and a similar thing in this area a year or two ago) where a firefighter's (?) advancement test was deemed discriminatory because no (or very few--I am getting this and the local case mixed up) minority passed. There are now two versions of discrimination that are being looked at: whether the test was discriminatory or whether tossing out all results was discriminating against the whites who passed. I am not sure what information the Sotomayor case test dealt with, but the local one was a math test.

Also, I have felt discriminational attitudes many times for being a male (not necessarily white). I was told by my boss at one job that I was not allowed to change diapers even though I had done that with no issues at another facility. I asked if it was policy and the bosses (both women) said that it was to allay any concerns of imporpriety. Jokingly but serious, one boss said that she would not trust me to change her granddaughter's diaper.

Discrimination is very much human as opposed to black, white, male female. I do not want someone who is relying on their gender or ethnic background to make a legal decision. I want them to look at the law itself and ignore the biases that come from gender or ethnicity.


Mark: "Are you actually arguing that judges should NOT have any understanding of the situations of the people who bring cases before them? That "blind justice" means deliberate ignorance?"

I am not saying they shouldn't understand the situations of the people. That is absolutely required, but they should not be using their own experiences to come to the conclusions. A white man can come to the same conclusion as a black woman using the same rationalities. Where does the personal backgrounds of either come into play?

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Anyone who wants to discuss the topic that Illinois started here: I heard Rush Limbaugh say today that during the 8 years of George Bush, 32 million jobs were saved or created. He didn't say in what country, however. I don't believe the country is the USA. How can anybody believe what these guys say? can go to This topic (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=231288#post231288) that I created just for it.

Any messages on that topic here will be moved.

Thank you.

Bob S.
moderator

[Naturist Mark]

M
And therein lies the crux of the argument. A typical white male can be discriminated against. The case that came up in Sotomayor's court (and a similar thing in this area a year or two ago) where a firefighter's (?) advancement test was deemed discriminatory because no (or very few--I am getting this and the local case mixed up) minority passed. There are now two versions of discrimination that are being looked at: whether the test was discriminatory or whether tossing out all results was discriminating against the whites who passed. I am not sure what information the Sotomayor case test dealt with, but the local one was a math test.Not exactly, we already discussed the New Haven case here (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=230165#post230165). It did not create a new standard of discrimination, it upheld the old one codified in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law passed by Congress that prohibits use of employment tests that show a clear pattern or strong evidence of racial bias. It was the first time the test was used. The test was thrown out, no one was promoted or held back because of it. A new method needed to be used that didn't rely on a defective test.


[B]Mark: "Are you actually arguing that judges should NOT have any understanding of the situations of the people who bring cases before them? That "blind justice" means deliberate ignorance?"

I am not saying they shouldn't understand the situations of the people. That is absolutely required, but they should not be using their own experiences to come to the conclusions. A white man can come to the same conclusion as a black woman using the same rationalities. Where does the personal backgrounds of either come into play?

Bob S.Personal backgrounds that helped to inform their judgements were OK for Scalia, Alito and Thomas. Is this a new standard that only applies to nominees who are not extreme conservatives?

[Bob S.]

Mark: "Personal backgrounds that helped to inform their judgements were OK for Scalia, Alito and Thomas. Is this a new standard that only applies to nominees who are not extreme conservatives?"

It is not OK whether it is from Scalia or Ginsburg. Personal background is not a good way for a justice to make a decision in a case be the person male, female, white, black, hispanic, asian, conservative, or liberal.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

Mark: "Personal backgrounds that helped to inform their judgements were OK for Scalia, Alito and Thomas. Is this a new standard that only applies to nominees who are not extreme conservatives?"

It is not OK whether it is from Scalia or Ginsburg. Personal background is not a good way for a justice to make a decision in a case be the person male, female, white, black, hispanic, asian, conservative, or liberal.

Bob S.

I don't think a good judge does base their decisions on personal bias, but a good judge does use all the tools at their disposal to understand the issues at hand, especially 'empathy'.

Remember empathy is the ability to see something from another person's point of view - not mindless sympathy based on similarity of experience.

But that comes with a responsibility to recognize one's own unavoidable bias, and the need to be vigilant in guarding against being prejudicial due to it - THAT is what Sotomayor was talking about in her ever so mischaracterized speech.

Now consider how horrible a judge who doesn't have empathy would be. Unable to see any issue from any viewpoint but their own. That isn't blind justice, that is incompetent justice.

[marko486]

I wished I had saved that letter to the editor I wrote a couple weeks ago. I thought I summed it well. Basically if you go back a hundred some years ago when we had the same basic constitution and all male white juries came to the conclusion multiple times that slavery was ok by the constitution and then you put a person of color on that same jury who had experience with slavery, that person would likely come to a different conclusion. By reasoning of people like Rush, that person would be a racist. that was the crux of it. Sotomayor was basically saying that believing there is only one right answer when judging and that is just foolish thinking. Of course who you are affects how you judge. You have to be aware of it.

[Bob S.]

marko: "Basically if you go back a hundred some years ago when we had the same basic constitution and all male white juries came to the conclusion multiple times that slavery was ok by the constitution"

Slavery was allowable by the Constitution to the point of the Three Fifths Compromise in Article 1 in deciding how population would be determined for the legislature. Times shift and so do attitudes. Remember, it was an white male Supreme Court that decided the desegregation case in 1954.

Mark: "Now consider how horrible a judge who doesn't have empathy would be. Unable to see any issue from any viewpoint but their own. That isn't blind justice, that is incompetent justice."

Empathy is a worthy emotion when it comes to sentencing guidelines and mediation, but not when it comes to deciding a case. The judge's view of the law is all they should be using when deciding a case. In many a case, a judge has reached a verdict that contradicts their own ideals as it was the right one to reach based on the facts of the case.

Empathy in judges' decisions may bring about the end of nude protests or other first amendment cases because the judge wil empathize with the side that had to endure the free speech advocates.

A judge should be able to look at two sides of the case and come up with a decision that is based on law alone and not on any feelings he or she gets from the defendant or prosecution.

Courts of Appeal (of which the Supreme Court is the final one) will always decide cases based solely on the word of law and how it applied to each case. The attorneys are usually there because of a problem regarding the wording of the law or the manner in which the original case was decided. The higher appellate courts really don't have much room for empathy in terms of how they should decide. They need to focus more on the laws themselves, which they are bound by.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

marko: Empathy is a worthy emotion when it comes to sentencing guidelines and mediation, but not when it comes to deciding a case. The judge's view of the law is all they should be using when deciding a case. In many a case, a judge has reached a verdict that contradicts their own ideals as it was the right one to reach based on the facts of the case.


Please note that Empathy and Sympathy are not the same anywhere in the world except on Fox news channel.

Don't assume that every case is a criminal case that involves sentencing. Very few federal cases are, especially those that reach the Supreme Court. We aren't talking about a judge "feeling empathy" for a criminal (again, this is a confusion of empathy with sympathy). We are talking about the judge being able to understand the situation of the people involved in the cases - such as victims, litigants who have been harmed or allege harm, as well as those accused or whom have had complaints filed against them. A judge who can't understand (not sympathize - understand) their situation makes mechanical decisions that may as well have been made by a computer program - that removes judgment from justice. Such a judge would be menace.

[Bob S.]

First Mark, how did you manage to have marko's name attributed to my quote?

Mark: "We are talking about the judge being able to understand the situation of the people involved in the cases - such as victims, litigants who have been harmed or allege harm, as well as those accused or whom have had complaints filed against them. A judge who can't understand (not sympathize - understand) their situation makes mechanical decisions that may as well have been made by a computer program - that removes judgment from justice. Such a judge would be menace."

Judges are about deciding if defendant broke a law, violated the tenets of a contract, or whatever they are in the court for. These decisions must be black and white and the judges must be able to back their decisions with the law. If they cannot, then they are violating the responsibilities that are a part of their job.

I am not saying that they cannot show compassion after reaching their decision, as supported by law. I think we may be arguing about slightly different aspects. I am not discounting that judges may use their knowledge of the law to make a common sense decision, but they also must understand that their decisions can and may be used in other cases.

Bob S.

[jon71]

A Supreme court justice will be deciding constitutional matters. It will be cases where two different circuit courts ruled contradictorarily or where congress may or may not have gone beyond what the constitution allows. Criminal cases with victims and defendants won't be a large part of it and when cases like that show up it won't even be about guily or innocence. Take the Miranda case for instance. When it got to the Supreme court it had nothing to do with whether or not he actually committed the crime he was accused of, that was completely irrelevant, it was about whether or not his constitutional rights were being followed. The empathy a Supreme courts has won't be for one criminal defendant, it will be for all Americans.

[Skinview]

Sotomayor should be rejected because she is anti gun and she will disregard the Constitution to allow states to disregard the Second Amendment, as she does. She wrote an opinion in 2004 that stated that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." Last year the US Supreme Court made the exact opposite ruling in the Heller case. Then, in 2009, she made the outlandish ruling, in Maloney v. Cuomo, that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Bill of Rights now applies to the states. Another appeals court has already issued an opinion opposite to Sotomayor's, and this will be headed to the Supreme Court, where she would get to rule on her monsterous previous ruling if she is put on that Court. Sotomayor is an activist judge who has, and will, turn a blind eye to the Constitution to supress civil liberties that she does not like. Her nomination to the Supreme Court should be defeated.

[Fitz1980]

Activist judge is code language for "judge who makes ruling that I don't agree with."

[jon71]

Sotomayor should be rejected because she is anti gun and she will disregard the Constitution to allow states to disregard the Second Amendment, as she does. She wrote an opinion in 2004 that stated that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." Last year the US Supreme Court made the exact opposite ruling in the Heller case. Then, in 2009, she made the outlandish ruling, in Maloney v. Cuomo, that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Bill of Rights now applies to the states. Another appeals court has already issued an opinion opposite to Sotomayor's, and this will be headed to the Supreme Court, where she would get to rule on her monsterous previous ruling if she is put on that Court. Sotomayor is an activist judge who has, and will, turn a blind eye to the Constitution to supress civil liberties that she does not like. Her nomination to the Supreme Court should be defeated.


The fact that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states is an honest and obvious look at the U.S. constitution. All that's going on here is that the second amendment in reality doesn't go a fraction as far as you wish it did. She will be honest about it and you hate that.

[Naturist Mark]

First Mark, how did you manage to have marko's name attributed to my quote?

I didn't. It was quoted from your post exactly as you wrote it. The attribution is for your name. The marko: on the next line was from the text of your post.

[Skinview]

The fact that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states is an honest and obvious look at the U.S. constitution.So obvious that another appeals court ruled the opposite way. Are there any other parts of the Bill of Rights that you don't think apply to the states? The First Amendment? Fourth?


All that's going on here is that the second amendment in reality doesn't go a fraction as far as you wish it did. She will be honest about it and you hate that.
Honestly, her interpretation was struck down.

[jon71]

So obvious that another appeals court ruled the opposite way. Are there any other parts of the Bill of Rights that you don't think apply to the states? The First Amendment? Fourth?



Honestly, her interpretation was struck down.


Different parts of the bill or rights are written different ways. The first amendment says "neither congress nor the states shall abridge these rights...". the founders went out of their way to apply the first amendment to both the federal and state govts. The very next amendment very conspicuously doesn't do that. You have the 10th amendment, a recent favorite of conservatives, giving power to the states unless it is specifically given to the fed. govt. or specifically barred from the states. What applies to what part of our govt. fluctuates because our founders wrote it that way. The fact that the second amendment only applies to the fed. govt. is a long standing precedent.
Considering how mainstream and accurate Judge Sotomayer's views are I expect they will be upheld in the end, perhaps with her on the Supreme Court at the time. Wouldn't that be beautiful.

[Naturist Mark]

Different parts of the bill or rights are written different ways. The first amendment says "neither congress nor the states shall abridge these rights...".

Not exactly ...

The Bill or Rights originally only limited the powers of the Federal Government. But with the 14th Amendment's Due Process, Equal Protection and Incorporation clauses most of the Bill of Rights was extended to the States - specifically most of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. The Third and Seventh Amendments still apply exclusively to the Federal government, the Ninth and Tenth do not confer specific rights or prohibitions - they are essentially interpretive. The Second Amendment was never included under incorporation either - because it conferred a right TO the States, but that interpretation may now change since the Supreme Court recognized an individual right under the 2nd Amendment for the first time in the Heller decision last year.

[Skinview]

Aww, Mark, you stole my thunder!


Different parts of the bill or rights are written different ways. The first amendment says "neither congress nor the states shall abridge these rights...".
Well, Jon, you could get an "A" for creative writing, although fabricating quotes would earn yourself an "F" in any school I ever went to. The First Amendment is as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speach, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


the founders went out of their way to apply the first amendment to both the federal and state govts.As Mark wrote, no, they didn't. They only intended it to apply to the Federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment changed that when it was adopted in 1868.


The very next amendment very conspicuously doesn't do that.None of them do. But when the Fourteenth Amendment was debated in the Senate, it was specifically argued that the amendment was needed to, among other things, extend the right to bear arms to freed blacks so they could defend themselves from white racial violence, which became a hallmark of the KKK. Various states had laws that forbade blacks from owning arms.


The fact that the second amendment only applies to the fed. govt. is a long standing precedent.The issue has never come before the Supreme Court. It wasn't until Heller that the Supreme Court even ruled whether or not the Second Amendment is an individual right.


Considering how mainstream and accurate Judge Sotomayer's views areAnd moot, since the Supreme Court ruled the other way.


I expect they will be upheld in the end, perhaps with her on the Supreme Court at the time.I expect the same Supreme Court justices that ruled the Second Amendment is an individual right will extend it to the states. It really wouldn't make any sense not to. It will be interesting to see what rational the dissenting anti gun justices, if there are any, will come up with to exclude the Second Amendment. From what I've read, Sotomayor wrote next to nothing when she made her ruling, which is remarkable for a case like that.



Wouldn't that be beautiful.It would be beautiful if she failed to be confirmed, but I don't expect that.

[Skinview]

with the 14th Amendment's Due Process, Equal Protection and Incorporation clauses most of the Bill of Rights was extended to the States - specifically most of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments.Through a series of court rulings. The various Amendments in the Bill of Rights were incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment one at a time by the courts, and aren't enumerated specifically in the Fourteenth Amendment.


The Second Amendment was never included under incorporation eitherBecause it never came before the Supreme Court.


- because it conferred a right TO the States,This was a misinterpretation by several Federal appeals courts.


but that interpretation may now change since the Supreme Court recognized an individual right under the 2nd Amendment for the first time in the Heller decision last year.It has to. Heller swept away the "states rights" interpretation.

[Naturist Mark]

I expect the same Supreme Court justices that ruled the Second Amendment is an individual right will extend it to the states. It really wouldn't make any sense not to. It will be interesting to see what rational the dissenting anti gun justices, if there are any, will come up with to exclude the Second Amendment. From what I've read, Sotomayor wrote next to nothing when she made her ruling, which is remarkable for a case like that.

It effectively has extended it to the States already. Heller was a federal appeal of a decision on a DC law. Although DC is not a State ... jurisdictionally the decision applies the same as if it originated in a State law.

But remember that Heller was a mixed decision - it recognized an individual right to bear arms for the first time, but explicitly made that right subordinate to the State's power of regulation - but not to the point of outright prohibition.

-Mark

[jon71]

Let's also remember that one of the most conservative courts ever only ruled the way they did in Heller by a 5-4 margin. I wouldn't put much stock in that lasting, especially since it flies in the face of 200 years of precedent. While the usual clowns will protest it being overturned people should note when it happens how calmly that will be accepted by most Americans including most gun owners. Only a rather extreme faction cheered that decision.

[Skinview]

Let's also remember that one of the most conservative courts everThe current court is not remotely as conservative as the Supreme Court was before FDR filled it with justices that would uphold his unconstitutional programs.

I wouldn't put much stock in that lasting, especially since it flies in the face of 200 years of precedent.The collective right interpretation was a 20th century invention, and a couple of Federal appeals courts had already made rulings for the individual rights interpretation. The Heller decision upheld a lower court decision.

While the usual clowns will protest it being overturnedNow that the Supreme Court has spoken, the precedent is likely to be respected.

people should note when it happens how calmly that will be accepted by most Americans including most gun owners.Well, considering the fact that the Democrats lost control of Congress because of a 1994 gun ban, and many gun owners across the country prepared for war over it, I highly doubt overturning their right to bear arms would be taken quietly.


Only a rather extreme faction cheered that decision.ROTFLMAO.
Something like 70% of all Americans agree with the individual rights interpretation. Striking down a gun ban in the city with the most draconian gun control in the country is not going to be unpopular.

[Naturist Mark]

The current court is not remotely as conservative as the Supreme Court was before FDR filled it with justices that would uphold his unconstitutional programs.

Ya'll still pissed off about FDR and the New Deal, eh?

That's no excuse for rewriting history.

During his first term FDR was very frustrated with the almost entirely Republican Supreme Court (sound familiar?) knocking down one New Deal program after another - usually by a 5 to 4 vote. By 1936 he had a plan to deal with that - his so called "court packing plan" that would allow for the appointment of up to six new Supreme Court justices for every justice on the court over the age of 70½.

But It never happened. Shortly before the court packing plan was announced Associate Justice Owen Roberts began to vote with the pro New Deal block rather than with the hard line anti block as he had previously. The Court Packing bill (called the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937) failed utterly in Congress - mostly at the hands of FDR's fellow Democrats. But by then the court - the very same court - was routinely upholding New Deal legislation - this was also partly due to the new bills being tailored to answer some of the objections that the court had with the early bills.

The Hughes Supreme Court changed from opposing the New Deal to supporting it without personnel changes. FDR did of course end up appointing a majority of the justices over the next 7 years - but that was well after the court had stopped opposing New Deal legislation.

[jon71]

The current court is not remotely as conservative as the Supreme Court was before FDR filled it with justices that would uphold his unconstitutional programs.

The collective right interpretation was a 20th century invention, and a couple of Federal appeals courts had already made rulings for the individual rights interpretation. The Heller decision upheld a lower court decision.

Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, the precedent is likely to be respected.

Well, considering the fact that the Democrats lost control of Congress because of a 1994 gun ban, and many gun owners across the country prepared for war over it, I highly doubt overturning their right to bear arms would be taken quietly.


ROTFLMAO.
Something like 70% of all Americans agree with the individual rights interpretation. Striking down a gun ban in the city with the most draconian gun control in the country is not going to be unpopular.

Fewer and fewer people own guns or want to each year. Assuming anywhere close to 70% of Americans actually think that (who did that poll? Was it Gallop, Fox, or what?) only a fraction of them would feel stronly on the matter. That's true of most issues. On any given issue there are those who hold a position and the relative few who hold it strongly. There are a few who would be vocal but not many. It should be obvious by now that you live in an echo chamber completely divorced from reality especially on this issue. The glory days of the gun nuts are over and not you're trying harder and harder to grasp a handful of sand. Bottom line, don't expect to be taken seriously.

[Skinview]

Assuming anywhere close to 70% of Americans actually think that (who did that poll? Was it Gallop, Fox, or what?)The first one I checked just now was Gallup, in 2003, and their figure was 68%. CNN reported a Opinion Research Corp. poll in 2008 that put the figure at 67%:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

There are a few who would be vocal but not many.
Wikipedia states that current NRA membership is "Nearly 4 million".

It should be obvious by now that you live in an echo chamber completely divorced from reality especially on this issue.Considering the number and degree of factual errors that you have been making, I'd say you and reality may never have met one another.

The glory days of the gun nuts are overWe are in better shape now than we have been in decades. We just got a very important Supreme Court decision in our favor, and we are so powerful that the Democrat candidates, like Obama, run around the campaign trail saying that there is an individual right to bear arms and they aren't going to take our guns away, and they are too scared to enact the gun control legislation that they would love to have.

and not you're trying harder and harder to grasp a handful of sand. Bottom line, don't expect to be taken seriously.Ahh well, I'm quite sure I know which one of us is taken more seriously here, even when people disagree with me.

[Skinview]

Ya'll still pissed off about FDR and the New Deal, eh?Damn right I am. And I wasn't even alive then.

That's no excuse for rewriting history.Thats an interesting history lesson, Mark, although it doesn't contradict what I wrote. But I'll take your word for it that there wasn't a direct cause and effect link, like I implied. There would have been a link, if that one judge hadn't switched before those new appointments.

[Naturist Mark]

Wikipedia states that current NRA membership is "Nearly 4 million".

Well, to be accurate, Wikipedia states that the NRA claims 4 million members.

Unfortunately that can't be independently confirmed since the NRA refuses to let anyone see or audit its membership roster. ('Cause Obama could take that list and know who's guns to take away). When it comes to its membership the NRA operates on a strict "Trust, don't Verify" policy.

However ...

Every dues-paying member of the NRA is given a free subscription to their choice of one of three magazines published by the NRA. Those magazines sell advertising. To sell advertising, clients expect the magazines to disclose audited circulation figures. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations the combined circulation of those magazines is disclosed as just 2.7 million. That includes newstand and paid subscription sales, not just the free issues to members.

Looks like the actual dues paying membership is therefore some fraction of 2.7 million. I suppose the difference may be accounted for by "associated" family members - including kids and/or spouses in family memberships - but even including those, it appears the actual membership doesn't exceed 3 million - a conclusion we come to because the NRA offers travel insurance to members with a pitch that states "with about 3 million NRA Members 'on our side of the table,' we negotiated a bargain price." The insurance underwriter is a California company, and California law makes it a crime to conduct insurance business while making any statements, assertions or representation which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue, deceptive, or misleading.

My conclusion ... the NRA has somewhere in the neigborhood of 2 million dues paying members, plus their family members. Representing somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds of one percent of the American public - about the same as MoveOn.org, Greenpeace or PETA (individually, not combined).

[jon71]

The first one I checked just now was Gallup, in 2003, and their figure was 68%. CNN reported a Opinion Research Corp. poll in 2008 that put the figure at 67%:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html


Wikipedia states that current NRA membership is "Nearly 4 million".

Considering the number and degree of factual errors that you have been making, I'd say you and reality may never have met one another.

We are in better shape now than we have been in decades. We just got a very important Supreme Court decision in our favor, and we are so powerful that the Democrat candidates, like Obama, run around the campaign trail saying that there is an individual right to bear arms and they aren't going to take our guns away, and they are too scared to enact the gun control legislation that they would love to have.

Ahh well, I'm quite sure I know which one of us is taken more seriously here, even when people disagree with me.


Not only do people disagree with you, you pretty much stand alone tilting at windmills. You are basing all your supposed support on one Supreme court case which wasn't as full a victory as you like to claim. I base my statement about the gun nut glory days being gone (which is accurate and I stand by) based on fewer and fewer Americans owning guns. Let's use Wal-mart as a barometer of that. More and more Wal-marts don't carry guns and more of the ones that do carry fewer models and give it less shelf space. Why is that? People aren't buying them like they used to. If it doesn't sell Wal-mart will give the shelf space to something that does. I work at Wal-mart and pretty much the thing most detested by the corp. is things sitting on the shelf not moving. I GUARANTEE you that if sales justified it every store in the country would have guns and give them plenty of space. Instead it's gone in some places and shrinking in others. I expect that trend to continue.

[Skinview]

Not only do people disagree with you, you pretty much stand alone tilting at windmills.Me, and NudeAl, and nimrod, and nakedstudent, and ki4kxq, and brazhunter, and brainyguy9999, and Binco, and missouriboy, and MJ KC, and l2ltlarry, and d sarnoff, and Pizzaguy, and alfredr, and Garden, and nuovonudo, and Mr. Natura, and...

You are basing all your supposed support on one Supreme court caseSupport for what? For gun owners improved situation? Its not just that court decision, although that was very important. Gun laws across the country have been liberalized since 1987. The military cosmetics semi auto ban expired and was not renewed, and now the great majority of states allow concealed carry, when it was the other way around before.

which wasn't as full a victory as you like to claim.In what way??

I base my statement about the gun nut glory days being gone (which is accurate and I stand by) based on fewer and fewer Americans owning guns.
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_041709WAB-handgun-applications-LJ.e33bfaf5.html?rss
The proportion of the population that lives in urban areas, where gun ownership rates are lower, has been increasing throughout history, and we have a huge and growing immigrant population that has little or no familiarity with guns. While the propotion of the population that owns guns has dropped, I have not been able to find clear figures for the trends in the total number of gun owners. I have seen statistics that state that the number of gun owners has increased. At any rate, 45% of men do own at least one gun as of 2004. Thats a lot of people.


Let's use Wal-mart as a barometer of that. More and more Wal-marts don't carry guns and more of the ones that do carry fewer models and give it less shelf space. Why is that? People aren't buying them like they used to.Actually, no. Gun sales are quite good. The total number of guns in the US continues to climb. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15

And recently, gun sales have skyrocketed. Gun sales were up 7% last year as compared to the year before:
http://www.lacriminaldefenseblog.com/obama-win-shoots-up-gun-sales/

Ammunition sales are up so much, that some calibers have been hard to find for months. Manufacturers can't keep up with demand, and are working 24/7 to make as much as they possibly can.

Speaking of Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart gun and ammunition sales are up. So much so that some Wal-Mart stores are rationing ammunition sales. They can't keep the stuff on the shelves:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/ammo.shortage/index.html

I GUARANTEE you that if sales justified it every store in the country would have guns and give them plenty of space. Instead it's gone in some places and shrinking in others.No one sells guns in some places because they have been outlawed or so heavily regulated that it is dificult to own a gun. DC has no gun stores for that reason. Urban areas generally have few places to shoot, and no places to hunt. That is not where people buy guns, so those areas are not going to support gun shops. In rural areas, its an entirely different matter.

[Skinview]

Well, to be accurate, Wikipedia states that the NRA claims 4 million members.

Unfortunately that can't be independently confirmed since the NRA refuses to let anyone see or audit its membership roster. ('Cause Obama could take that list and know who's guns to take away). When it comes to its membership the NRA operates on a strict "Trust, don't Verify" policy.

My conclusion ... the NRA has somewhere in the neigborhood of 2 million dues paying members, plus their family members. Representing somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds of one percent of the American public - about the same as MoveOn.org, Greenpeace or PETA (individually, not combined).The number of NRA members is a moving target. It goes up and down considerably, depending on what gun control legislation is before Congress, and elections, and so forth. I really don't know what it is at this moment, but they are a powerful group that speaks for many more than their actual membership. And their membership is far bigger than HCI was or the Brady Campaign is.

[MoonShadow]

The military cosmetics semi auto ban expired and was not renewed, and now the great majority of states allow concealed carry, when it was the other way around before.

Thats a lot of people.


Actually, no. Gun sales are quite good. The total number of guns in the US continues to climb. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15

And recently, gun sales have skyrocketed. Gun sales were up 7% last year as compared to the year before:
http://www.lacriminaldefenseblog.com/obama-win-shoots-up-gun-sales/

Ammunition sales are up so much, that some calibers have been hard to find for months. Manufacturers can't keep up with demand, and are working 24/7 to make as much as they possibly can.

Speaking of Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart gun and ammunition sales are up. So much so that some Wal-Mart stores are rationing ammunition sales. They can't keep the stuff on the shelves:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/ammo.shortage/index.html




Scary too! When the "want" and "need" to own and/or carry guns increases, it is a clear indication of a significant breakdown in a civilized society.

[Fitz1980]

And recently, gun sales have skyrocketed. Gun sales were up 7% last year as compared to the year before:
http://www.lacriminaldefenseblog.com/obama-win-shoots-up-gun-sales/


Most of them aren't new gun owners. Most of them are right-wingers who think that Obama is going to ban guns and possibly start re-education camps, so they're stocking up. Many of those are the same people who even Fox News anchor Shepherd Smith said are scary.

BTW I say this as a gun owner myself, Smith and Wesson .357 magnum, mint condition, formally owned by my Dad, older than I am.

[nimrod]

Me, and NudeAl, and nimrod, and nakedstudent, and ki4kxq, and brazhunter, and brainyguy9999, and Binco, and missouriboy, and MJ KC, and l2ltlarry, and d sarnoff, and Pizzaguy, and alfredr, and Garden, and nuovonudo, and Mr. Natura, and....

First, I can speak for myself, do not put me on a list of "gun nuts" unless I say it is okay.

Second, just because I think that we should have the rights to own a gun/s does not mean I agree with the NRA and what they preach, or for that matter that I agree with your ideals.

There are only two guns that I want, and will probably never fire. One is my dads Colt 22 that he got when he was in the Air Force, the other is a shotgun that has been in the family for four generations, five when I get it, which probably cannot be fired because it has a wound wire barrel and modern shells might damage it. Only if things get worse would I consider buying a gun that might be used to protect my freedoms.

[Naturist Mark]

which wasn't as full a victory as you like to claim.
In what way??

I don't think Skinview has taken the hardline position that guns cannot be regulated at all, but many do incorrectly assert that the 2nd Amendment conveys an absolute right to bear arms that cannot be infringed by any kind of regulation.

The Robert's Court positively affirmed in Heller that States (and DC) do have the power to regulate firearms. Many people just look at their recognition of an individual right to bear arms as all encompassing, in fact it was very limited, so far as we know the only thing that Heller prohibits is an outright gun ban.

[jon71]

It should also be pointed out that if there are 40 million guns in America (random number)we should not assume that 40 million Americans own guns. A lot of people own zero and some people own 10. Believe it or not I almost had one. When my wife's father passed away for a while we thought we would get his handgun. I would have bought a small fire safe and it would have stayed in there permanently. Instead we let her brother get it and we got a digital camera of about the same value which we would actually use. This further points out that even amongst those who do own a gun it doesn't mean they accept the extreme position of the N.R.A. Michael Moore is, or at least has been a card carrying member of the N.R.A. but you don't see him advocating their positions. For that matter Pres. George H. W. Bush left the org. in disgust some years ago. With fewer and fewer Americans owning guns and N.R.A. support hit and miss among those that do own guns they're definitely ebbing. The one thing Skinview got right is ammunition sales are through the roof. It's called stockpiling. Between paranoid political views and the economy, i.e. people keeping their money under a blanket instead of a bank, a section of the population feels a great need to stockpile. Then as their politicals fears never materialize and the economy improves they'll just have a big supply that'll they'll slowly work through and sales will plummet until that stockpile is conumed and things go back to normal. It's boom, bust, then gradual increase to the median level.

[Skinview]

Scary too! When the "want" and "need" to own and/or carry guns increases, it is a clear indication of a significant breakdown in a civilized society.In this case, its a clear indication that gun owners expect their civil liberty is threatened. Yeah, having your civil liberties violated is a breakdown of civilized society.

[Skinview]

First, I can speak for myself, do not put me on a list of "gun nuts" unless I say it is okay.

Second, just because I think that we should have the rights to own a gun/s does not mean I agree with the NRA and what they preach...
That we have an individual right to own a gun is what the NRA preaches, it was the issue before the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, and is what the anti gun people loudly denied. You are a gun nut singing the NRA tune.

It does not matter how many restrictions we put on guns crime will still happen, murders will still happen, accidental deaths will still happen, and suicides will still happen. Make guns illegal you just make more criminals and not stop any of what is happening in our society when it comes to violence.
Nimrod is a gun nut! Nimrod is a gun nut! Nimrod is a gun nut! Naah naah! :)

[Skinview]

I don't think Skinview has taken the hardline position that guns cannot be regulated at all, but many do incorrectly assert that the 2nd Amendment conveys an absolute right to bear arms that cannot be infringed by any kind of regulation.

The Robert's Court positively affirmed in Heller that States (and DC) do have the power to regulate firearms. Many people just look at their recognition of an individual right to bear arms as all encompassing, in fact it was very limited, so far as we know the only thing that Heller prohibits is an outright gun ban.It also overturned requirements for guns to be stored with trigger locks on them, because that inhibits their utility for self defense.
And states may regulate firearms, just like they may regulate speach.

[nimrod]

That we have an individual right to own a gun is what the NRA preaches, it was the issue before the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, and is what the anti gun people loudly denied. You are a gun nut singing the NRA tune.


Nimrod is a gun nut! Nimrod is a gun nut! Nimrod is a gun nut! Naah naah! :)

How old are you anyway, because you are acting like a five year old.

Your definition of a gun nut is obviously different then mine, I think of a gun nut as someone who believes in no regulations. I do think that there should be some just like there are for other dangerous items, like cars. I do not think that everyone should own assualt rifles, grenade launchers, and tanks like you hear some say that we should be able to.

I do think that we should have the rights to own guns, but not everyone should own one, or that that right should not be restricted if you are not responsible enough to own one. You take away a drivers license from those who show that they do not have the responsibility of driving a vehical so should it be with those who wish to own and operate a gun.

[jon71]

How old are you anyway, because you are acting like a five year old.

Your definition of a gun nut is obviously different then mine, I think of a gun nut as someone who believes in no regulations. I do think that there should be some just like there are for other dangerous items, like cars. I do not think that everyone should own assualt rifles, grenade launchers, and tanks like you hear some say that we should be able to.

I do think that we should have the rights to own guns, but not everyone should own one, or that that right should not be restricted if you are not responsible enough to own one. You take away a drivers license from those who show that they do not have the responsibility of driving a vehical so should it be with those who wish to own and operate a gun.

Thank you. That reminds me of my late father in law. He could no longer drive because of limited eye sight. Even so one Halloween he had the idea he could stop people from toilet papering the trees in his yard with a gun. He had idea he would shoot to wound and that would solve the problem. Thankfully family talked him out of it.

[Skinview]

How old are you anyway, because you are acting like a five year old.Oh, lighten up. I'm 47.

Your definition of a gun nut is obviously different then mine, I think of a gun nut as someone who believes in no regulations.I guess I never met a gun nut then. I can think of a bunch of firearms regulations that everyone seems to agree on. You can't play Russian roulette with my son. You can't shoot across roads and bodies of water. You can't shoot animals outside of hunting season, or without a hunting license. You can't shoot your machine gun off your porch next door at 3 AM, when I am trying to sleep. You can't sell guns to eight year olds, you can't bring your gun into the courthouse, etc.


I do not think that everyone should own assualt rifles, grenade launchers, and tanks like you hear some say that we should be able to.Of course not. You should have to be at least 16 to own those things.

I do think that we should have the rights to own guns, but not everyone should own one,Like people who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions.

or that that right should not be restricted if you are not responsible enough to own one.Like people who have been convicted of manslaughter.

You take away a drivers license from those who show that they do not have the responsibility of driving a vehical so should it be with those who wish to own and operate a gun.I agree. Someone who is not responsible enough to operate a gun should have their driver's license taken away.

[nimrod]

Like people who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions.

Like people who have been convicted of manslaughter.

How about people who act like idiots, as they did this Fourth of July and probably will again on New Years Eve, by shooting off their guns into the air, or those who, like Jons father, think it is okay to shoot people who TP their house or for other minor annoyances? Should people who have shot at others on the freeway be able to own guns? What about people who commit crimes using guns? They do not plan on actually using it to shoot someone, just intimidate them.

[BinCo]

Oh, I missed some of the fun.:sneaky:

First off, I am not a gun nut. I believe that the constitution and the founders clearly laid out that the 2nd ammendment is to the individual, as they constitued the militia. I believe in reasonable regulations. Such as the morons shooting on the 4th. Simple enough to fix. If you are convicted of a felony with a firearm, or a misdemeaner DV, or other violent crime you lose your right to own a gun. Some states are forever, some are not. But generally you can look forward to not legally owning a gun if you are a convicted felon. I sleep better at night knowing that law works :rolleyes:. Does the law stop someone from being able to get a gun? No, and how could it? Being able to own anything comes with responsibility, from guns to cars to matches, they all can kill people.

What I don't like is someone telling me that I can't buy a gun. Not because I can't use it, or will shoot up a school, but because THEY are afraid of guns. That's no different than prohibition, and we all know how well that worked. If gun control laws actually worked, than the crime rates in cities like Wash DC, New Orleans and Chicago would be some of the lowest in the nation. Since the statistics of gun violence clearly shows that gun laws stop nothing, they are a waste of time and resources. Now, if you want to keep telling me that I can't buy a full auto AK-47, I'm OK with that. But I might want the semi-auto version some day and it's legal and a lot less accurate than my 30-06. Telling me that I have to keep my guns unloaded and disassembled is infringing too. A disassembled rifle is nothing much more than a fancy baseball bat.

Registration: Nope. In every country that laws were created to register guns the next step was confiscation. Mr. Binco, you have 7 guns, that's too many. You shall now be forced to give up your long rifles. As a matter of fact, we'll just take them and have no concern for the $1000+ you paid for them or the fact that you hunt with them. Too bad for you, you neadrethal.

We live away from the urban center and a cop can be 5-10 minutes away, if a guy breaks into my house the only intention I have is to defend my family. I'm only 170# (in the nude :-)) and I can't fight at all. My wife is 120# and she can't defend herself against many ment, but when she has her gun she can at least go down fighting.

To me gun ownership IS about freedom. The freedom to NOT be dependent on the factory farm for my meals. The freedom to NOT have to be dependent on a policeman who (as proven in many cases) is NOT willing to risk his life for the sake of my family. The freedom to NOT have myself and my wife be victims when we are old. The freedom to help defend my country, if the need arises. The freedom to be able to save someone else's life, if I happen to ever come across that need. I would not even think to consider whether that person supported guns or not. A thought for all anti-gun people. If you were in a bank that was being robbed. The robber shoots the guard, a teller and a mouthy customer. You hit the floor with your hands over your head. The CCP owner in front of you pulls out his .40 and kills the robber. Are you going to complain about how this 'gun nut' saved your butt? I think not.

There are three types of people in the world when an emergency happens. The ones that lock up and walk in circles, mumbling. The ones that turn and walk away and let someone else deal with it. And the ones that confront the problem head on. I'm on the third group, as has been proven by my life experiences. To have someone arbitrarily say that I can't defend myself ( or you ) by any and all means is a direct infringement on my rights as a human being.:mad:

[Naturist Mark]

Registration: Nope. In every country that laws were created to register guns the next step was confiscation.

Like Switzerland ...

[BinCo]

Like Switzerland ...

Only for the last 8 months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

They also have a lot more respect for guns. Unlike many gun haters in America who teach kids to run away from guns as opposed to teaching them respect and common sense.

Also please note that the Swiss have a transfer law that would be deemed racist in America.

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller. The seller is also required to see some official ID from the purchaser, for such sales are only allowed to Swiss nationals and foreigners with a valid residence permit, with the exception of those foreigners that come from certain countries (Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Albania, Algeria), to whom such sales are not allowed even if they do have a residence permit. Foreigners without a residence permit or from countries on the ban list must ask for a special permit.

Nice, If we tried to do that by having a group of people need to go get a special permit we would be shut down and protests of racism would arise. Can you imagine if we did that to Mexicans and Hondurans?

[Naturist Mark]

Only for the last 8 months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

A "Gun Acquisition Permit" has been required for the last 10 years - except as noted for private sales between individuals - but the very same requirements are expected to be followed by the seller and documentation must be kept on file (i.e. "private" registration).

The fact is that in Switzerland guns are highly regulated. They are also highly available (to citizens). The two are not incompatible.

[Skinview]

How about people who act like idiots, as they did this Fourth of July and probably will again on New Years Eve, by shooting off their guns into the air,I am sure that this is illegal. Such persons will not have a gun for long, because they will be in prison, especially if the kill someone.

or those who, like Jons father, think it is okay to shoot people who TP their house or for other minor annoyances?Jon's father is either a blow hard, or demented, or an incipient criminal. If he is the first, he should be ignored, if the second, he should be involuntarily committed to an institution before he harms himself or someone else. If he is the third, he is responsible for his actions, and he gets to kill one person before we fry him in an electric chair.

Should people who have shot at others on the freeway be able to own guns?They should be in prison. People in prison are not able to own guns.

What about people who commit crimes using guns? They do not plan on actually using it to shoot someone, just intimidate them.They go to prison too.

[Skinview]

If you are convicted of a felony with a firearm, or a misdemeaner DV, or other violent crime you lose your right to own a gun. Some states are forever, some are not. But generally you can look forward to not legally owning a gun if you are a convicted felon. I sleep better at night knowing that law works :rolleyes:. Does the law stop someone from being able to get a gun? No, and how could it? Being able to own anything comes with responsibility, from guns to cars to matches, they all can kill people.I've read that the Swiss allow ex cons to own guns. Their reasoning is that anyone has a right to defend themselves. I have to agree with that. Punish someone as severely as you like, but when we let them out, he should have all his rights and responsibilities. And if you don't trust him with that, then why are we letting him out of prison?


Since the statistics of gun violence clearly shows that gun laws stop nothing, they are a waste of time and resources. Now, if you want to keep telling me that I can't buy a full auto AK-47, I'm OK with that.Can you reconcile those two sentences?



BinCo, don't inflict your phobias about automatic weapons on me. For starters, automatics are not more deadly than a semi auto, except in a crowd, and then not more than a car is in the same situation. Outside of a crowd, autos just run out of ammunition faster. The first round is aimed, the rest will either hit the same place or miss. Semi autos and revolvers and everything else allow all shots to be aimed, and that is much more deadly. So if you think we need to ban automatics, then we need to ban automobiles too. And FYI, there are about 100,000 legally owned full auto firearms in the US, and last I read, and to this day as far as I know, NONE has ever been used in a serious crime.
Also, if the Second Amendment protects ownership of any weapon, it is a military weapon. The select fire M-16 that our troops use is exactly the primary arm that we have a right to own. The Swiss issue assault rifles to their citizens, because they do what our founding fathers intended when they wrote our Constitution.


But I might want the semi-auto version some day and it's legal and a lot less accurate than my 30-06.Depends...


To me gun ownership IS about freedom. The freedom to NOT be dependent on the factory farm for my meals. The freedom to NOT have to be dependent on a policeman who (as proven in many cases) is NOT willing to risk his life for the sake of my family. The freedom to NOT have myself and my wife be victims when we are old. The freedom to help defend my country, if the need arises. The freedom to be able to save someone else's life, if I happen to ever come across that need... To have someone arbitrarily say that I can't defend myself ( or you ) by any and all means is a direct infringement on my rights as a human being.:mad:Damn right. The issue isn't really, or shouldn't be, "guns - good or bad?". Its "freedom of choice, will we have it or not?"

[jon71]

I am sure that this is illegal. Such persons will not have a gun for long, because they will be in prison, especially if the kill someone.

Jon's father is either a blow hard, or demented, or an incipient criminal. If he is the first, he should be ignored, if the second, he should be involuntarily committed to an institution before he harms himself or someone else. If he is the third, he is responsible for his actions, and he gets to kill one person before we fry him in an electric chair.

They should be in prison. People in prison are not able to own guns.

They go to prison too.

My father in law was an older gentleman whose judgement had slipped some. He wasn't intentionally malicious, age had simply caused him to lose a step. The point we are trying to make is that the gun debate should not focus just on dealing with violent criminals but otherwise lawabiding decent people who use poor judgment. Often times lawabiding fools are a bigger threat to public safety than actual felons.

[jon71]

I'd like to get this all a bit more on topic by saying that the American Bar Association just gave Judge Sotomayer a unanimous "well qualified" rating, their highest rating. Not that her confirmation was in doubt but this is definitely a huge plus.

[Skinview]

My father in law was an older gentleman whose judgement had slipped some. He wasn't intentionally malicious, age had simply caused him to lose a step. The point we are trying to make is that the gun debate should not focus just on dealing with violent criminals but otherwise lawabiding decent people who use poor judgment. Often times lawabiding fools are a bigger threat to public safety than actual felons.

There are fools, and they can be dangerous, but the gun debate should NOT focus on them. A decision that I agree with was made by the founding fathers, and it is this:

The government must not treat its citizens like they are its children. Government is instituted to protect liberty, not ration it. All law abiding adults deserve their freedom, and with that freedom comes responsibility. We shall be free as long or until that freedom is abused. Fools and criminals will do damage, but the alternative is that we are all treated like fools and criminals, and that is intolerable. It is also a false alternative, for its very hard to limit the damage done by fools and criminals.

As Ben Franklin wrote, "They who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary saftey, deserve neither."

[MoonShadow]

T
The government must not treat its citizens like they are its children. Government is instituted to protect liberty, not ration it. All law abiding adults deserve their freedom, and with that freedom comes responsibility. We shall be free as long or until that freedom is abused. Fools and criminals will do damage, but the alternative is that we are all treated like fools and criminals, and that is intolerable. It is also a false alternative, for its very hard to limit the damage done by fools and criminals.

As Ben Franklin wrote, "They who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary saftey, deserve neither."


It is not government which abuses our freedoms, it is us, the people, who abuse our freedoms and resort to or our government taking over where we have abused.

[BinCo]

Can you reconcile those two sentences?

The gun laws people like HCI are pushing are inneffective because they want to control anyone owning any guns at all. They really believe that the people should submit to anything. Run and Hide is the motto they should use as they think that the police are the answer. The problem, I see, with more laws is that they only assume that someone will NOT commit a crime if they can't get a gun, which has proven to be a complete farce. Someone who wants a gun bad enough can get one. To think that you can stop someone who is commited to a crime and is willing to die is foolish. So don't make new laws regarding guns. The laws on the books for automatic weapons have been in place since the 30's. I don't have any issues with that.

Fully auto weapons have a different set of standards and laws governing their ownership than semi-auto guns. I, personally, see no need to own a fully auto gun. I want my guns for protection and hunting. Neither of which are done well with a full auto gun. Give me a well trained sniper over a dozen goons with Ak-47's any day of the week and I can do more damage with less ammo.



BinCo, don't inflict your phobias about automatic weapons on me. For starters, automatics are not more deadly than a semi auto, except in a crowd, and then not more than a car is in the same situation. Outside of a crowd, autos just run out of ammunition faster. The first round is aimed, the rest will either hit the same place or miss. Semi autos and revolvers and everything else allow all shots to be aimed, and that is much more deadly. So if you think we need to ban automatics, then we need to ban automobiles too. And FYI, there are about 100,000 legally owned full auto firearms in the US, and last I read, and to this day as far as I know, NONE has ever been used in a serious crime.
Also, if the Second Amendment protects ownership of any weapon, it is a military weapon. The select fire M-16 that our troops use is exactly the primary arm that we have a right to own. The Swiss issue assault rifles to their citizens, because they do what our founding fathers intended when they wrote our Constitution.


I don't have any phobias about automatic weapons. I just have not known anyone who owns one that says it's for protection, they use a handgun for that. They use auto's for 'fun'. I would be interested in the point where you got your info and from what date one. After all, the Tommy Gun was supposed to be a fav of the 1930's gangster. Isn't that the reason they all had to be registered? What I had said was that I was OK with reasonable regulations on guns. A registration system for full-auto is OK with me. I also don't think people should be able to get their hands on military weapons, like the .50cal machine gun on a BFV, or a tank, or a 40mm grenade launcher, or a stinger missile. Everyone has a line that they draw in the sand. Mine is for full-auto and higher military firepower. An M16, with the auto feature removed, is just another close range POS rifle. I don't have a problem with it. Some people I know think that people should be able to buy anything that they can afford, I don't. No one can give me a reason that they need a .50cal machine gun capable of firing 500 rounds a minute.

I do think that it would be reasonable to have these weapons at known locations in every major city, in case of some serious invasion. But I can't see that happening in this world today.


Moonshadow, You got it right. We have our freedoms slowly being taken away primarily because of people abusing them. Speed limits and guns are just a few examples.

[nakedstudent]

It is not government which abuses our freedoms, it is us, the people, who abuse our freedoms and resort to or our government taking over where we have abused.

The discussion isn't about abuse because freedom is a right.

If freedom was a privilege, maybe the abuse argument would be plausible.

The big problem is how we define freedom. Some would say that simply because we live in a country such as the USA or Canada we are free. I would disagree.

I think freedom comes down to the things we always talk about with respect to nudism. Freedom in the context of nudism is an absence of restraining forces, an absence of social profiling (with fancy clothes, etc) among other things.

Freedom to me means that there is nothing I am responsible for beyond what I chose to be responsible for. It means hard work, living within my means (to quote the president), and not being entitled to anything that I haven't worked for and payed for.

The first problem is that with such a wide variety of views on freedom and politicians who are willing to exploit those views and coddle them to attain and retain power, the politicians have redefined freedom for us.

The second problem is that the rules of the game constantly change. Invariably, the level of freedom changes with the rules.

When you consider that the bottom tax bracket (with social security, medicare, and unemployment insurance factored in) is over 18% of income, not to mention the rest of the taxes on "sins" and real estate, etc, AND the fact that we still have absurd deficits in the recent past and foreseeable future, things on the freedom front have undoubtedly taken a hit on the financial side of things.

I think I could agree with your statement MoonShadow on this level: Our behavior on social issues has gotten us into some of the restrictions on freedom that we have seen in society anywhere. Case in point is smoking. First hand, second hand, and even now THIRD hand smoke has caused many health issues and for that reason, smokers are being increasingly targeted and exploited with laws and higher taxes.

[jon71]

There are fools, and they can be dangerous, but the gun debate should NOT focus on them. A decision that I agree with was made by the founding fathers, and it is this:

The government must not treat its citizens like they are its children. Government is instituted to protect liberty, not ration it. All law abiding adults deserve their freedom, and with that freedom comes responsibility. We shall be free as long or until that freedom is abused. Fools and criminals will do damage, but the alternative is that we are all treated like fools and criminals, and that is intolerable. It is also a false alternative, for its very hard to limit the damage done by fools and criminals.

As Ben Franklin wrote, "They who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary saftey, deserve neither."

Are you saying that if a fool shoots you, you wouldn't die but if a criminal shoots you, you would? Of course not. We have to deal with irresponsible behavior just like we have to deal with criminal behavior because each is a part of the real world we live in.

[Skinview]

The problem, I see, with more laws is that they only assume that someone will NOT commit a crime if they can't get a gun, which has proven to be a complete farce. Someone who wants a gun bad enough can get one. To think that you can stop someone who is commited to a crime and is willing to die is foolish. So don't make new laws regarding guns. The laws on the books for automatic weapons have been in place since the 30's. I don't have any issues with that.But why? Old or new, gun restrictions are gun restrictions. What makes an old restriction any better than a new one?


I, personally, see no need to own a fully auto gun.Do you have to percieve a "need" for something before I have the freedom to have it?


I want my guns for protection and hunting. Neither of which are done well with a full auto gun.Well, thats you. What about other people? Don't they get to do what they want to do?


I just have not known anyone who owns one that says it's for protection, they use a handgun for that.A friend of mine told me a story of a salesman for a company that made submachineguns. He was confronted by a motorcycle gang that had bad intentions towards him, and he took a lot of them out with one of his sample firearms.


They use auto's for 'fun'. I would be interested in the point where you got your info and from what date one.It was about 1994. I think it was from the NRA or GOA. I'm not sure, its been a while.


After all, the Tommy Gun was supposed to be a fav of the 1930's gangster. Isn't that the reason they all had to be registered?And heavily taxed, and long waiting periods imposed, with all manner of restrictions. But yes, that was what triggered the law.


A registration system for full-auto is OK with me.For what purpose? Why not your guns? Any gun can be used for crime, and its usually the handgun that you use for self defense that the criminals want. Can you rob a liquor store with a heavy machine gun? If you could, so what?


I also don't think people should be able to get their hands on military weapons, like the .50cal machine gun on a BFV, or a tank, or a 40mm grenade launcher,Why?
There is the Second Amendment, and you have not addressed what it demands.


or a stinger missile. Everyone has a line that they draw in the sand.Yes. And its an unresolved problem of how to draw that line with an eye on the Second Amendment. There was no limit at all when it was written. Benjamin Franklin went to New York as a private citizen and purchased artillery in the 1750's. The Contitution gives Congress the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal (Article I, Section 8), which authorizes private warships to raid enemy shipping. Clearly, you have a right to own a battleship. It may be that the Second Amendment covers a right to own any weapon, like thermonuclear weapons, which few would say is a good thing. If it doesn't cover thermonuclear weapons, please tell us why not. (I have some ideas...)
A stinger missile is an individual arm which is very, very useful for repelling invading forces or defeating our Air Force if the government had to be overthrown in a civil war. Its just the sort of thing that the Second Amendment is for, but it would be a real threat to airliners in the wrong hands. I want ownership of stingers to be very restricted, but I can't figure out how to do that. If you can, please tell me. You and I wanting restrictions isn't reason enough.


Mine is for full-auto and higher military firepower.I don't see any reason for restricting machine guns or grenade launches, and you haven't mentioned any reason. And even with that reason, how can you reconcile it with the Second Amendment?


No one can give me a reason that they need a .50cal machine gun capable of firing 500 rounds a minute.Wrong, I can. Militia use. There are heavy machine guns in Swiss attics for that reason.


I do think that it would be reasonable to have these weapons at known locations in every major city, in case of some serious invasion.See, you already know the reason. ;)


But I can't see that happening in this world today.Can you see what the world will be like 200 years from now?

[Skinview]

Are you saying that if a fool shoots you, you wouldn't die but if a criminal shoots you, you would? Of course not.We agree, I didn't say that.

We have to deal with irresponsible behavior just like we have to deal with criminal behavior because each is a part of the real world we live in.Yes, but we don't deal with it by prior restraint. We deal with it by punishing ciminals after the crime is committed.

[Sanslines]

"..............Concerning gun control, an overwhelming majority believe in the right to own weapons. but four out of five Americans prefer modest restraints on handguns, including a background check mandatory registration, and a brief waiting period before one is purchased.

A disturbing change in government policy has involved the firearms industry. Supported by suceeding Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, legislation was passed by Congress in 1994 that for ten years prohibited the manufacture, transfer, and posession of nineteen specific semiautomatic assault weapons, including AK-47's, AR-15's, and UZI's. None of these are used for hunting '(killing animals)'. They are used for killing other human beings. More then eleven hundred police chiefs and sheriffs around the nation called on Congress and President Bush to renew and stregthen the federal assault weapons ban in 1994. However, with a wink from the (Bush) White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

Many responsible individuals are completely dismayed by the (outlaw radical) policies of the NRA and by the timidity of the public officials who yield to their unreasonable demands. Heavily influenced and funded by the firearms industry, their primary client, the NRA, has been able to mislead many gullible (and factually uninformed) people into believing that their weapons are going to be taken away and that homeowners will be deprived of their rights to protect themselves. There are NO real threats to the 'right to bear arms', as guaranteed by the (interpretations of) the Constitution.

In addition to assault weapons, the gun lobby protects the ability of criminals and gang members to use ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty, and assures that a known or suspected terrorist is not barred from buying or owning a firearm - including assault weapons. The ONLY criteria that the NRA has reluctantly accepted are proof of a previous felony, mental derangement, or being an illegal alien. Deeply concerned when thirty five out of forty five men on the terrorist watch list were able to buy guns during a recent five month period, the director of the FBI began to examine the existing law and ask US Senators to consider ammendments. The response from the top officials of the NRA was to criticize the watch lists - not the terrorists - and to announce support of legislation that protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability if a buyer uses an AK-47 in a terrorist attack. They also insist that background information on gun buyers be discarded after only 24 hours, precluding the long-term retention of data that might reveal those who are plotting against our nation's security........."


"What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? According to the Centers for Desease Control and Prevention, American children are sixteen times more likely then children in other industrialized nations to be murdered with a gun, eleven times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more lkely to die from firearms accidents. The Johns Hopkins center for Gun Policy and Research reports that the rate of firearm homicide in the United States is nineteen times higher then that of 35 other countries combined. In the most recent year for which data is availible, handguns killed 334 people in Australia, 197 in Great Britain, 183 in Sweden, 83, in Japan, 54 in Ireland, 1034 in Canada, and 34,419 in the USA. The NRA should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability."

From "Our Endangered Values - America's Moral Crisis" by Jimmy Carter.

[Sanslines]

In Search of the Source of America's Gun Obsession


"What is this American fixation with firearms? Is it similar to the macho car fanaticism that’s so prevalent here but rather absent elsewhere in the world?"


"Somehow, the Second Amendment, to my ear, rings of the needs of an agrarian society that knew it would likely find itself under empirical siege once more in the years to come: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The framers, I imagine, weren’t likely thinking of a nation armed with B-2 bombers and assault rifles that fire 50 rounds per second when they drafted the amendment. But if they had the foresight to imagine such weapons, wouldn’t they have perhaps written the Second in a deft manner that would lead us to question its applicability? Perhaps putting the clause in reference to a broader context? "


http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/search_source_americas_gun_obsession_12846

[Sanslines]

Hunting:

"The trophy hunting crowd obviously disagrees with this position, but it is part of the conservation ethic I learned as a boy. I can't see changing my position just because some dude wants to put a set of antlers on his wall to show what a big man he is. If he killed it and ate it and displays the antlers incidental to this, fine. Otherwise, it's just an ego trip. Stop and think about it. Just how big a man does it take to kill any animal with a rifle, or even a bow and arrow? Not very big, and smaller yet if the hunter kills only for ego-satisfaction. As Ernest Hemingway said about fishing, just before blowing his brains out, angling will never be an even match until the angler has a hook in his mouth too."

"One of the worst memories of my childhood involved a group of "hunters" who asked permission to hunt rabbits on my grandmother's farm. Grandma let them. There were 8 of them with at least that many Beagles. They killed every rabbit on the farm and left their carcasses lying in a huge pile along the road. Seeing them made my grandmother cry, and there was never good rabbit hunting on her farm again."

"*The Kill. One argument anti-hunters use against hunting is that hunters like killing things. Maybe at first they're right, but most hunters will tell you the kill becomes secondary as the years pass. However, there is an undeniable human attraction associated with shedding blood, whether it is another species' or another humans'. This attraction is strongest with young males, maybe young females too. Why do you think armies want young men as soldiers? Because they can be whipped into a killing frenzy without too much difficulty, for one."

"When humans go out and shed something's blood, the bonds among that group grow stronger, probably because of the food sharing that usually accompanies a kill. Doing anything together makes the human psyche vibrate, and experiencing the reality of life and death together is the greatest bonding mechanism of all. Look at the relationships combat soldiers form after living with death on a daily basis for months on end. The bonds become so strong that soldiers often refuse to leave the front in the face of certain death, because they are afraid their buddies will die in their absence. The same phenomenon is at work when hunting non-human animals, even though we know the deer isn't going to kill us. We want to be with our buddies when there is killing involved."

[Fitz1980]

I don't see any reason for restricting machine guns or grenade launches, and you haven't mentioned any reason. And even with that reason, how can you reconcile it with the Second Amendment?


Quote:
No one can give me a reason that they need a .50cal machine gun capable of firing 500 rounds a minute.

Wrong, I can. Militia use. There are heavy machine guns in Swiss attics for that reason.

Yea but under the Swiss system those people are part of a government regulated militia. They have to account for the weapon and the bullets and they can't just take it out for some sport shooting over the weekend and not just anyone can get such a weapon or the amo for it.

[Sanslines]

DICK CHENEY: MIGHTY HUNTER OF LITTLE BIRDS & MEN

As we all know, pudgy Old Dick shot his hunting comrade during a fit of mindless recklessness. Cheney admits to having one beer before the so-called "hunt," but he could have been half drunk - all we have is his word (for what little it's worth) that he was not drunk. Hunters commonly drink beer during hunting trips, probably because it adds to the thrill - the fun - of killing innocent animals.

Secret Service agents guarding Vice President Dick Cheney when he shot Texas lawyer Harry Whittington on a hunting outing said Cheney was "clearly inebriated" at the time of the shooting. Agents observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the hunting expedition, the report notes, and Cheney exhibited "visible signs" of impairment, including slurred speech and erratic actions.

Hunters like to think of their sport as relatively safe and virtually all hunters imagine themselves to be expert marksmen. Even Crazy Old Dick was considered - or at least he considered himself - to be an experienced marksman.

Despite what newspapers and hunters tell us, hunting is a potentially dangerous sport! Every year, about 100 people are killed by hunters in the U.S., and approximately 1,000 people are wounded. Hunters can and will shoot too close to houses, roads, hikers and campers. According to the International Hunter Education Association, in 1995, 1130 non-fatal hunting accidents occured, and 112 people were killed. In 1996, 957 humans were wounded and 91 humans were killed by hunters. Ted Nugent claims to kill every domestic cat that he sees, and you may read about his animal-killing insanity on my Antihunting Resource Site.

Pet owners who live near hunting areas may find their beloved pets dead or missing. Hunters typically hate predators - especially coyotes - but they also hate any number of animals based on arbitrary notions of what constitutes a "good" animal as opposed to a "bad" animal. This type of thinking opens up a whole can of worms. Stray cats and dogs - because they're feral - are perceived as fair game to some people. We'll never know how many domesticated animals have been shot by hunters; there is no record keeping on this matter.

From an ethical standpoint, hunting is very unimpressive. The hunting community is mainly composed of grown men (and some women) with nothing more intelligent to do than kill little birds and animals because it provides fun and excitement for people who need to feel potent. No matter how abysmally cruel or wasteful hunting is, it will always be defended by the hunting community.

Hunters fancy themselves as part of a natural cycle. Of course they are part of the cycle that kills and destroys, not the part that gives life or protects. The hunter only wants to be the hunting part of the cycle; even when stalking those relatively few species of animal capable of utilizing a human as prey, the sportsman is careful to overwhelmingly stack the deck in his favor through access to various forms of trickery augmented by heavy firepower.

But no less important to the sportsman than his high-tech killing toys is his (or her, but more often it's men who are sport hunters) unquestioned faith in a complex, shimmering, and fragile fabrication of myth, half-truths, self-delusion, and denials.



HUNTING: A DYING & CRUEL PASTIME

Most folks are not sport hunters, but do not particularly oppose the practice, although those who do seem to be a growing majority in the U.S. Within their ranks are those who actively oppose sport hunting, characterized by the hook-and-bullet fraternity as the dreaded "antis." They are called "antis" because they are "anti-hunting." The phrase is favored by sport hunters because it is negative. The ranks of sport hunters, themselves, are in
decline.

The majority of Americans are not sport hunters, and so have no personal experience with which to counter the myth. Among that not-so-small minority - the true "antis" who are actively opposed to sport hunting - few have much (or any) personal experience with hunting. However, in their desire to rescue animals from the suffering and death needlessly imposed by sport hunters, the antis have a powerful weapon: Fact.

The simple fact is that sport hunting is cruel- bloody cruel! It can't be otherwise. It is important to note that animal cruelty is a gigantic nonisssue within the hunting community, because animal cruelty is the very essense of hunting itself. There are absolutely no laws preventing people from committing horrible acts of cruelty against wild animals. Futhermore, these vicious acts are done away from public view, because while the public may tolerate killing wild animals, most people do not care to witness it.

Studies on wounding rates clearly show the suffering imposed by bow hunters; black-powder hunters; varmint hunters; waterfowl hunters; big game trophy hunters and so on. Virtually anyone who has had experience with hunters and hunting can refer to compelling personal anecdotes relating to the brutality of sport hunting. The cruelty of hunting is exposed in any wildlife rehabilitation center within reach of a hunting area.

The problem is this: Each hunter you meet will deny responsibility for being the source of such horrible suffering. I have, more than once, sat with hunters in a blind, heard them say things like "Got a piece of him ..." or "Stung that one …" or "Bet he felt that..." as ducks wavered, but did not fall, when struck by shotgun pellets. And I have had those same hunters, later in the day, claim with apparent sincerity that hunting was NOT cruel and that they, themselves, were "good" hunters who took care not to wound birds.

[MoonShadow]

In Search of the Source of America's Gun Obsession

"Somehow, the Second Amendment, to my ear, rings of the needs of an agrarian society that knew it would likely find itself under empirical siege once more in the years to come: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/search_source_americas_gun_obsession_12846

And to note at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, there wasn't an armed services as we have today. Instead, states formed their own "militias" as armed "services" to protect.

The Second Amendment needs to be eliminated or made null and void to our constitution. This constant harangue from that bubba-controlled NRA would be halted. At least one sick organization would be laid to rest.

[Sanslines]

Philadelphia PA has a very serious homicide problem. The city wanted to enact stronger gun enforcement control and elimination laws but the NRA backed red neck bubbas in rural PA fought against those laws. The fact is that those red neck bubbas have the blood of Philly residents on their hands and don't seem to care. The Philly murders muder count goes up.........and up..........and up.......and the NRA just doesn't give a damn!

NRA President To Philadelphia: Gun Control Laws Are Not The Solution


Message from the National Rifle Association to Philadelphia: We`re armed. No harm. Get used to it. "Philadelphia doesn`t need any new antigun laws to combat the lawless," said John C. Sigler, a Delaware lawyer who was appointed president of the firearm-advocacy organization this year. "They simply need to enforce the laws they already have."


Judge blocks new Philadelphia gun laws

The National Rifle Association is challenging the gun-control ordinances

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif updated 3:53 p.m. ET, Thurs., April 17, 2008<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((''.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true ));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633440588079330000');</SCRIPT>

PHILADELPHIA - A judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the city from enforcing five gun-control ordinances pending a challenge from the National Rifle Association.
The NRA argues that state law prevents Pennsylvania municipalities from regulating guns, a view that even the city's crime-weary district attorney shares.
"The city has no basis to pass any of these gun-control ordinances and they know it," lawyer C. Scott Shields argued on the NRA's behalf.

City lawyers contend that Philadelphia can pass gun-control ordinances if the laws are outside the scope of state measures. As an example, lawyer Mark Zecca told the judge that one Pennsylvania county had banned guns at its courthouse.
Among other things, the five city ordinances passed April 10 ban the sale of assault weapons; require owners to report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours; and limit firearms purchases to one a month.
They came in response to the city's one-a-day murder rate and its reputation for being a weapons source for criminals in New York and other states with strict gun laws.
The judge scheduled arguments for April 28. She said she would rule very quickly, although her decision is sure to be appealed by the losing side.
Mayor Michael Nutter, who declared a "crime emergency" shortly after taking office in January, quickly signed the City Council bills into law _ despite still-pending litigation over earlier gun-control efforts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24186953/


Rendell debates NRA on gun control

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Rendell_debates_NRA_on_gun_control.html



PA Cities At Odds With NRA Over Municipal Gun Laws (http://thecrimereport.org/2009/06/15/pa-cities-at-odds-with-nra-over-municipal-gun-laws/)

http://thecrimereport.org/2009/06/15/pa-cities-at-odds-with-nra-over-municipal-gun-laws/

[Sanslines]

New York State bans fireworks but not guns.


Leaked NRA Pamphlet Targets “Animal Rights Terrorists” (http://animalrighter.blogspot.com/2007/01/leaked-nra-pamphlet-targets-animal.html)


"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
- NRA President and former Oscar-winning actor Charlton Heston

"This NRA pamphlet casts the world’s fate in highly alarmist tones, warning of an imminent and violent clash between a conspiracy of “evil” forces on one side and God-fearing, law-abiding gun owners on the other. The dreaded result: forced disarmament of the entire country, and thus total and irrevocable loss of Freedom, Democracy and Civilization. The NRA’s terrifying demons include shadowy Democrats and their Zionist financiers, mushy-headed “One World Extremists” who want to surrender America to the United Nations, subversive celebrities like Rosie O’Donnell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_O%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2Donnell) and Katie Couric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Couric), the liberal media as a giant devil head coming through the TV screen, and even “Illegal Alien Gangs” of menacing minorities making cryptic hand signs. And, of course, there are also “The Animal Rights Terrorists,” among which are PETA (http://www.peta.org/), HSUS (http://www.hsus.org/) and the Fund for Animals (http://www.fund.org/)."


"The NRA wholly supports the Bush Administration’s War on Terror in that, like those who framed and passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) (http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=27660291&postID=115635352224710590), they define animal rights activists across the board as “terrorists” because we endanger corporate profits. “It’s inevitable that terrorists will infest America for generations to come,” they say, as though we are termites and the NRA is the exterminator. It is definitely ironic that a group whose main mission is to promote the use of deadly weapons calls people working to stop violence “terrorists”—and sad that their sensationalistic attacks have so often succeeded."

"The NRA is especially fond of spreading the myth that banning guns will provoke more violent crimes. Yet guns kill more than 30,000 people a year in the U.S., and Americans are thirty times as likely as Canadians to be fatally shot."

"Despite the costs, the ideologues at the NRA cling to their fundamentalist interpretation of the Second Amendment: that it means no gun control at all—period. In contrast, most Americans believe that, alongside the “right” to bear arms, we have a more primary right to be safe from violence, and greater gun control would make us safer. Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from danger, and most Americans favor limits on gun ownership and use. In a 2004 Gallup poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm), 54% of respondents wanted gun laws to be stricter, compared to only 11% who said they should be less strict."

"Such questions are moot to the NRA because they are militantly inflexible about their “right” to buy and use guns without restrictions. They are also trying to preserve a way of life that kills people and animals and places corporate interests above society's. Part of their intent is to redefine freedom so that it means the freedom to make money from the blood of innocent animals and to make a killing selling guns. Firearms are a global multibillion-dollar a year enterprise, one of the biggest moneymaking operations on the planet. The NRA’s connection to the international arms industry gives them a huge financial stake in stopping gun control efforts in the U.S. and abroad."

"The political system runs too much these days on money and backroom business deals rather than ethics or trying to improve the state of the world. Increasingly, the pursuit of our “national interest” is becoming the unquestioned protection of corporate profits against any criticism. The NRA and other fanatical pro-business groups will continue to fight for their “right” to go on harming people, animals and the environment, even though in doing so they are violating the rights of billions."




http://animalrighter.blogspot.com/2007/01/leaked-nra-pamphlet-targets-animal.html

[Sanslines]

<DT class="comment-author blogger-comment-icon" id=c116897275567433798>Alexander Paul Melonas (http://www.blogger.com/profile/16786442851644050722) said... <DD class=comment-body>Scare Tactics and dirty politics, as employed and perfected by the Bush administration, merely spilling over into every aspect of our nations governing forces. Means to misinform the citizenry, and de-evolve our society; which has the benefit of creating a nation of ignorance, and sustaining the power of the governing elites.

The N.R.A. is attempting to tap into that minority within our population, whose zealotry and reckless abandonment is ripe for the picking; who then employ similar tactics to recruit members from within the greater majority, thus continuing the presence of the N.R.A.’s political propaganda machine.

I am vegan, and I believe passionately in a limited notion of animal-rights, which I will vocalize within the public sphere. Indeed, my fury for the good cause is only amplified as I peruse such nonsensicalities being offered by the N.R.A. Further, to generally label myself, and those of similar mind, terrorists, angers me beyond description. Pro-Second amendment or not, to arbitrarily label patriotic American citizens as such, is despicable.

Terrorist’s aim to deny the validity of American Constitutionalism, which is precisely what is being offered as an argument by the N.R.A.: freedom of speech and expression is being removed, and replaced by the defining of all who differ in thought, as terrorists.

</DD>

[marko486]

There was an excellent HBO doc on last night that I caught most of .


SHOUTING FIRE: STORIES FROM THE EDGE OF FREE SPEECH


http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/shoutingfire/index.html

It is amazing what was and is done in the name of protecting freedom.

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

[BinCo]

And to note at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, there wasn't an armed services as we have today. Instead, states formed their own "militias" as armed "services" to protect.

The Second Amendment needs to be eliminated or made null and void to our constitution. This constant harangue from that bubba-controlled NRA would be halted. At least one sick organization would be laid to rest.

You are correct, mostly. We had a standing Army and Madison wanted a permanent Army while Adams pushed for a permanent Navy. But the BoR was ratified in 1791, well after the establishment of a Continental Army that fought in the revolution. Since almost every American man at the time owned and could use a rifle, they were asked to go to war. They were paid a pittance, but it was work and many fought for the freedom from the British Empire.

The only way to repeal an Ammendment is with a super-majority vote of the states. The 18th ammendment was repealed with the 21st. It is a complicated procedure and to think that the 2nd ammendment will be repealed is far beyond wishful thinking. Just wave your magic wand and see if all the guns disappear.:laugh:

As I've said before, I will risk my life, and use my gun, to protect your life. Somehow, I think you will not do the same.

As for all the anti-gunners pointing out that around 31,000 people a year die from guns (including about 17,000 suicides), keep in mind that around 49,000 die from cars, 125,000 from lung disease and 631,000 from heart disease. In 2006 2,426,264 died. So just over 1.2% died from firearms and 26% from heart disease. Doesn't it make sense to go after the low hanging fruit and imprison unlicensed drivers, and outlaw cigarettes and fatty foods?

Here is a list of the top 10 causes of death in the US in 2006 from the CDC. Some firearms are included in the accidents list, but not many since more than half are suicide and 1/3 are homicides.
Deaths and Mortality

· Number of deaths: 2,426,264
· Death rate: 810.4 deaths per 100,000 population
· Life expectancy: 77. 7years
· Infant Mortality rate: 6.69 deaths per 1,000 live births
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
· Heart disease: 631,636
· Cancer: 559,888
· Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
· Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
· Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
· Diabetes: 72,449
· Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
· Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
· Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
· Septicemia: 34,234


Fitz1980: Double check that article I posted about the Swiss. They get to do a lot more with their state issued guns than you think.

[BinCo]

There was an excellent HBO doc on last night that I caught most of .


SHOUTING FIRE: STORIES FROM THE EDGE OF FREE SPEECH


http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/shoutingfire/index.html

It is amazing what was and is done in the name of protecting freedom.

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

I don't have HBO. If you find a link to see the show, I would like to see it. It's interesting how decrying Bush makes you a freedom-hating Socialist pig who should be tossed out of the US by the righties. It's also interesting how the lefties want to drive you out on a rail if you say anything bad about the Mexicans that cross the border illegally. Of course it's gotten worse with the 24/7 news cycle.

[BinCo]

Philadelphia PA has a very serious homicide problem. The city wanted to enact stronger gun enforcement control and elimination laws but the NRA backed red neck bubbas in rural PA fought against those laws. The fact is that those red neck bubbas have the blood of Philly residents on their hands and don't seem to care. The Philly murders muder count goes up.........and up..........and up.......and the NRA just doesn't give a damn!


Wrong. The NRA does care, they just disagree that you combat crime by taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Inner city crime is a problem that has a lot more to do with jobs and education and opportunity than it does with being able to get a gun. EVERY gun that is used in a crime is removed from the streets. The gun is held as evidence and later destroyed. If you think you can get a punk criminal in the inner city to give up his gun you're fooling yourself. Gun buyback programs overwhelmingly result in the buyback of non-functioning relics and family heirlooms that mom and dad are afraid to have around.

[Sanslines]

Wrong. The NRA does care, they just disagree that you combat crime by taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Inner city crime is a problem that has a lot more to do with jobs and education and opportunity than it does with being able to get a gun. EVERY gun that is used in a crime is removed from the streets. The gun is held as evidence and later destroyed. If you think you can get a punk criminal in the inner city to give up his gun you're fooling yourself. Gun buyback programs overwhelmingly result in the buyback of non-functioning relics and family heirlooms that mom and dad are afraid to have around.

The NRA is a mouthpiece for firearms manufacturers. They will do whatever they can to promote sales (and profits) of gun manufacturers regardless of the costs to society. If inner city crime has more to do with jobs and education and opportunity then the homicide rates in countries such as the UK would be exactly the same as in the USA. We have over 240 million guns in this country. Why do we need so many guns? Why are we so obsessed with guns? Why do we so enjoy killing people and animals with guns? What does this say about our society??

[marko486]

Being against hunting is just another extreme I think. I haven't hunted in a few years, but fully support it by eating venison whenever I get a chance. Reminds me of t-shirt I saw. "Meat is Murder, Yummy, delicious murder".

[naked in NH]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

To expound on this quote [admittingly taken out of context], I would hope that Sotomayor would also reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Latina woman or a black or Asian man or woman who hasn't led a rich life. Why single out white males? Surely there are white males with far richer lives than people of color. Being Latino alone doesn't provide interesting experiences. And being a white male does not guarantee any level of priviledge.

[Naturist Mark]

Why single out white males?

Because almost all federal judges are white men. The white male experience is well represented.

But keep in mind the rest of Sonya's speech, particularly:

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that i reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

[jon71]

We agree, I didn't say that.

Yes, but we don't deal with it by prior restraint. We deal with it by punishing ciminals after the crime is committed.

Do you have any clue how stupid that is? Apparently not since you can't find a reason why fully automatic guns and grenade launchers should be illegal. Apparently you want to destroy America as we know it and replace it with an ultra violent distopia. Some things are so obvious prior restraint is called for. We can't use that for everything, or even many things, but some things are just obvious. For example if I'm around someone who is flat drunk I'm going to do what I can to keep him from driving. He hasn't committed a crime YET, or harmed or killed anyone YET, and I'm going to do my part to ensure it stays that way.

[nakedstudent]

Do you have any clue how stupid that is? Apparently not since you can't find a reason why fully automatic guns and grenade launchers should be illegal. Apparently you want to destroy America as we know it and replace it with an ultra violent distopia. Some things are so obvious prior restraint is called for. We can't use that for everything, or even many things, but some things are just obvious. For example if I'm around someone who is flat drunk I'm going to do what I can to keep him from driving. He hasn't committed a crime YET, or harmed or killed anyone YET, and I'm going to do my part to ensure it stays that way.

That's also grossly unfair as that flat drunk may already have done everything right. You have no idea if he even owns a car let alone has his keys in his pockets. Similarly, just owning an automatic weapon does not automatically mean you're going to shoot up a public place.

Now obviously if the drunk or potential gun owner already had a criminal history or a history of psychological or gun related issues or offenses, the arguments might change. But I know many people who own automatic weapons for no other purpose than a passion or hobby. Furthermore, under some models of automatic or "assault weapon" bans or restrictions, a double barreled shotgun traditionally used for turkey hunting would be banned.

My 14 year old brother is a well grounded, moral, responsible young man who has developed a passion for ballistics and firearms so much so that he is considering making it a career in the future. Who are you to deny the lifestyle that accompanies such decisions?

Why do you think about it differently than you do nudism? If you substituted the words "peacefully demonstrate nudism" for "keep and bear arms" would you still advocate so strongly for the opposing view?

[jon71]

That's also grossly unfair as that flat drunk may already have done everything right. You have no idea if he even owns a car let alone has his keys in his pockets. Similarly, just owning an automatic weapon does not automatically mean you're going to shoot up a public place.

Now obviously if the drunk or potential gun owner already had a criminal history or a history of psychological or gun related issues or offenses, the arguments might change. But I know many people who own automatic weapons for no other purpose than a passion or hobby. Furthermore, under some models of automatic or "assault weapon" bans or restrictions, a double barreled shotgun traditionally used for turkey hunting would be banned.

My 14 year old brother is a well grounded, moral, responsible young man who has developed a passion for ballistics and firearms so much so that he is considering making it a career in the future. Who are you to deny the lifestyle that accompanies such decisions?

Why do you think about it differently than you do nudism? If you substituted the words "peacefully demonstrate nudism" for "keep and bear arms" would you still advocate so strongly for the opposing view?

You aren't even attempting to stay on topic. Skinview was trying to say that everyone should just sit idly by no matter what and only after a crime has been committed, people hurt and killed, only then can the govt. or anybody act. That's absurd. There are cases where a premptive action is called for. Certain "red flags" are big enough and bold enough to warrant that. I don't expect unanimous agreement as to the specifics of those red flags but to claim they don't exist is absurd. If police get a tip that someone is about to rob a bank, shoot up a shopping mall or school or whatever they take action, they don't sit on their hands and say "well nobody's actually committed a crime YET". The action might be nothing more than intense observation and being prepared for more but they certainly do something.

[Fitz1980]

And its an unresolved problem of how to draw that line with an eye on the Second Amendment. There was no limit at all when it was written. Benjamin Franklin went to New York as a private citizen and purchased artillery in the 1750's. The Contitution gives Congress the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal (Article I, Section 8), which authorizes private warships to raid enemy shipping. Clearly, you have a right to own a battleship. It may be that the Second Amendment covers a right to own any weapon, like thermonuclear weapons, which few would say is a good thing. If it doesn't cover thermonuclear weapons, please tell us why not. (I have some ideas...)
A stinger missile is an individual arm which is very, very useful for repelling invading forces or defeating our Air Force if the government had to be overthrown in a civil war. Its just the sort of thing that the Second Amendment is for, but it would be a real threat to airliners in the wrong hands. I want ownership of stingers to be very restricted, but I can't figure out how to do that. If you can, please tell me. You and I wanting restrictions isn't reason enough.

http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2008/10/blackwater-sets-sights-somali-pirates

http://www.survivalnewsnetwork.com/blackwater-13-firms-want-pirate-protection/

While not exactly a battleship, Blackwater International has purchased several 180 ft boats and equipped them with helicopters, launch craft and armed 'security specialists' for combat on the high seas.

BTW if you are unfamiliar with Blackwater, now called Xe, they're a "private military company" and "security firm" that claims that they can put a brigade sized force (3,000-5,000 people) anywhere in the world. They have courted much controversy in Iraq over the shooting deaths of several Iraqi civillians and other crimes in Iraq because as a private firm their men are not subject to either the Uniform Code of Military Justice or Iraqi civilian law. Blackwater contractors have also been accused of Arms smuggling, theft and running prostitution. They also have helicopters, airplanes, boats, weapons and a world wide pool of men, most of them former soldiers, to call on.

The company was founded by one Erik Prince, a somewhat reclusive former Navy SEAL, who used much of his family's wealth to start Blackwater. Prince is also fundamentalist Christian who interned with the first Bush administration and of his time there later said "I saw a lot of things I didn't agree with—homosexual groups being invited in, the budget agreement, the Clean Air Act, those kinds of bills." Personally I think that a very wealthy religious fundamentalist with his own private mercenary army sounds like a James Bond villain, doesn't it?

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

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

[MoonShadow]

http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2008/10/blackwater-sets-sights-somali-pirates

http://www.survivalnewsnetwork.com/blackwater-13-firms-want-pirate-protection/

I think that a very wealthy religious fundamentalist with his own private mercenary army sounds like a James Bond villain, doesn't it?

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

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


Indeed it does!! Nothing like a military sub-culture within our own! Jeez!

[Skinview]

While not exactly a battleship, Blackwater International has purchased several 180 ft boats and equipped them with helicopters, launch craft and armed 'security specialists' for combat on the high seas.

BTW if you are unfamiliar with Blackwater, now called Xe, they're a "private military company" and "security firm" that claims that they can put a brigade sized force (3,000-5,000 people) anywhere in the world. They have courted much controversy in Iraq over the shooting deaths of several Iraqi civillians and other crimes in Iraq because as a private firm their men are not subject to either the Uniform Code of Military Justice or Iraqi civilian law. Blackwater contractors have also been accused of Arms smuggling, theft and running prostitution. They also have helicopters, airplanes, boats, weapons and a world wide pool of men, most of them former soldiers, to call on.

The company was founded by one Erik Prince, a somewhat reclusive former Navy SEAL, who used much of his family's wealth to start Blackwater. Prince is also fundamentalist Christian who interned with the first Bush administration and of his time there later said "I saw a lot of things I didn't agree with—homosexual groups being invited in, the budget agreement, the Clean Air Act, those kinds of bills." Personally I think that a very wealthy religious fundamentalist with his own private mercenary army sounds like a James Bond villain, doesn't it?
Sounds like George Washington and Ben Franklin rolled into one. Franklin used the canon he bought for a militia, in the French and Indian War, that the quaker dominated Pennsylvania government did not want.

[Skinview]

Skinview was trying to say that everyone should just sit idly by no matter what and only after a crime has been committed, people hurt and killed, only then can the govt. or anybody act. That's absurd.No, thats not what I said. Its perfectly all right for the government to watch and investigate. Thats entirely different than banning a weapon because someone might do something bad with it. "Prior restraint" is a legal term. In First Amendment cases, it means, for instance, that the government can't require a newspaper to submit its content to a censor to determine if any libel has been committed. Libel is illegal, but the press gets to print anything, including libel, without the governments prior approval. Only afterwards can the government act against the paper and prosecute. The courts have long held that prior restraint is unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

[Skinview]

The Second Amendment needs to be eliminated or made null and void to our constitution.As the Supreme Court noted in the Heller case, the Second Amendment didn't create the right to bear arms. That is a preexisting natural right that we all have as human beings. The Ninth Amendment says that there are rights not in the Bill of Rights that must be respected. Even without the Second Amendment, the Ninth protects the right to bear arms. And if you repealed the Second and Ninth Amendments, then there is the Delaration of Independence, which says that when the government violates our rights, it must be abolished and replaced. That is generally done with guns, which is why the Second Amendment got included in the first place. So go ahead, repeal the Second Amendment, try to confiscate firearms, and watch the civil war the ensues.

[Skinview]

The NRA is a mouthpiece for firearms manufacturers. They will do whatever they can to promote sales (and profits) of gun manufacturers regardless of the costs to society.BS. The NRA represents several million gun owners. And gun manufacturors could get a much bigger boost in sales by donating money to the Obama campaign, as sales have shot through the roof with his run for the presidency. They still can't keep up with demand.


If inner city crime has more to do with jobs and education and opportunity then the homicide rates in countries such as the UK would be exactly the same as in the USA.The UK has a homocide rate similar to that of Switzerland, which has a higher gun ownership rate than the US. By my count, 50 other countries have higher homocide rates than the US, and they have much greater firearms restrictions. Mexico has nearly twice the homocide rate as the US, and much, much more severe restrictions on gun ownership. Russia has three times the homocide rate as the US. Canada has a firearms ownership rate that is similar to the US, and their homocide rate is lower than the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

We have over 240 million guns in this country. Why do we need so many guns?One shotgun for turkey hunting, one rifle to hunt deer, a bigger one to shoot moose, a blackpowder rifle for blackpowder hunting season, a 45 handgun to defend the house, a 22 handgun to target shoot, a musket to reenact one of several wars, and an AR-15 (bad bad "assault rifle") because it is the most popular competiton marksmanship rifle, and a heck of a lot more pleasent to shoot than an ear busting, kick-like-a-mule, big game hunting rifle. And then there is the collection...

Why are we so obsessed with guns?Because they are FUN. They go bang, things a long way away ping or spin. Exploding watermelons and gallon jugs of water can be quite entertaining. You can have contests with them. On Saturday, I marched in three parades as a Revolutionary War reenactor, and the crowds roared and cheered when my unit stopped and volleyed our muskets into the air.

Why do we so enjoy killing peopleWho is "we"? Its not me. From what I have seen, people very usually hate killing other people.

and animals with guns?Mmmmm, bear meat tastes yummy.

What does this say about our society??We evolved as predators and tool makers.

[Skinview]

Do you have any clue how stupid that is? Apparently not since you can't find a reason why fully automatic guns and grenade launchers should be illegal. Apparently you want to destroy America as we know it and replace it with an ultra violent distopia. Some things are so obvious prior restraint is called for.
So tell us how obviously stupid the people of Switzerland are, with their fully automatic firearms and grenade launchers, and the ultra violent distopia that they live in. I'm waiting.

We can't use that for everything, or even many things, but some things are just obvious. For example if I'm around someone who is flat drunk I'm going to do what I can to keep him from driving. He hasn't committed a crime YET, or harmed or killed anyone YET, and I'm going to do my part to ensure it stays that way.You can get away with that with your friend, but if you took some stranger's car keys away, thats theft, and you can go to jail. And a cop can't do anything until the drunk gets in the car and the wheels turn.

[jon71]

So tell us how obviously stupid the people of Switzerland are, with their fully automatic firearms and grenade launchers, and the ultra violent distopia that they live in. I'm waiting.

You can get away with that with your friend, but if you took some stranger's car keys away, thats theft, and you can go to jail. And a cop can't do anything until the drunk gets in the car and the wheels turn.

Wrong. That just spells out how ignorant you are. If I take the car keys away from a drunk the cops not only won't charge me I'll get pats on the back, and a lots of gratitude. You obviously don't live in the real world.

[jon71]

No, thats not what I said. Its perfectly all right for the government to watch and investigate. Thats entirely different than banning a weapon because someone might do something bad with it. "Prior restraint" is a legal term. In First Amendment cases, it means, for instance, that the government can't require a newspaper to submit its content to a censor to determine if any libel has been committed. Libel is illegal, but the press gets to print anything, including libel, without the governments prior approval. Only afterwards can the government act against the paper and prosecute. The courts have long held that prior restraint is unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

Libel and murder are not the same thing. If a newspaper prints something libelous people's feeling get hurt. If a nut shoots up some place people die. Of course the standard is different. Anything that's life or death will require more a proactive response than something that isn't.

[jon71]

[QUOTE=Skinview;233061]BS. The NRA represents several million gun owners. And gun manufacturors could get a much bigger boost in sales by donating money to the Obama campaign, as sales have shot through the roof with his run for the presidency. They still can't keep up with demand.


The UK has a homocide rate similar to that of Switzerland, which has a higher gun ownership rate than the US. By my count, 50 other countries have higher homocide rates than the US, and they have much greater firearms restrictions. Mexico has nearly twice the homocide rate as the US, and much, much more severe restrictions on gun ownership. Russia has three times the homocide rate as the US. Canada has a firearms ownership rate that is similar to the US, and their homocide rate is lower than the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate



There are so many things wrong here I'm not sure where to begin. Obviously you don't even try to tell the truth. You have a career waiting for you at fox news. Mexico and Russia are about the only countries that get within a mile of the homicide rate of the U.S. Most of the world runs about a single digit percentage of what we live with. Also I'm surprised you would dare mention Mexico considering on both sides of the border it's almost unanimously agreed upon that a huge part of their problem is how easily they can get guns from the United States. That is a national embarrassment. We are actually exporting murder. As for Canada that is a country the N.R.A. routinely sites are full of "gun control libbies, the horror, the horror!". They don't have gun ownership rates similar to us, nobody does. America is around 4% of the worlds population with just over 300M in a world of just more than 7B. Having said that we own about one third of all small arms in the world (not counting proper armies of course). Think about that, 4% of the people own 33% of the guns. Whoever is second is an incredibly distant second. Personally I hope it's Isreal but that's another thread and a pure guess.
Skinview I haven't expected you to tell the truth in a long time but you're insulting everyone's intelligence when you phone it in like this. Can you at least try and make your lies clever?

[Sanslines]

BS. The NRA represents several million gun owners. And gun manufacturors could get a much bigger boost in sales by donating money to the Obama campaign, as sales have shot through the roof with his run for the presidency. They still can't keep up with demand.

The NRA is clearly a 'front' for the firearms industry. All of their lobbying and legislative efforts clearly benefit the firearms industry for they oppose anything that might limit, slow, or restrict the sales of weapons. Sales of weapons shot through the roof during the Obama run for President becasue the NRA launced a series of misleading lies which manipulated guillible people into believing that Obama was goig to 'take away their guns' in spite of very clear factual evidence to the contrary. this just goes to show that the NRA will stop at nothing to achieve their objective, which is to allow for unimpeded sales of weapons regardless of the consequences of those sales.


The UK has a homocide rate similar to that of Switzerland, which has a higher gun ownership rate than the US. By my count, 50 other countries have higher homocide rates than the US, and they have much greater firearms restrictions. Mexico has nearly twice the homocide rate as the US, and much, much more severe restrictions on gun ownership. Russia has three times the homocide rate as the US. Canada has a firearms ownership rate that is similar to the US, and their homocide rate is lower than the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths:

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

One very important fact that I have personally witnessed is that most of the guns that wind up in Toronto are smuggled across the border from cities such as Detroit and Buffalo. There have been numerous attempts by the Canadian Government to stop this illegal flow of weapons from the USA (which are used to commit murder in Canada) but such efforts are endlessly opposed by the NRA. It appears that the NRA would rather continue to promote guns regardless of the amount of Canadian blood that is spilled by those guns.

One shotgun for turkey hunting, one rifle to hunt deer, a bigger one to shoot moose, a blackpowder rifle for blackpowder hunting season, a 45 handgun to defend the house, a 22 handgun to target shoot, a musket to reenact one of several wars, and an AR-15 (bad bad "assault rifle") because it is the most popular competiton marksmanship rifle, and a heck of a lot more pleasent to shoot than an ear busting, kick-like-a-mule, big game hunting rifle. And then there is the collection...

How about a shotgun for shooting one of your family members? Guns are primarily used for killing. This is a fact. Many justify their callous disregard for life with nonsensical statements but when the killing reaches home (as when one of their family members is killed) then they suddenly wake up and see the light.

Because they are FUN. They go bang, things a long way away ping or spin. Exploding watermelons and gallon jugs of water can be quite entertaining. You can have contests with them. On Saturday, I marched in three parades as a Revolutionary War reenactor, and the crowds roared and cheered when my unit stopped and volleyed our muskets into the air.

Many things can be considered fun. Exploding fireworks can be considered fun, and yet fireworks are banned in New York State. Seems the state legislature has deemed that the damage and destruction done by irresponsble individuals creates too great a harm to society. I wonder why the same logic is not applied to guns. Perhaps it is beacuse of the NRA and their endless manipulation of the gullible into believing their lies.

Who is "we"? Its not me. From what I have seen, people very usually hate killing other people.

Mmmmm, bear meat tastes yummy.

We evolved as predators and tool makers.

The gun homocide rate clearly proves the point that there is a large group of people in the USA who will resort to gun violence and kill other Americans without a conscious thought. The USA is a violent country. The USA was born with violence and that violence continues to this day in spite of efforts to confront and control this violence. Those who are so much in love with guns and killing always have the option of joining the military where they can kill to their hearts content. Of course what fun is it to go to war where others can and will shoot back and possible wound or kill. Then again, those of us who have been to war and have had the brains and body parts of their fellow comrades blown all over them might come to the clear understanding that guns are for killing and wounding. To show such callous disregard for wouding and killing animals (because they are not human) shows just how neaderthal some are. To those I suggest that they enlist, go to war, and find out just how 'wonderful' guns are on the front lines. They might very quickly form a new and different perspective as to just how destructive guns really are and they might begin to see the NRA in a totally new and different light.

[Skinview]

The NRA is clearly a 'front' for the firearms industry. All of their lobbying and legislative efforts clearly benefit the firearms industry for they oppose anything that might limit, slow, or restrict the sales of weapons.It also benifits the people who want to buy and use them. It also benifits respect for our Constitution. The NRA is a defender of our civil rights.


Sales of weapons shot through the roof during the Obama run for President becasue the NRA launced a series of misleading liesName one.


which manipulated guillible people into believing that Obama was goig to 'take away their guns' in spite of very clear factual evidence to the contrary.Obama clearly had an antigun record. You want to read the whole list?


this just goes to show that the NRA will stop at nothing to achieve their objective, which is to allow for unimpeded sales of weapons regardless of the consequences of those sales.Much like the ACLU fights for the unimpeded freedom of speach, regardless of what some wrong or damaging things some people may say.



U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths:I see you had to qualify that with some extraneous factor to exclude the 50 nations with higher homocide rates, and put it in terms of raw numbers in a nation of hundreds of millions, rather than meaningful rates. I guess dead Russians don't count if they don't have as much money, or they aren't as dead if they are killed with something besides a gun.


One very important fact that I have personally witnessed is that most of the guns that wind up in Toronto are smuggled across the border from cities such as Detroit and Buffalo.Most of the illegal guns perhaps. The vast majority of the guns in Canada got there legally, and are owned legally, and are used lawfully.


There have been numerous attempts by the Canadian Government to stop this illegal flow of weapons from the USA (which are used to commit murder in Canada) but such efforts are endlessly opposed by the NRA. It appears that the NRA would rather continue to promote guns regardless of the amount of Canadian blood that is spilled by those guns.If someone wants to kill someone, they don't need a gun. Canadians have plenty of guns of their own. Taking away the freedoms of Americans isn't going to stop murder in Canada. Historically, America has killed a lot of foriegners to protect the liberties of Americans.


How about a shotgun for shooting one of your family members?How about an SUV for driving over one of yours? Or a steak knife for stabbing one? Or a baseball bat for smashing a skull? Or a belt to strangle one? Got any pesticide? You could poison them all.



Guns are primarily used for killing. This is a fact.Any particular gun is very unlikely to be used to kill someone. Many are designed for target shooting, and most that aren't are bought to be used for target shooting. My musket was designed to kill, but it is used to entertain thousands, and thats almost certainly all it will ever be used for. There is a small chance that it will be used to dispatch a badly injured animal on the roadside, or be used to defend myself. My pistol will probably never be used for what it was designed for, but if it is, it will save my life.



Many justify their callous disregard for life with nonsensical statements but when the killing reaches home (as when one of their family members is killed) then they suddenly wake up and see the light.I suspect that all the crimes that have been prevented will never will never lead you to wake up and see your callous disregard for the liberty that hundreds of thousands of Americans died fighting for.



Many things can be considered fun. Exploding fireworks can be considered fun, and yet fireworks are banned in New York State. Seems the state legislature has deemed that the damage and destruction done by irresponsble individuals creates too great a harm to society.The New York legislature is filled with paternalistic, liberty destroying busybodies that have no buisness telling adults what they can do with their own lives or money.



I wonder why this logic has not been applied to guns. Perhaps it is beacuse of the NRA...It may be. Thats why I give them money.



The gun homocide rate clearly proves the point that there is a large group of people in the USA who will resort to gun violence and kill other Americans without a conscious thought.But a very small percentage of a large country.


The USA is a violent country. The USA was born with violence and that violence continues to this day in spite of efforts to confront and control this violence.True. Its a good reason to own a gun.


Those who are so much in love with guns and killing always have the option of joining the military where they can kill to their hearts content.Not likely.


Of course what fun is it to go to war where others can and will shoot back and possible wound or kill. Then again, those of us who have been to war and have had the brains and body parts of their fellow comrades blown all over them might come to the clear understanding that guns are for killing and wounding.We mostly use airplanes for that. Do you want to ban them next?

[MoonShadow]

Sigh! People who think owning guns is an expression of their freedom? LOL What a bunch of (you know what). Guns have nothing to do with whether or not we have freedom.

Guns are weapons, pure and simple. They are made to K I L L. Target shooting? Come on now.

Guns K I L L ....... life -- animals - people.

To truly live freely means not to own any weapons at all. What a novel idea, don't you think?

[Skinview]

Sanslines, why do you have that avatar?

[Sanslines]

It also benifits the people who want to buy and use them. It also benifits respect for our Constitution. The NRA is a defender of our civil rights.

Ah ha, so when you say that it ALSO benefits the people who want to buy and use guns, you are also indirectly agreeing with my statement that it benefits the firearms companies and is indeed a front for them. Having a gun does not demonstrate any respect for our Constitution. Making personal sacrifices for the benefit of the nation does that. The NRA is no defender of our civil rights. The NRA is a defender of morally bankrupt corporate American to make countless amounts of money regardless of the amount of pain and suffering that doing so inflicts upon the nation.



Name one.


If you read my previous posts, you would not ask this question as I have already numerous posted facts that clearly demonstrate how the NRA routinely lies and distorts information in order to acheive their goals. Obama never stated that he was ever going to take guns away from anyone and yet the NRA promoted and repeated the same old lie that this is what Obama was going to do. From a previous post:

"Such questions are moot to the NRA because they are militantly inflexible about their “right” to buy and use guns without restrictions. They are also trying to preserve a way of life that kills people and animals and places corporate interests above society's. Part of their intent is to redefine freedom so that it means the freedom to make money from the blood of innocent animals and to make a killing selling guns. Firearms are a global multibillion-dollar a year enterprise, one of the biggest moneymaking operations on the planet. The NRA’s connection to the international arms industry gives them a huge financial stake in stopping gun control efforts in the U.S. and abroad."


Obama clearly had an antigun record. You want to read the whole list?

Obama NEVER EVER stated that he was going to take away guns from gun owners. Additional guns controls can not be cast in black and white terms. To do so is dishonest and attempts to deliberately manipulate a guilible population. The NRA can't acknowledge the facts and only speaks for the firearms manufacturers and radical fundamentalists:

"The NRA is especially fond of spreading the myth that banning guns will provoke more violent crimes. Yet guns kill more than 30,000 people a year in the U.S., and Americans are thirty times as likely as Canadians to be fatally shot."

"Despite the costs, the ideologues at the NRA cling to their fundamentalist interpretation of the Second Amendment: that it means no gun control at all—period. In contrast, most Americans believe that, alongside the “right” to bear arms, we have a more primary right to be safe from violence, and greater gun control would make us safer. Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from danger, and most Americans favor limits on gun ownership and use. In a 2004 Gallup poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm), 54% of respondents wanted gun laws to be stricter, compared to only 11% who said they should be less strict."

Much like the ACLU fights for the unimpeded freedom of speach, regardless of what some wrong or damaging things some people may say.

First off you need to be upfront and honest and state the obvious, which is that hunters are killers and enjoy killing. This is a side of humanity that many do not want to admit. Secondly you need to again be upfront and state that the goal of firearm manufacturers is to make money. Money is the absolute god of this nation. The NRA protects their ability to make money. The NRA USES their fundamentalist argument of defending civil liberties as a cover for their real intentions. Yet they are a militant organization that will allow no control of a dangerous weapon. As anyone knows, the Second Amendment was written during a very different period of time when the USA had no virutually no armed forces (as compared to today) and routinely called upon a bunch of farm boys to grab their muskets and fight the British. The Northeast is littered with such battlefield sites. The Second Amendment never clarified whether such 'right to bear arms' could ever be regulated or controlled. It is the NRA's militant and fundamentalist interpretation of this amendment that attempts to speak for the second amendment. Those who support gun regulations and controls are more then justified to do so, for it can certainly be assumed that other aspects of past and modern law require that regulations and controls be established 'for the greater good of the people'. Of course, the NRA could just as easily promote the right of the people to bear arms such as nuclear weapons, but then again there would be no means for firearms manufacturers to profit from such an industry.



I see you had to qualify that with some extraneous factor to exclude the 50 nations with higher homocide rates, and put it in terms of raw numbers in a nation of hundreds of millions, rather than meaningful rates. I guess dead Russians don't count if they don't have as much money, or they aren't as dead if they are killed with something besides a gun.

The facts speak for themselves no matter how you wish to manipulate them. You conveniently neglect the fact that the majority of firearms that wind up in Canada originate from the USA. You also conveniently neglect the fact that the vast majority of weapons that are being used in the present Mexican drug wars are of American origin. Any attempts to control or regulate those weapons has met with non stop resistance from the NRA. This is just another example of how deliberately oblivious the NRA is concerning the death of people. Profits before people should be the NRA mantra.


Most of the illegal guns perhaps. The vast majority of the guns in Canada got there legally, and are owned legally, and are used lawfully.

Tell that to the RCMP who have congregated on the Canadian side of the USA - Canada border in Canadian efforts to at least slow down the non stop smuggling of weapons into Canada. Here are just a couple of exerpts to illustrate the point:

"TORONTO — A 4-year-old is wounded in a drive-by shooting. A teenager is shot to death at the funeral of a friend, also a victim of gunfire. A gunbattle between rival gangs kills a 15-year-old bystander and wounds six others in the heart of the downtown shopping district.

The violence would be shocking anywhere, but it's especially so in Toronto, where Canadians pride themselves on their city's safety and civility. The number of gun-related homicides nearly doubled in the city last year.

Some Canadian politicians are blaming the spike in violence on guns coming from the United States. "The system you have in place in the U.S. is causing violence to be exported to my city," Toronto Mayor David Miller said.
Toronto police estimate that half the guns seized in criminal investigations come from the United States."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-02-toronto-guns_x.htm

In simple terms, American guns are killing Canadian citizens. The U.S. government has a responsibility to prevent this kind of assualt against a foreign nation. The NRA wishes to block any efforts to do so, and clearly does not care how many Canadians will die just so long as the NRA's fanatical and false interpretation of the second ammendment is protected.




If someone wants to kill someone, they don't need a gun. Canadians have plenty of guns of their own. Taking away the freedoms of Americans isn't going to stop murder in Canada. Historically, America has killed a lot of foriegners to protect the liberties of Americans.

You again demonstrate how you ignore all facts that I post concerning the rates of gun deaths among various age groups in the USA. America has also killed a lot of foreignersin order to protect corporate america. You know ............profits before people..............profits before decency or morality or righteousness.


How about an SUV for driving over one of yours? Or a steak knife for stabbing one? Or a baseball bat for smashing a skull? Or a belt to strangle one? Got any pesticide? You could poison them all.

How about facing up to the fact that guns were invented for the sole purpose of killing. It is irrelevant that they can be used for non lethal purposes, such as target practice. Their primary purpose is to kill. As far as SUV's are concerned, the SUV must be registered and the operator must be licensed. The SUV's primary purpose is for transportation, and NOT to kill! Why does the NRA consistenly oppose such measures for a device such as a gun whose primary purpose is to kill?




Any particular gun is very unlikely to be used to kill someone. Many are designed for target shooting, and most that aren't are bought to be used for target shooting. My musket was designed to kill, but it is used to entertain thousands, and thats almost certainly all it will ever be used for. There is a small chance that it will be used to dispatch a badly injured animal on the roadside, or be used to defend myself. My pistol will probably never be used for what it was designed for, but if it is, it will save my life.

The you shoud be at the front of the line demanding that muskets be registered and that the legal owner be licensed to use such a weapon under restricted circumstances. We already do this with fireworks in New York State. Yet the NRA consisitently opposes any gun regulation.



I suspect that all the crimes that have been prevented will never will never lead you to wake up and see your callous disregard for the liberty that hundreds of thousands of Americans died fighting for.

What I see is that you are admitting that American is a very violent and crime ridden country. What I also see you admitting is that on one hand, you state that guns are not used for killing but for target practice and yet on the other hand you openly and freely advocate their use to prevent crimes. This is clearly contradictory. I also see that you continue to post how the gun homicide rate is relatively insignificant in the USA and yet you also state that is must be significant enough to justify the ownership of guns as a means of self protection. You are again presenting contradicting arguments.

Given that you admit that this nation is a very violent nation that is crime ridden, you should be promoting the prevention of anything that further contributes to the crime rate. Gun regulation and control should be at the top of your list.

You should also understand that liberty can not be addressed in a vacuum. There are responsibilities to liberty and when the greater good of such liberty is threatened (and there are countless cases where laws have been established to prohibite or prevent ownership of that which has the potential to cause real and serious harm to the general population) then such liberties must be regulated and controlled.

I do wish that you would come to Toronto and inform the Canadian surviving family members of smuggled American guns that protection of a perceived fundamental liberty by a fanatical NRA trumps Canadian lives any day.



The New York legislature is filled with paternalistic, liberty destroying busybodies that have no buisness telling adults what they can do with their own lives or money.

The New York State legislature was forced time and time again to step in and establish laws which protect the greater good of the people. Without such laws, the Hudson River would still be a 'dead' river full of General Electric generated PCB wastes and Love Canal would stretch across the state. If people can not act in a responsible manner and harm or abuse others, then the New York State legislature will step in and force them to do so under penalty of law.

But a very small percentage of a large country.

You seem willing to write off a certain (large) percentage of the American population to gun death and have resorted to using nebulous wordage to try and minimize the carnage.


True. Its a good reason to own a gun.

Perhaps it is a better reason to attempt to determine why the USA is so fanatical and in love with guns and face the dark truth about ourselves in that there is a certain percentage of our population who enjoys killing.


Not likely.

Those who are so much in love with guns and killing should be drafted and sent to war zones where they can get their fill of killing. Perhaps if they witness the real horrors of war and killing with guns, then would see guns for what they really are - instruments of killing.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines, why do you have that avatar?

To demonstrate in a very graphic manner that in spite of all of the progress that this nation has made in over 200 years of history, little, if anything has changed concerning the attitudes towards guns and killing. Certainly we can do better then to continue down the path of being a very violent nation and using fallcious arguments for gun ownership while ignoring the fact that guns contribute to making this a very violent nation.

[Skinview]

There are so many things wrong here I'm not sure where to begin. Obviously you don't even try to tell the truth. You have a career waiting for you at fox news. Mexico and Russia are about the only countries that get within a mile of the homicide rate of the U.S. Most of the world runs about a single digit percentage of what we live with.
Skinview I haven't expected you to tell the truth in a long time but you're insulting everyone's intelligence when you phone it in like this. Can you at least try and make your lies clever?Jon, I put the link to the figures right there for you to see.
We all have different opinions. I can understand that people make mistakes from time to time. Sometimes, people have some wrong facts in their heads that make it into their posts. Now, before one says that someone is wrong, it would be prudent to check one's facts. It would be downright reckless to call someone a liar without presenting references to back your facts up, and even then that doesn't prove that the accused is being deliberately misleading. But to call me a liar when I have put the facts right in front of you with a link to the source - its just bizarre. How old are you?


Also I'm surprised you would dare mention Mexico considering on both sides of the border it's almost unanimously agreed upon that a huge part of their problem is how easily they can get guns from the United States. That is a national embarrassment. We are actually exporting murder.There is some false information being repeated in the media / political echo chamber. Some guns are coming from the US, most of the military arms used by the drug cartels are coming from Central America. The central part of the problem is the conflict resulting from Mexican President Felipe Calderon's attempt to take on the drug cartels. Millions of dollars are at stake, and the drug cartels will get whatever firearms they want, regardless of what laws we pass in the US. They are in the buisness of moving contraband across national borders. They have lots of money and organization to get whatever they want.


As for Canada that is a country the N.R.A. routinely sites are full of "gun control libbies, the horror, the horror!". They don't have gun ownership rates similar to us, nobody does.29% of Canadian homes have a firearm in it. Thats pretty close to the US figure now. I don't doubt that the average US gun owner has more guns than gun owners elsewhere in the world.
http://www.outdoors.net/site/features/feature.aspx?rn=13044&Forum=Firearms&ArticleCode=931&V=False&jse=1

The Swiss household gun ownership rate is 27% - excluding militia arms. Virtually EVERY Swiss male is issued a fully automatic assault rifle to keep in his home when he turns 20, and they get to keep it when they leave militia service after it has been converted to a semi-auto firearm. I don't have a resulting total rate, but that has got to push it way above the US rate. I suspect Isreal is pretty high too, but I haven't looked into that yet.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel103001.shtml

[Skinview]

To demonstrate in a very graphic manner that in spite of all of the progress that this nation has made in over 200 years of history, little, if anything has changed concerning the attitudes towards guns and killing. Certainly we can do better then to continue down the path of being a very violent nation and using fallcious arguments for gun ownership while ignoring the fact that guns contribute to making this a very violent nation.I don't think it has the effect that you are looking for. Most people will look at that sign and smile, and just assume that you are a gun owner ready to defend his home.

[Sanslines]

The U.S. Guns In Mexico's Drug War:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/26/world/worldwatch/entry4893905.shtml

Guns from other parts of the world that are entering Mexico is no excuse to allow guns from the USA to enter Mexico. The USA is responsible for it's own actions and can not use the actions of other nations to make excuses for it's own inability to control that which occurs within the USA.

As guns go south, drugs - and violence - go north:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/09/mexico-drugs-usa

"The other crucial tie between the two neighbours is weaponry. Mexican authorities say they seized 20,000 weapons from the drug cartels last year. With the purchase of firearms difficult in Mexico, authorities conclude that most of the weapons came from the US."

"The US bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) estimates that 90% of firearms seized in Mexico come from north of the border. Of the 2,400 weapons traced back to the US, 1,800 came from dealers in the four US border states, where more than 6,500 gun dealers operate."

90% of firearms seized in Mexico come from the USA. This does not sound like an inconsequential number to me and clearly demonstrates where the overwhelming problem originates from. It is NOT from Central or South American countries.

[nakedstudent]

To truly live freely means not to own any weapons at all. What a novel idea, don't you think?

This attitude greatly parallels the green movement in which we are handicapping our economy. China and India on the other hand refuse and continue to prosper.

The bottom line is that if you are willing to live without a gun, the guy down the street is not. Should this person decide he has some malicious intent towards you or any other person, it means you very well may NOT live at all, let alone freely.

To quote Alfred in the most recent Batman movie:

"Some people just want to watch the world burn."

Not accepting the fact that these people exist on all levels of society and trusting the world to hold up to them without the capacity of retaking it is vastly irresponsible.

[Sanslines]

29% of Canadian homes have a firearm in it. Thats pretty close to the US figure now. I don't doubt that the average US gun owner has more guns than gun owners elsewhere in the world.
http://www.outdoors.net/site/features/feature.aspx?rn=13044&Forum=Firearms&ArticleCode=931&V=False&jse=1



Ever read the book "How To Lie With Statistics". I have and this is a very graphic example of how easy it is to mislead with nebulous statistics.

The only meaningful comparison is to compare the total number of homes in Canada to the total number of homes in the USA that both have at least one gun. Since the number of homes in America is much higher then Canada, it is intuitively obvious that there is a vastly greater number of gun owning homes in the USA compared to Canada.

If we do want to play the game of percentages, and if we assume that if the percentage of those who own guns and use them to commit homicide in both Canada and the USA is the same (it is not), and that since the overall population of the USA is much larger then Canada, then there will be overall many more people in the USA who will use guns to commit homicide. Given this fact, the net effect of gun ownership incuded crime is much greater in the USA then in Canada.

[Sanslines]

This attitude greatly parallels the green movement in which we are handicapping our economy. China and India on the other hand refuse and continue to prosper.

The bottom line is that if you are willing to live without a gun, the guy down the street is not. Should this person decide he has some malicious intent towards you or any other person, it means you very well may NOT live at all, let alone freely.

To quote Alfred in the most recent Batman movie:

"Some people just want to watch the world burn."

Not accepting the fact that these people exist on all levels of society and trusting the world to hold up to them without the capacity of retaking it is vastly irresponsible.

Consider this. What is the definition of real freedom? Is there such a thing as real freedom between two individuals? What is the purpose of law, rule, and regulation? Does law protect or prevent freedom?

In a society where there are no laws, rules, or regulations, the 'law of the jungle' still applies. This is where anyone can do anything to anyone without societal protections. A new kind of law is inadvertently created that is based upon fear. For example, you may resort to burning tires in your backyard for whatever reason. There may be no laws to prevent the burning of tires. However the resulting pollution may be enough to so enrage your neighbor that he comes over to your yard and kills you with a tire iron. Since there is no formal law, it would not be 'illegal' for him to do so. What prevents you from burning tires in the first place is not a formal law but an unwritten law based upon fear.

Does gun ownership afford you greater freedom or less freedom? Do the inevitable responsibilities of gun ownership make you a freer person? Suppose your gun is stolen and used to kill someone? Do you as a moral person feel any sense of remorse because you could have possible done something to prevent that theft or do you become a person without a sense of conscious or responsibility to the greater society as a whole?

[nimrod]

Guns or weapons do not make anyone violent, or a nation violent. What makes people violent? Anger, frustration, not being able to see a better way? Not being taught how to express anger and frustration in a non-harmful way? Guns are just a tool, yes a very dangerous one, but still only a tool. If someone wants to harm someone else, they will do so with or without a gun or other weapon, they will use their own hands if they really want to do harm.

I am not a violent person, I do not enjoy seeing people or animals suffer nor would I intentionally harm anyone or anything, and I have fired guns before, and I am no more violent then before I fired the gun. Do I enjoy firing guns? Yes I do, but not so much that I actively seek it out. There is something about being able to hit a target from a distance, for me not a live target though, have done it in the past and did not like it.

It is tragic when someone dies "prematurely". But is it any less so when a drunk runs someone down while driving home from the bar than it is if someone uses a gun and accidently shoots someone? Or is it any less tragic if the driver was sober and angry and delibrately runs down people then if someone shoots a clerk for the twenty bucks in the registar.

It is human behaviour that leads to killing others, the tools are varied. Instead of arguing about gun control or banning, lets talk about what leads a person down the road to murder or violence, and see if it can be prevented before it happens. Take away the guns, they will use knives. Take away knives, they will use boards with nails in it. Etc., etc., they will find a way.

[Navigator]

I was born and raised in the western U.S. and I have owned guns and had gun safety training and hunted from an early age as is common in the west. I still own several guns although I no longer hunt.

Until recently, I could easily see both sides of the gun "rights" argument that's been on this thread.

This, however, changed my mind: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30832809/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

When I was a kid, and through middle age, almost everyone I knew was a hunter and had guns and knew how to use them properly and safely. Today, it seems that most of the people asserting their gun "rights" are the right-wing whackaloons who own guns mainly to proclaim those "rights" and to further their belief that guns are proof of their "freedom" to do whatever they want.

Allowing guns in National Parks is simply, crazy. Especially when it was not debated in Congress and was only attached to a bill that limits credit card abuse. And especially since alcohol is also allowed in National Parks.

I'm retired and my wife and I take a lot of trips to National Parks with our adult kids and grandkids. This year, by the end of August, we will have camped and hiked in Zion, Grand Teton, Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore and Isle Royale National Parks as well as Big Sur state park in Calif. Our kids and grandkids will be with us in 3 of those parks. We leave next week.

Undoubtedly there will be some immature, drunk, rural, uneducated, white, rascist, macho, right-wing, whackaloon, with severe inadequacy issues, who wants to show off his gun and let everyone know about his "rights", camped or hiking near us at some time during the trip.

Our National Parks will, for sure, see one or more of these people lose control and kill or hurt someone and it won't surprise me if it happens this summer as these people assert their new "right" to carry in National Parks.

That makes my National Park experience less enjoyable than it used to be.

And that makes me in favor of severe, highly restrictive, conditions on gun ownership, carry laws and use...and I vote...and I write my Senators and Representatives.

And no...I'm not taking a gun on our trip.

[Sanslines]

Guns or weapons do not make anyone violent, or a nation violent. What makes people violent? Anger, frustration, not being able to see a better way? Not being taught how to express anger and frustration in a non-harmful way? Guns are just a tool, yes a very dangerous one, but still only a tool. If someone wants to harm someone else, they will do so with or without a gun or other weapon, they will use their own hands if they really want to do harm.

I am not a violent person, I do not enjoy seeing people or animals suffer nor would I intentionally harm anyone or anything, and I have fired guns before, and I am no more violent then before I fired the gun. Do I enjoy firing guns? Yes I do, but not so much that I actively seek it out. There is something about being able to hit a target from a distance, for me not a live target though, have done it in the past and did not like it.

It is tragic when someone dies "prematurely". But is it any less so when a drunk runs someone down while driving home from the bar than it is if someone uses a gun and accidently shoots someone? Or is it any less tragic if the driver was sober and angry and delibrately runs down people then if someone shoots a clerk for the twenty bucks in the registar.

It is human behaviour that leads to killing others, the tools are varied. Instead of arguing about gun control or banning, lets talk about what leads a person down the road to murder or violence, and see if it can be prevented before it happens. Take away the guns, they will use knives. Take away knives, they will use boards with nails in it. Etc., etc., they will find a way.

No 'thing' makes anyone violent and yet society has regulated and restricted a whole variety of things that people have used to harm themselves and others. Why should guns be so different from everything else? Furthermore, the primary purpose of guns is for killing. This is what distinguishes guns for other things such as SUV's, etc. In light of this would it not make sense to place at the top of the list those items which can cause the greatest amount of harm to society and regulate those items first? For some reason, (and the reason is the NRA), society makes exceptions for guns even in spite of the very clear evidence that guns create much more harm to society (death and injury) then benefit to society.

[Skinview]

Ah ha, so when you say that it ALSO benefits the people who want to buy and use guns, you are also indirectly agreeing with my statement that it benefits the firearms companiesSo? Good. Its just not particularly the purpose of the NRA. People who want to buy guns need gun manufacturors.

and is indeed a front for them.No, I am not saying that. And its not that hard to tell that I am not saying that. Get a grip.


Having a gun does not demonstrate any respect for our Constitution.I didn't say having a gun demonstrates respect for the Constitution, I said defending the Second Amendment demonstrates respect for the Constitution.



The NRA is no defender of our civil rights.The NRA has won many court cases defending the rights of gun owners.

The NRA is a defender of morally bankrupt corporate American to make countless amounts of money...Do you think there is something wrong with making lots of money?


If you read my previous posts, you would not ask this question as I have already numerous posted facts that clearly demonstrate how the NRA routinely lies and distorts information in order to acheive their goals. Obama never stated that he was ever going to take guns away from anyone and yet the NRA promoted and repeated the same old lie that this is what Obama was going to do.I have never heard the NRA say that, and I have been a member since 1994.


From a previous post:

"Such questions are moot to the NRA because they are militantly inflexible about their “right” to buy and use guns without restrictions.Thats a false accusation right there.
I would be much more impressed if you could quote the NRA, rather than yourself.


The NRA’s connection to the international arms industry gives them a huge financial stake in stopping gun control efforts in the U.S. and abroad."Oh, now the NRA is connected to the "international" arms industry. Care to back that up?


Obama NEVER EVER stated that he was going to take away guns from gun owners.Who said he was? You have yet to quote the NRA on anything.


Additional guns controls can not be cast in black and white terms.Here are four black ones that Obama likes:

Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.


"The NRA is especially fond of spreading the myth that banning guns will provoke more violent crimes. Yet guns kill more than 30,000 people a year in the U.S., and Americans are thirty times as likely as Canadians to be fatally shot."Those facts are not mutually exclusive.

"Despite the costs, the ideologues at the NRA cling to their fundamentalist interpretation of the Second Amendment: that it means no gun control at all—period.That depends on what you want to call gun control.

In contrast, most Americans believe that, alongside the “right” to bear arms, we have a more primary right to be safe from violence,I don't know if thats true. I know Ben Franklin didn't think so. "They who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."


and greater gun control would make us safer... In a 2004 Gallup poll, 54% of respondents wanted gun laws to be stricter, compared to only 11% who said they should be less strict."Not lately. It down to 39% in 2009, from the 54% figure, which is what it was in 2001.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/



The Second Amendment never clarified whether such 'right to bear arms' could ever be regulated or controlled."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" isn't clear enough? Perhaps not for you.


It is the NRA's militant and fundamentalist interpretation of this amendment that attempts to speak for the second amendment.Its the interpretation that the Supreme Court has made.


The facts speak for themselves no matter how you wish to manipulate them. You conveniently neglect the fact that the majority of firearms that wind up in Canada originate from the USA.We make lots of stuff the Canadians use. Good for us. And them.


You also conveniently neglect the fact that the vast majority of weapons that are being used in the present Mexican drug wars are of American origin.On both sides. And the only people you would disarm are lawful US gun owners.



In simple terms, American guns are killing Canadian citizens.In simple terms, Canadians are killing Canadian citizens.



The U.S. government has a responsibility to prevent this kind of assualt against a foreign nation.The US government has a reponsibility to defend the liberties of Americans. Read the Declaration of Independence.


The NRA wishes to block any efforts to do so, and clearly does not care how many Canadians will dieDestroying American liberty won't save Canadian lives.



just so long as the NRA's fanatical and false interpretation of the second ammendment is protected.Again, its the Supreme Court's interpretation. Its also the interpretation that 70% of Americans have made, so its hardly fanatical.


You again demonstrate how you ignore all facts that I post concerning the rates of gun deaths among various age groups in the USA.Because it doesn't mean anything.


America has also killed a lot of foreignersin order to protect corporate america. You know ............profits before people..............profits before decency or morality or righteousness.Again, your obsession with profits. You're looking very pink today.


How about facing up to the fact that guns were invented for the sole purpose of killing. It is irrelevant that they can be used for non lethal purposes, such as target practice. Their primary purpose is to kill.You are running on pure emotionalism. The ICBM was designed to kill lots of people, but thats no reason to stop using them to put satellites in orbit.


As far as SUV's are concerned, the SUV must be registered and the operator must be licensed. The SUV's primary purpose is for transportation, and NOT to kill! Why does the NRA consistenly oppose such measures for a device such as a gun whose primary purpose is to kill?Because there is a constitutional right to bear arms, not SUVs.



The you shoud be at the front of the line demanding that muskets be registered and that the legal owner be licensed to use such a weapon under restricted circumstances. We already do this with fireworks in New York State. Yet the NRA consisitently opposes any gun regulation.You read it here folks, Sanslines wants gun control on muskets.



What I see is that you are admitting that American is a very violent and crime ridden country. What I also see you admitting is that on one hand, you state that guns are not used for killing but for target practice and yet on the other hand you openly and freely advocate their use to prevent crimes. This is clearly contradictory.You are clearly having difficulty with reading comprehsion. I never wrote that guns are not used for killing.


I also see that you continue to post how the gun homicide rate is relatively insignificant in the USA and yet you also state that is must be significant enough to justify the ownership of guns as a means of self protection. You are again presenting contradicting arguments.Again with reading ability. I never said it was insignificant, I wrote that it was not as extraordinarily high as has been claimed here.


Given that you admit that this nation is a very violent nation that is crime ridden, you should be promoting the prevention of anything that further contributes to the crime rate.I do. Gun control contributes to the crime rate.


...liberties must be regulated and controlled.Over my dead body.



The New York State legislature was forced time and time again to step in and establish laws which protect the greater good of the people. Without such laws, the Hudson River would still be a 'dead' river full of General Electric generated PCB wastes and Love Canal would stretch across the state.Thats an entirely different matter, where polluters directly affect third parties. Deliberatly blowing up your neighbor is not the same thing as accidentally blowing yourself up.


Perhaps it is a better reason to attempt to determine why the USA is so fanatical and in love with guns and face the dark truth about ourselves in that there is a certain percentage of our population who enjoys killing.There is a certain percentage of every population like that.

[Navigator]

Back on topic for this thread...here's a followup from today's Talking Points Memo. It's sounding to me like Ricci...like so many on the right today...is a self-made permanent victim.:disappointed:


New Haven Firefighter Originally Hired By Claiming Discrimination

By Brian Beutler - July 10, 2009, 1:26PM

Deserved or not, the biggest political thorn in Sonia Sotomayor's side has been one Frank Ricci of New Haven, CT. Ricci is a firefighter who sued the city claiming reverse discrimination in 2003 after officials there discarded the results of a firefighter's promotion test after the test was revealed to have a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics.

But flash back, if you will, to January 25, 1995, when, according to the Hartford Courant Ricci was singing the opposite tune: "A decorated firefighter has filed a lawsuit against the city, saying he was not hired because he is dyslexic."

The lawsuit, filed recently in federal court, could shed light on the selection process used by the city, which has been beset with criticism over politics and nepotism.
Frank Ricci charges in the lawsuit that the city violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities.

Ricci, a Wallingford native who now lives in Maryland, was one of 795 candidates who were interviewed for 40 openings. Ricci told interviewers that he has a learning disability, the lawsuit says.

Fire commissioners have said that although Ricci was qualified, many others also were qualified because they passed the Civil Service examination.

Two years later, that case was resolved. "In a confidential settlement, struck two years later, Mr. Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees."

If you were Frank Ricci, you might say something like, "Frank Ricci got a job and somebody who wasn't dyslexic didn't." Remember, this is the same Frank Ricci who took his reverse discrimination suit all the way to the Supreme Court, where lower court rulings against him--including one by Sotomayor's Second Circuit--were overturned.

Ricci will testify against Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week--this despite the fact that his views on jurisprudence seem to begin and end with the proposition that legal protections against discrimination are great when they work in his favor, and unconscionable when they don't.

[nimrod]

No 'thing' makes anyone violent and yet society has regulated and restricted a whole variety of things that people have used to harm themselves and others. Why should guns be so different from everything else? Furthermore, the primary purpose of guns is for killing. This is what distinguishes guns for other things such as SUV's, etc. In light of this would it not make sense to place at the top of the list those items which can cause the greatest amount of harm to society and regulate those items first? For some reason, (and the reason is the NRA), society makes exceptions for guns even in spite of the very clear evidence that guns create much more harm to society (death and injury) then benefit to society.

I think that guns should be regulated and at times restricted, but I cannot buy into the society is violent because of guns therefore we should ban them argument, or because we are a violent society we should ban guns. I also have to ask what is too much? Do you regulate guns like people are trying to do with cigarettes? They are not banned outright but are regulated as to where you can smoke almost to the point of a outright ban in some cities.

Ask some people what benefits guns have to society and they would point out that our freedoms in this county have been achived by guns, the soldiers fighting in wars, and it is guns that will keep that freedom. I do not know if I agree with that argument myself, just saying it is one that would be used.

I believe that it should be a choice, like so many other things, we should at least be able to make the choice for ourselves. That does not mean that there should be no responsibility for making those choices, but the decision should be mine to make.

Thought I just had, what kills more people diet or guns?

[Sanslines]

I think that guns should be regulated and at times restricted, but I cannot buy into the society is violent because of guns therefore we should ban them argument, or because we are a violent society we should ban guns. I also have to ask what is too much? Do you regulate guns like people are trying to do with cigarettes? They are not banned outright but are regulated as to where you can smoke almost to the point of a outright ban in some cities.

People who have easy access to guns are prone to use them for a whole variety of purposes that result in many an unhappy ending.

Ask some people what benefits guns have to society and they would point out that our freedoms in this county have been achived by guns, the soldiers fighting in wars, and it is guns that will keep that freedom. I do not know if I agree with that argument myself, just saying it is one that would be used.

Freedoms are now achieved by our military. Military weapons, including guns, are generally restricted to the military. No civilian should ever have access to 50 caliber machine guns or howitzers.

I believe that it should be a choice, like so many other things, we should at least be able to make the choice for ourselves. That does not mean that there should be no responsibility for making those choices, but the decision should be mine to make.

Thought I just had, what kills more people diet or guns?

We just went through an 8 year period where many rules and regulations were removed to give more freedom of choice. The end result was an economy that came to the verge of total collapse, massive foreclosures and homelessness, and poverty. Given all of this, it is fairly clear that people abused their freedom and created an enormous mess for society to deal with. The current administration recognizes all of this and is creating proper regulation and oversight to prevent such catastrophes from ever occuring again.

Most people in this nation will never allow others to completely suffer the consequences of their actions. Society generally will not deny medical coverage to individuals who engaged in one form of risky behavior that led to the contraction of a terminal illness. Society will generally not allow others to die in the streets during a frigid Winter's day or starve to death because they spent all of their money in a frivolous or inappropriate way. Society is just not that cold or cruel to turn a blind eye and allow large numbers of people to suffer because they made the wrong choices in life.

[jon71]

Jon, I put the link to the figures right there for you to see.
We all have different opinions. I can understand that people make mistakes from time to time. Sometimes, people have some wrong facts in their heads that make it into their posts. Now, before one says that someone is wrong, it would be prudent to check one's facts. It would be downright reckless to call someone a liar without presenting references to back your facts up, and even then that doesn't prove that the accused is being deliberately misleading. But to call me a liar when I have put the facts right in front of you with a link to the source - its just bizarre. How old are you?


There is some false information being repeated in the media / political echo chamber. Some guns are coming from the US, most of the military arms used by the drug cartels are coming from Central America. The central part of the problem is the conflict resulting from Mexican President Felipe Calderon's attempt to take on the drug cartels. Millions of dollars are at stake, and the drug cartels will get whatever firearms they want, regardless of what laws we pass in the US. They are in the buisness of moving contraband across national borders. They have lots of money and organization to get whatever they want.


29% of Canadian homes have a firearm in it. Thats pretty close to the US figure now. I don't doubt that the average US gun owner has more guns than gun owners elsewhere in the world.
http://www.outdoors.net/site/features/feature.aspx?rn=13044&Forum=Firearms&ArticleCode=931&V=False&jse=1

The Swiss household gun ownership rate is 27% - excluding militia arms. Virtually EVERY Swiss male is issued a fully automatic assault rifle to keep in his home when he turns 20, and they get to keep it when they leave militia service after it has been converted to a semi-auto firearm. I don't have a resulting total rate, but that has got to push it way above the US rate. I suspect Isreal is pretty high too, but I haven't looked into that yet.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel103001.shtml


Your posts are routinely full of spin, half truths and whole lies. I stand by calling you a liar becasue there is no way you're actually dumb enough to believe most of what you post. A few cherry picked statistics don't impress anyone. All you seem capable of is repeating the N.R.A. party line. You want guns without restriction and pretend to be unresponsible for the consequences. They ought to take down the Charlton Heston posters and put up pictures of Harris and Klebold saying "we are the N.R.A.". That is what it's come to. The N.R.A. is less and less interested in hunters and sport shooters and more concerned about keeping the Bloods and the Crips in business. That's the heart of the N.R.A. now. 50 years ago it was a decent organization but something went horribly wrong.

[jon71]

Here are four black ones that Obama likes:

Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.



Very common sense mainstream positions. GOD bless President Obama. Normal gun owners (not extremists like yourself) will back him on each and every one of these.

[jon71]

Guns or weapons do not make anyone violent, or a nation violent. What makes people violent? Anger, frustration, not being able to see a better way? Not being taught how to express anger and frustration in a non-harmful way? Guns are just a tool, yes a very dangerous one, but still only a tool. If someone wants to harm someone else, they will do so with or without a gun or other weapon, they will use their own hands if they really want to do harm.

I am not a violent person, I do not enjoy seeing people or animals suffer nor would I intentionally harm anyone or anything, and I have fired guns before, and I am no more violent then before I fired the gun. Do I enjoy firing guns? Yes I do, but not so much that I actively seek it out. There is something about being able to hit a target from a distance, for me not a live target though, have done it in the past and did not like it.

It is tragic when someone dies "prematurely". But is it any less so when a drunk runs someone down while driving home from the bar than it is if someone uses a gun and accidently shoots someone? Or is it any less tragic if the driver was sober and angry and delibrately runs down people then if someone shoots a clerk for the twenty bucks in the registar.

It is human behaviour that leads to killing others, the tools are varied. Instead of arguing about gun control or banning, lets talk about what leads a person down the road to murder or violence, and see if it can be prevented before it happens. Take away the guns, they will use knives. Take away knives, they will use boards with nails in it. Etc., etc., they will find a way.


Not true. Homicides are way up when guns are present, both in a country that is gun heavy and in homes where guns are present. Suicides are more prevalent too. Yes it's possible to murder and suicide other ways but guns make it very easy. When it's that easy many people do that. When it becomes more difficult fewer do and the murder rate and the suicide rate drops dramatically. With proper restrictions we can reduce the crime rate but not eliminate it. Right now no where in America has anything close to the restrictions we need. Even countries with better laws like Canada and Mexico are suffering because the U.S. in exporting murder. There is tons we need to do but thankfully public opinion has shifted. The extremist positions Skinview takes is increasingly anachronistic. It will take time but well get there.

[Sanslines]

Do you think there is something wrong with making lots of money?

Certainly you know better then to post something as ridiculous as this. You must know that making money from the pain, suffering, and death of individuals is immoral. Or do you believe that the USA is an immoral country that exists to make money at all costs regardless of the costs to the nation and the rest of the world?


I have never heard the NRA say that, and I have been a member since 1994.

Of course you never heard this for you obviously were not listening. If you were honestly objective and considered ALL of the facts then you might just not belong to such a radical organization.


Thats a false accusation right there.

That's a documneted fact that is backed up with a source.


I would be much more impressed if you could quote the NRA, rather than yourself.

I would be very impressed if you actually read my sources with an objective attitude. If you had done so, you would know that this quote can not be attributed to me. I was just repeating from a source that I had posted previously but it appears that you will not read or consider such sources of information.


Oh, now the NRA is connected to the "international" arms industry. Care to back that up?

Go back and read the original source and follow the links. It is getting rather tiresome posting source after source when you consistently prove that you refuse to read any of them.



Who said he was? You have yet to quote the NRA on anything.

Here is another source that proves you wrong..........again!

NRA Targets Obama

September 22, 2008

Updated: September 29, 2008

It falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense.

A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."

Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html




Here are four black ones that Obama likes:

Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.

Shall I go through and prove that each of these statements are distortions of Obama's position? Why not. Rather then make long cut and paste copies, the info is here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html


"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" isn't clear enough? Perhaps not for you.

The 'right of the people keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' was written the 1700's in a vastly different world. We live in a very different world today and it is long past due that the Second Ammendment be modified to reflect modern times. Or do you prefer living in the 1700's?


Its the interpretation that the Supreme Court has made.

It's long past due that the Second Ammendment be updated to modern times. According to your philosophy (and the radical NRA) there should never be any changes to the original constitution. Thus slavery and the denial of the right for women to vote should still not exist.


We make lots of stuff the Canadians use. Good for us. And them.

Yes let's just smuggle more illegal firearms to Canada in spite of Canadian laws that outlaw such activity. Why should the USA respect Canadian law, eh?


On both sides. And the only people you would disarm are lawful US gun owners.

The facts beg to differ with your unsubstantial allegations.


In simple terms, Canadians are killing Canadian citizens.

In clearer terms, Canadians are using smuggled American weapons to kill Canadians. Let's not accept any American responsibility for exporting death to Canada. Oh wait, let's apply the same logic to illegal drugs. In stead of blaming Americans for their use of illegal drugs that lead to illness and death, let's blame the rest of the world for sending drugs to the USA. Sounds a bit hypocritical, now doesn't it. When we do the exporting of harmful products, we accept no responsibility for the harm that it does to other nations. Yet, when other nations export their harmful products to us, we blame them.



The US government has a reponsibility to defend the liberties of Americans. Read the Declaration of Independence.

The US government also has a responsibility to protect the safety and well being of the american people. Why do you continue to conveniently ignore this fact?


Destroying American liberty won't save Canadian lives.

Unregulated abuse of firearms is doing a fine job of destroying American AND Canadian lives.



Again, its the Supreme Court's interpretation. Its also the interpretation that 70% of Americans have made, so its hardly fanatical.

The facts beg to differ with your unfounded opinions and allegations. The fact is that most Americans (including gun owners) prefer some forms of gun regulations and controls. The radical NRA has consistenly opposed any form of gun controls or regulations in spite of a majority who support such regulations. Isn't it strange how the NRA opposes the majority of what the people really want? How radical is that?


Because it doesn't mean anything.

It means plenty to those who are objective and want coplete and total information upon which to base sound decisions.


You are running on pure emotionalism. The ICBM was designed to kill lots of people, but thats no reason to stop using them to put satellites in orbit.

The last I knew the average person does not have acces to an ICBM or a nuclear weapon. The US government actively prohibits such ownership.


Because there is a constitutional right to bear arms, not SUVs.



You read it here folks, Sanslines wants gun control on muskets.



You are clearly having difficulty with reading comprehsion. I never wrote that guns are not used for killing.


Again with reading ability. I never said it was insignificant, I wrote that it was not as extraordinarily high as has been claimed here.


I do. Gun control contributes to the crime rate.


Over my dead body.



Thats an entirely different matter, where polluters directly affect third parties. Deliberatly blowing up your neighbor is not the same thing as accidentally blowing yourself up.


There is a certain percentage of every population like that.

The rest of these quotes are pure silly nonsense and are not worth replying to. They have no basis or justification in a fact based world. They are pure opinion that parrots the radical NRA party line in spite of an endless number of on line sources that continue to expose the fallicies and distortions.

[Sanslines]

Here are four black ones that Obama likes:

Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.



Very common sense mainstream positions. GOD bless President Obama. Normal gun owners (not extremists like yourself) will back him on each and every one of these.

The actual and factual quotes of what Obama actually said are common sense and mainstream positions. For example, Obama did NOT want to allow RECKLESS lawsuits designed to bankrupt firearms companies. This is another attempt at distortion and manipulation and is not an accurate statement. What Obama (and Biden) actually said were comments like this:

" Obama, "Urban Policy": Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

Notice how the wording was changed in the statements above to place an entirely different emphasis upon the true factual meaning of what Obama said. Just another example of the radical NRA busty at work distorting the real facts. Too bad that we don't have an ammendment that demands accuracy.

[Sanslines]

Not true. Homicides are way up when guns are present, both in a country that is gun heavy and in homes where guns are present. Suicides are more prevalent too. Yes it's possible to murder and suicide other ways but guns make it very easy. When it's that easy many people do that. When it becomes more difficult fewer do and the murder rate and the suicide rate drops dramatically. With proper restrictions we can reduce the crime rate but not eliminate it. Right now no where in America has anything close to the restrictions we need. Even countries with better laws like Canada and Mexico are suffering because the U.S. in exporting murder. There is tons we need to do but thankfully public opinion has shifted. The extremist positions Skinview takes is increasingly anachronistic. It will take time but well get there.

Yes. What needs to happen is for more Americans to become active in their governments and stand up to racial fringe groups. Bill Clinton was one such individual who stood up to the NRA, His analogy of Charlton Heston as being 'Moses with a shotgun' was spot on.

[Skinview]

Allowing guns in National Parks is simply, crazy. Especially when it was not debated in Congress and was only attached to a bill that limits credit card abuse. And especially since alcohol is also allowed in National Parks.Why???? Guns are allowed in state parks, and virtually everywhere else. What makes National Parks so special?

I'm retired and my wife and I take a lot of trips to National Parks with our adult kids and grandkids. This year, by the end of August, we will have camped and hiked in Zion, Grand Teton, Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore and Isle Royale National Parks as well as Big Sur state park in Calif. Our kids and grandkids will be with us in 3 of those parks. We leave next week.

Undoubtedly there will be some immature, drunk, rural, uneducated, white, rascist, macho, right-wing, whackaloon, with severe inadequacy issues, who wants to show off his gun and let everyone know about his "rights", camped or hiking near us at some time during the trip.

Our National Parks will, for sure, see one or more of these people lose control and kill or hurt someone and it won't surprise me if it happens this summer as these people assert their new "right" to carry in National Parks.Is this how you or the people you knew behaved when you went hunting?? I mean really, people can carry guns in all sorts of other places and they don't "lose control and kill" people. What will make them go crazy when they step into a National Park?
If someone is carrying a concealed pistol for self defense, why should they have to disarm if they travel to a National Park? Crime happens in National Parks, just like everywhere else. And there are National Parks in Alaska and other places where grizzly bears are encountered. These are very dangerous animals, and its a good idea to carry a shotgun where they might be encountered.

[Skinview]

Your posts are routinely full of spin, half truths and whole lies. I stand by calling you a liar becasue there is no way you're actually dumb enough to believe most of what you post.If you question the veracity of something that I have posted, tell us what it is. Just calling me a liar is infantile.

[Skinview]

Homicides are way up when guns are present, both in a country that is gun heavy and in homes where guns are present.This is incorrect. Homicide rates are much lower in places like New Hampshire, or Switzerland, where there is little gun control and guns are readily available. Homicide rates are very high in places like Washington DC, where guns were banned, or countries like Mexico, where they are also hard to get legally.


Suicides are more prevalent too.The suicide rate in Japan is something like twice what it is in the US, and there are very few guns available to the Japanese. The suicide rate is far higher Russia than the US. Clearly, other factors are much more important than the availability of firearms.
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

[Skinview]

90% of firearms seized in Mexico come from the USA. This does not sound like an inconsequential number to me and clearly demonstrates where the overwhelming problem originates from. It is NOT from Central or South American countries.The 90% figure is not valid. The following was written by Chris Cox, at the NRA:

In fact, it is unknown where most of the arms possessed by the cartels originate. According to the BATFE, the 90 percent figure only applies to the firearms successfully traced by BATFE. But an April 2 Fox News report revealed that 68 percent of seized guns were never submitted for tracing and only about 55 percent of trace attempts were successful.

That means 83 percent of guns seized at Mexican crime scenes were not traced to the United States, and the true origin of those guns remains unknown. Guns that weren`t traced to the U.S. are far more likely to have come from the international black market, or even from some of the estimated 14,000 Mexican soldiers who desert each year.

[Sanslines]

The 90% figure is not valid. The following was written by Chris Cox, at the NRA:

LMAO. Do you really expect the radical NRA to accept such a figure. The NRA will follow their usual and well documented pattern of promoting lies and misleading distortions in order to mislead a guillible people. The NRA can hardly be considered an objective fountain of factual information.

Your rebuttal is full of holes, inplications, unsubstantiated allegations, inuendo, and the never ending spin that the NRA seems to enjoy promoting.

As en example "Guns that weren`t traced to the U.S. are far more likely to have come from the international black market, or even from some of the estimated 14,000 Mexican soldiers who desert each year. "

Then again ,guns that weren't traced at all could still have come from the USA, rendering the quoted statement irrelevent. Just another example of NRA spin at work.

The real fact is that if the 90 percent number is not valid, it is because the NRA has opposed any form of gun registration which would clearly indicate where the guns have originated from. Your rebuttal failed to mention that, but then again why would the NRA ever admit that they are the reason why it is so hard to trace guns.

From Wiki:

Mexican cartels often pay U.S. citizens to purchase assault rifles or other guns at gun shops or gun shows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show), then sell them to a cartel representative. This exchange is known as a straw purchase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase). Because there is no computerized national gun registry, tracking guns relies on a paper trail. Agents must contact the manufacturer or importer with a make and a serial number and work their way down the supply chain by telephone or on foot. There are about 78,000 gun dealers in the U.S., and ATF agents found that one in five of the guns could not be traced because the dealers had no record of the sale or had gone out of business and the records had been lost.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee has approved a bill (H.R. 6028) that would authorize $73.5 million to be appropriated over three years to increase ATF resources committed to disrupting the flow of illegal guns into Mexico. Lawmakers included $10 million USD in the economic stimulus package for Project Gunrunner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner), a federal crackdown on U.S. gun-trafficking networks.

[Sanslines]

This is incorrect. Homicide rates are much lower in places like New Hampshire, or Switzerland, where there is little gun control and guns are readily available. Homicide rates are very high in places like Washington DC, where guns were banned, or countries like Mexico, where they are also hard to get legally.


The suicide rate in Japan is something like twice what it is in the US, and there are very few guns available to the Japanese. The suicide rate is far higher Russia than the US. Clearly, other factors are much more important than the availability of firearms.
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

Why not state that the homicide rate in the Mojave desert is virtually zero, where there is little gun control and guns are readily availible. Let's leave out all of the important supporting details, such as how the population is also virtually zero, how guns are 'readily availible' (at the one or two guns stores in the entirety of the Mojave desert), and there is little gun control (because of non existant enforcement of laws due to the virtually non existent police).

We can continue to play fast and loose with the facts by never ending spin, or we can post all relevent factual information. Then again, we can't do that because it would prove over and over again just how radical the NRA has become with their lies, distortions, and misinformation.

[gmoney]

Sansline.....


Liberalism is a cancer.
Please get some much needed help with your disease.

[gmoney]

The NRA is clearly a 'front' for the firearms industry. All of their lobbying and legislative efforts clearly benefit the firearms industry for they oppose anything that might limit, slow, or restrict the sales of weapons. Sales of weapons shot through the roof during the Obama run for President becasue the NRA launced a series of misleading lies which manipulated guillible people into believing that Obama was goig to 'take away their guns' in spite of very clear factual evidence to the contrary. this just goes to show that the NRA will stop at nothing to achieve their objective, which is to allow for unimpeded sales of weapons regardless of the consequences of those sales.







How about a shotgun for shooting one of your family members? Guns are primarily used for killing. This is a fact. Many justify their callous disregard for life with nonsensical statements but when the killing reaches home (as when one of their family members is killed) then they suddenly wake up and see the light.







The gun homocide rate clearly proves the point that there is a large group of people in the USA who will resort to gun violence and kill other Americans without a conscious thought. .


Obama's voting record caused those sales to increase not an ad.
What % of guns have actually killed someone?
What % of the population is this "large group" of people in the US that resort to gun violence?

I'm sure you are a vegatarian and have been your whole life right?

[NudeTopher]

Sansline.....


Liberalism is a cancer.
Please get some much needed help with your disease.


I love it. We now have another intellectual who can't add anything to a factual discussion so he resorts to name calling and trying to disparage those of other viewpoints.

[Fitz1980]

Sansline.....


Liberalism is a cancer.
Please get some much needed help with your disease.

That seems a little harsh; you don't see liberals saying "all conservatives are retards" so can we lay off just a little on the over generalizing?

Obama's voting record caused those sales to increase not an ad.
What % of guns have actually killed someone?
What % of the population is this "large group" of people in the US that resort to gun violence?

I'm sure you are a vegatarian and have been your whole life right?

When the non-partisan factcheck.org documents BLATANT LIES in the NRA's characterizing of Obama's voting record was it really the voting record that is scaring the nuts?

[Sanslines]

Obama's voting record caused those sales to increase not an ad.
What % of guns have actually killed someone?
What % of the population is this "large group" of people in the US that resort to gun violence?

I'm sure you are a vegatarian and have been your whole life right?

Wrong! Propoganda, misinformation, distortions, and outright lies about Obama's intentions and voting record by radical groups whose intention was to influence certain guillible people by the tried and true fear factor is what drove those sales. The facts speak for themselves for those who can be bothered enough to read and understand them. The fact is that Obama has been very restrained and moderate in his approach to gun control legislation - actually more restrained then Bill Clinton.

What percentage of killings is sufficient to demand changes?

How many police officers must be killed by cop killer ammunition before changes are demanded?

In short, how many people must unecessarily die before across the board action is taken to prevent such tragedies from occuring?

[Sanslines]

More facts:

Beretta, the Italian manufacturer, has come out with a 9mm handgun honoring Operation Enduring Freedom. For the truly lazy hunter, Kawaski offered a camouflaged golf cart with cute wheel covers in camouflage fabric. The NRA also offered life insurance.


For the best home defense, the Starnes family from Winchester, Kentucky, recommends its line of AR-15 guns, one of the most popular semi-automatic weapons in the world. The AR-15, a version of which was used in Vietnam, is illegal in California.

[Sanslines]

Everybody Must Get Armed

The NRA reminds you, please exercise your God-given right to wallow in fear and kill stuff. Thank you


And onward they come, like a pack of happily violent completely misinformed all-American barrel-stroking sycophantic wolves, but without the all the grace or beauty or mythology or intelligence.


Salivating at the sound of a rifle shot and cooing at the sight of a Glock .357 and cheering at the spectacle of crusty enfeebled leader Charlton Heston as he struggles with both weakened arms to raise a rifle over his head one last time and croak the group's adorably macho little mantra, "From my cold, dead hands!" Awww.

Like a band of angry ferrets the gun-drunk NRA marches, stomping into American towns to rally, rally, rally for more guns for more people, often in a city that just so happens to have suffered a deadly and horrific shooting spree within the past few days, isn't that just the cutest and most small-minded, insulting thing you ever did hear.


It is indeed a bizarre and freakish pattern, Heston and the gang marching into places like Columbine and Flint and, most recently, Tucson (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/10/31/state1513EST7617.DTL), just days after those places suffered unspeakable gun violence and the bloody death of innocent victims.

And every time they argue something along the lines of well, you know, it's not the gun's fault it was owned by a violent father or disgruntled teen or angry ex-employee or failing student or former army weapons expert or virulent NRA supporter, now is it? Don't blame the innocent gun! It's just a harmless deadly weapon! It probably just wanted to sip iced tea on the back porch and maybe shoot at some tin cans!

This is what they pule. If everyone in the country owned a gun or 12 and was allowed to carry it/them everywhere all the time, everyone would be far too scared to shoot anyone else for fear of getting their own face blown off and what a calm loving peaceful society that would be, you know? Just like the Wild West! Neat!

This is, apparently, the basic sentiment. A well-armed reactionary knee-jerk kill-'em-all populace keeps everyone safe (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/10/31/state1513EST7617.DTL) and everyone feeling protected and never mind the 11,000+ gun homicides per year or the absolute idiocy with which most guns are owned and operated, or the fact that this is why the global populace considers the U.S. the single most violent and violently messed-up superpower in the world.

And never mind the vaguely racist, anti-poor, horribly misguided antiliberal slant of the NRA as a whole, as in, let us now take up arms against those scary underprivileged minorities who would move into our neighborhoods and play funny music and seduce our miserable wives, many members hell-bent on buying and owning as many guns as possible because that's what America is all about and God said so and the Constitution allows it and they can't seem to get any sex.

Even though the Constitution actually doesn't say that, not really, not in any way like the NRA thinks it does, not all about sucking the barrel of a TEK-9 and fondling your semiautomatic assault rifles and Beretta Elites all freely available at a Wal-Mart or Texas gun show near you.

The NRA is all about gun safety, they say. Responsible ownership. Never mind the countless legislative measures introduced in recent years in the wake of these nauseating shooting sprees, all designed to make guns safer and keep them away from kids and the violently oriented and Texas, everything from more extensive background checks to sane gun registration to trigger locks to longer waiting periods.

Each and every one quickly and aggressively killed by the powerful GOP-inbred NRA-backed gun lobby, presumably out of the NRA's ever-present fear that if one such piece of legislation passes, well, it's a slippery slope until them gol-durned liberals march right into your patriotic gun-riddled home and take all your guns away.

Thus leaving you all defenseless and quivering in the face of evildoers and rapists and murderers and Islamic fundamentalists and vegetarians who really want to break down your door and impregnate your daughter and sodomize your cat.

This, then, is the gist. This is what it all boils down to, one vital bloodstained apparently uniquely American sentiment: fear.

The GOP hammers it endlessly (How many false terrorist warnings? How many swarthy foreigners ruining your neighborhood? How many gay people aiming to "convert" your son?) and the major news media is absolutely drunk on it and conservative politicians hype it endlessly for votes and the numbed terrified populace eats it up.

And it's what spurs us to rage and war and hypersensitivity and to shoot each other over the slightest provocation, like tennis shoes or traffic woes or whose God is more righteous. It is fear.

And it's also apparently what spurs, along with the whole machismo-compensation thing, thousands of otherwise upstanding family-oriented fear-mangled citizens to join groups like the NRA, where they get to feel all uber-patriotic and manly and safe and genuinely believe they are merely exercising their God-given right to kill stuff with a deadly weapon if they feel like it. And they were in Tucson just last week, rallying for more guns, just days after a failing student murdered three teachers at a nursing school.

But the good news is that Michael Moore's subtle and superlative documentary "Bowling for Columbine," all about America's uniquely bizarre obsession with guns (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/10/17/DD199367.DTL) and violence, is packing the theaters and setting records for a film of its type.

And in it the NRA and Heston need very little prodding to make utter frightening fools of themselves and their cause, which is not, apparently, safe and sane gun use for fun safe target practice in the woods. Moore's film goes beyond guns and zeroes in on the decidedly American culture of fear, in which guns are a huge factor.

Because let us make no mistake. Guns can be deliciously fun to shoot. It's true. They can feel empowering and thrilling and there is undoubtedly a Zen-like concentration required in truly skilled target practice and in blasting clay pigeons. They are fun. But, then again, so is shooting a bazooka. Or a flamethrower. Or owning some napalm. Where do you draw your lines? And what motivates the need for a gun? Pleasure? Or utter dread?

Because if the NRA is guilty of anything -- and it is -- it's guilty not of enjoying the safe use of guns and the artistry to be found therein, but of furthering the ever-increasing sentiment of fear in the nation as much as, or more than, any fundamentalist religious zealot or major pharmaceutical company or black-souled secretary of defense.
The sickly whimpering NRA is guilty of both creating the fear and succumbing to it, sinking into it, wallowing in it, even as it champions fear as its very cause. This is the ultimate sin. The NRA wolves are really just sheep, scared to death of the very cultural darkness and rage they themselves help generate. Ah, irony. Isn't their time just about up?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2002/11/06/notes110602.DTL

[gmoney]

Wrong! Propoganda, misinformation, distortions, and outright lies about Obama's intentions and voting record by radical groups whose intention was to influence certain guillible people by the tried and true fear factor is what drove those sales. The facts speak for themselves for those who can be bothered enough to read and understand them. The fact is that Obama has been very restrained and moderate in his approach to gun control legislation - actually more restrained then Bill Clinton.

What percentage of killings is sufficient to demand changes?

How many police officers must be killed by cop killer ammunition before changes are demanded?

In short, how many people must unecessarily die before across the board action is taken to prevent such tragedies from occuring?

Why do you want my guns taken away that offer me protection from these idiots so you can "feel" safer?
It would be better if you were armed and tried to protect yourself for a change.
Goverment intervention is not whats needed.
A simple fact is "If everyone was armed there would be less crime" SIMPLE FACT!
I'm still waiting on those numbers from you. You know the ones that you avoided about what % of guns and people...

[gmoney]

Everybody Must Get Armed

The NRA reminds you, please exercise your God-given right to wallow in fear and kill stuff. Thank you


And onward they come, like a pack of happily violent completely misinformed all-American barrel-stroking sycophantic wolves, but without the all the grace or beauty or mythology or intelligence.


Salivating at the sound of a rifle shot and cooing at the sight of a Glock .357 and cheering at the spectacle of crusty enfeebled leader Charlton Heston as he struggles with both weakened arms to raise a rifle over his head one last time and croak the group's adorably macho little mantra, "From my cold, dead hands!" Awww.

Like a band of angry ferrets the gun-drunk NRA marches, stomping into American towns to rally, rally, rally for more guns for more people, often in a city that just so happens to have suffered a deadly and horrific shooting spree within the past few days, isn't that just the cutest and most small-minded, insulting thing you ever did hear.


It is indeed a bizarre and freakish pattern, Heston and the gang marching into places like Columbine and Flint and, most recently, Tucson (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/10/31/state1513EST7617.DTL), just days after those places suffered unspeakable gun violence and the bloody death of innocent victims.

And every time they argue something along the lines of well, you know, it's not the gun's fault it was owned by a violent father or disgruntled teen or angry ex-employee or failing student or former army weapons expert or virulent NRA supporter, now is it? Don't blame the innocent gun! It's just a harmless deadly weapon! It probably just wanted to sip iced tea on the back porch and maybe shoot at some tin cans!

This is what they pule. If everyone in the country owned a gun or 12 and was allowed to carry it/them everywhere all the time, everyone would be far too scared to shoot anyone else for fear of getting their own face blown off and what a calm loving peaceful society that would be, you know? Just like the Wild West! Neat!

This is, apparently, the basic sentiment. A well-armed reactionary knee-jerk kill-'em-all populace keeps everyone safe (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/10/31/state1513EST7617.DTL) and everyone feeling protected and never mind the 11,000+ gun homicides per year or the absolute idiocy with which most guns are owned and operated, or the fact that this is why the global populace considers the U.S. the single most violent and violently messed-up superpower in the world.

And never mind the vaguely racist, anti-poor, horribly misguided antiliberal slant of the NRA as a whole, as in, let us now take up arms against those scary underprivileged minorities who would move into our neighborhoods and play funny music and seduce our miserable wives, many members hell-bent on buying and owning as many guns as possible because that's what America is all about and God said so and the Constitution allows it and they can't seem to get any sex.

Even though the Constitution actually doesn't say that, not really, not in any way like the NRA thinks it does, not all about sucking the barrel of a TEK-9 and fondling your semiautomatic assault rifles and Beretta Elites all freely available at a Wal-Mart or Texas gun show near you.

The NRA is all about gun safety, they say. Responsible ownership. Never mind the countless legislative measures introduced in recent years in the wake of these nauseating shooting sprees, all designed to make guns safer and keep them away from kids and the violently oriented and Texas, everything from more extensive background checks to sane gun registration to trigger locks to longer waiting periods.

Each and every one quickly and aggressively killed by the powerful GOP-inbred NRA-backed gun lobby, presumably out of the NRA's ever-present fear that if one such piece of legislation passes, well, it's a slippery slope until them gol-durned liberals march right into your patriotic gun-riddled home and take all your guns away.

Thus leaving you all defenseless and quivering in the face of evildoers and rapists and murderers and Islamic fundamentalists and vegetarians who really want to break down your door and impregnate your daughter and sodomize your cat.

This, then, is the gist. This is what it all boils down to, one vital bloodstained apparently uniquely American sentiment: fear.

The GOP hammers it endlessly (How many false terrorist warnings? How many swarthy foreigners ruining your neighborhood? How many gay people aiming to "convert" your son?) and the major news media is absolutely drunk on it and conservative politicians hype it endlessly for votes and the numbed terrified populace eats it up.

And it's what spurs us to rage and war and hypersensitivity and to shoot each other over the slightest provocation, like tennis shoes or traffic woes or whose God is more righteous. It is fear.

And it's also apparently what spurs, along with the whole machismo-compensation thing, thousands of otherwise upstanding family-oriented fear-mangled citizens to join groups like the NRA, where they get to feel all uber-patriotic and manly and safe and genuinely believe they are merely exercising their God-given right to kill stuff with a deadly weapon if they feel like it. And they were in Tucson just last week, rallying for more guns, just days after a failing student murdered three teachers at a nursing school.

But the good news is that Michael Moore's subtle and superlative documentary "Bowling for Columbine," all about America's uniquely bizarre obsession with guns (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/10/17/DD199367.DTL) and violence, is packing the theaters and setting records for a film of its type.

And in it the NRA and Heston need very little prodding to make utter frightening fools of themselves and their cause, which is not, apparently, safe and sane gun use for fun safe target practice in the woods. Moore's film goes beyond guns and zeroes in on the decidedly American culture of fear, in which guns are a huge factor.

Because let us make no mistake. Guns can be deliciously fun to shoot. It's true. They can feel empowering and thrilling and there is undoubtedly a Zen-like concentration required in truly skilled target practice and in blasting clay pigeons. They are fun. But, then again, so is shooting a bazooka. Or a flamethrower. Or owning some napalm. Where do you draw your lines? And what motivates the need for a gun? Pleasure? Or utter dread?

Because if the NRA is guilty of anything -- and it is -- it's guilty not of enjoying the safe use of guns and the artistry to be found therein, but of furthering the ever-increasing sentiment of fear in the nation as much as, or more than, any fundamentalist religious zealot or major pharmaceutical company or black-souled secretary of defense.
The sickly whimpering NRA is guilty of both creating the fear and succumbing to it, sinking into it, wallowing in it, even as it champions fear as its very cause. This is the ultimate sin. The NRA wolves are really just sheep, scared to death of the very cultural darkness and rage they themselves help generate. Ah, irony. Isn't their time just about up?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2002/11/06/notes110602.DTL

I think youre just scared of guns. They can and will protect you!
I have 10 guns and never once has any of them been even pointed at a human being.
Why? Cause I am a law abiding USA citizen not a criminal. Enforcing existing laws is all that needed...

[Navigator]

Guns are allowed in state parks, and virtually everywhere else. What makes National Parks so special?


Guns aren't allowed in California's State or National Parks Skinview, unless you're a cop or have a concealed carry permit which is relatively difficult to get. You're as wrong about this as you were in a previous post where you stated you can't get a DUI unless the car moves. You most certainly can in California, thank gawd.

What makes parks a special concern is that alcohol is allowed and law enforcement is thinly scattered through the vast numbers of square miles in western state parks, national parks and BLM lands.

You want to believe and argue that gun owners are responsible and law-abiding. I disagree that all are.

In fact, Calif. law assumes that some are not, and thus restricts many of the rights for all that you want to proclaim and expand. I think the law in California has it right.

I'll just say "Oh Brother" to myself and ignore your extreme right-wing whackaloon fantasys about there being a civil war if Obama takes your guns away...so please don't tell us about your "cold, dead, hands."

Instead, why don't you tell us that there is not, and never will be, such a thing as a drunken, immature, irresponsible, macho gun nut waving a weapon around a park campground just hoping he can find an excuse to "defend" himself from crime, or face down a grizzly, or be a hero and rescue someone...to use just three of your reasons for carrying in a park. Also, tell us that all gun nuts know when deadly force in self defense would not be judged to be murder...and that they will *all* restrain themselves in *all* of those cases where the law wouldn't approve deadly force. And one more, please tell us that alcohol and people with guns can't ever cause accidents.

Do you really think guns are allowed "virtually everywhere else"? Guess what would happen if you tried carrying your gun into the Burningman Festival in the remote wilderness of Nevada's Black Rock Desert which is administered by a Federal Agency called the Bureau of Land Management or BLM. If someone reported seeing your gun, the Rangers and Sheriff's would have you on your face in the dirt, handcuffed and shackled, so fast you wouldn't even have time to put clothes on. Guess what would happen if you tried to stand on your "rights" or your concealed carry permit....same dirt, same shackles. The BLM says no guns in that wilderness area, and they mean it. You'd be locked up and forgotten in some gawd-forsaken small town desert jail for weeks before you even got to talk to a lawyer...and I'm guessing you'd never see your gun again. The White House is a National Park also. Guess what will happen to you in that National Park if you assert your "rights".

American society is now too large and too populated with too many irresponsible clowns to not pass laws limiting, as much as possible, the chances that even one will endanger the public even once with guns or cars and alcohol.

[gmoney]

American society is now too large and too populated with too many irresponsible clowns to not pass laws limiting, as much as possible, the chances that even one will endanger the public even once with guns or cars and alcohol.

Guns aren't the problem.
People KILL people.
When are you going to accept that fact?
Guns are not the only method used for killing someone either.


there's a lot of "wackos" out there(on both sides of the debate) but if you are willing to give up your freedoms for them(I'm not) thats a shame and a misquided belief as well.

They are criminals and when is the last time you think a "criminal" cared about laws ?

[Sanslines]

Why do you want my guns taken away that offer me protection from these idiots so you can "feel" safer?
It would be better if you were armed and tried to protect yourself for a change.
Goverment intervention is not whats needed.
A simple fact is "If everyone was armed there would be less crime" SIMPLE FACT!
I'm still waiting on those numbers from you. You know the ones that you avoided about what % of guns and people...

Do you respect life? Do you know what it feels like to be shot and wounded? Have you ever shot and killed someone? Do you care if others are shot and killed? Is this what life in the USA is all about?

A simple fact is that if everyone was armed, then most people would be too afraid to go outdoors for fear of being shot. I personally have lived in countries that do not suffer from the gun insanity that this nation does. I can compare countries with a strick gun control laws where guns are not routinely allowed into the hands of anyone of any age with a pulse versus a gun crazed nation and I can unequivocable state that I have felt much safer in a country with strick gun controls.

I have answered your question about numbers with a simple question that you fail to answer. How high or low does those numbers have to be for them to be acceptable to you? How many lives are you willing to trade for your right to have guns? How much death and destruction are you willing to accept? Why do you live in such fear? Why do you believe that your gun is going to stop someone else's gun?

This is not the 1800's wild west. Many of us have moved well beyond those frontier days where people freely lived and died by gun.

[Sanslines]

I think youre just scared of guns. They can and will protect you!
I have 10 guns and never once has any of them been even pointed at a human being.
Why? Cause I am a law abiding USA citizen not a criminal. Enforcing existing laws is all that needed...

A black belt in martial arts can also protect me. Then again, anyone who has studied martial arts knows from his or her training that part of the training involves the development of tremendous self discipline. The purpose of martial arts is not to just go around and indiscriminantely kill people.

Yet, the radical NRA wants everyone to have the right to own a killing weapon with having nothing even remotely close to the training that a martial arts expert undergoes.

If you are a law abiding USA citizen, then you will realize that we live in a nation of laws. Laws can be changed to reflect the times. The second ammendment can be changed. It should be changed. The founding fathers of this nation never stipulated that ammendments are cast in stone and can never be modified or changed. History has proven that change is necessary and possible.

"Enforcing existing laws" is a tired and old slogan of the NRA that has no relevence to the situation at hand. Laws are constantly changed and updated to reflect current situations. The reason that the NRA promotes such a slogan is because they are terrified of any changes to the second ammendment - changes that will eventually occur.

[Sanslines]

American society is now too large and too populated with too many irresponsible clowns to not pass laws limiting, as much as possible, the chances that even one will endanger the public even once with guns or cars and alcohol.

Exactly! I do not want to go to any beach, park, or public area where people carry guns. Guns and alcohol do not mix - yet this is something that is lost to the redneck bubbas out there - who get intoxicated and then take delight in wounding and slaughtering animals for fun. Imagine how many animals would be poached if guns were allowed in parks. Guns primary purpose is for killing - something that some just will not acknowledge.

[Navigator]

Guns aren't the problem.
People KILL people.
When are you going to accept that fact?
Guns are not the only method used for killing someone either.

They are criminals and when is the last time you think a "crinimal" cared about what laws say?

I think you need to read what I wrote.

My sentence you quote is about irresponsible clowns (people) mixing guns OR cars AND alcohol. (emphasis added) I said nothing about guns, alone, being the problem.

But what does it matter what I really wrote...at least you got to use the line you learned from the NRA.

And the rest of my post made the same points. You'd do better to read before posting.

As far as criminals not caring what the law says....I don't think the type of people I suggested might be carrying guns in parks care much what the laws say either. Especially when they advocate civil war, poaching grizzlys, protecting themselves from all the massive amount of National Park crime and "rescuing" random damsels in distress in our National Parks with their guns.

I think they are very fearful little people, with deep feelings of inadequacy, who, all too often, think a little knowledge about the 2nd amendment gained from NRA propaganda allows them to ignore the laws that matter at the moment...such as those in National & State Parks and other public lands.

Criminals are rarely a problem in our public parks and other lands. Some gun nuts can be. Fortunately our laws recognize that in the examples I mentioned as well as many other places.

[gmoney]

I have answered your question about numbers with a simple question that you fail to answer. How high or low does those numbers have to be for them to be acceptable to you? How many lives are you willing to trade for your right to have guns? How much death and destruction are you willing to accept? Why do you live in such fear? Why do you believe that your gun is going to stop someone else's gun?

This is not the 1800's wild west. Many of us have moved well beyond those frontier days where people freely lived and died by gun.

A gun is just one tool in the hands of murderers. Why are you not requesting kitchen knives and ropes as being outlawed? The point is again people kill people not guns.
I don't live in any fear, I am armed and not afraid?
The unarmed are afraid because they have no way of defense.

A gun can end a confrontation with a criminal within seconds. the other alteranative is a cop which may be 10 minutes to late.

Do you feel it would be OK for all be to unarmed(except the criminals) so they can provoke everybody?
You realize now they have to be selective on who they attack because some will defend themselves(that is our RIGHT)

WHY are you so set on protecting the criminals of the world instead of law abiding citizens?
When you do choose to answer my question with some stats and links, I answer yours.
Again What % of guns are used in crimes?
What % of POPulation is this "large number of people" you speak of that resort to gun violence? hint* look up criminals...

[gmoney]

Exactly! I do not want to go to any beach, park, or public area where people carry guns. Guns and alcohol do not mix - yet this is something that is lost to the redneck bubbas out there - who get intoxicated and then take delight in wounding and slaughtering animals for fun. Imagine how many animals would be poached if guns were allowed in parks. Guns primary purpose is for killing - something that some just will not acknowledge.

I think you need to read what I wrote.

The sentence you quote is about irresponsible clowns (people) mixing guns OR cars AND alcohol. (emphasis added)

But what does it matter what I really wrote...at least you got to use the line you learned from the NRA.

And the rest of my post made the same points. You'd do better to read before posting.

As far as criminals not caring what the law says....I don't think the type of people I suggested might be carrying guns in parks care much what the laws say either. Especially when they advocate civil war, poaching grizzlys, protecting themselves from all the massive amount of National Park crime and "rescuing" random damsels in distress in our National Parks with their .357 Magnums.

I think they are very fearful little people, with deep feelings of inadequacy, who, all too often, think a little knowledge about the 2nd amendment gained from NRA propaganda allows them to ignore the laws that matter at the moment...such as those in National & State Parks and other public lands.

Criminals are rarely a problem in our public parks and other lands. Some gun nuts can be. Fortunately our laws recognize that in the examples I mentioned as well as and many other places.

again both of you are referring to a very small % of people. You are trying to make it look like the masses are doing what you're saying.
That makes me think you are the fearful ones.

I don't live in Fear. I live ready to keep living whatever it takes.
Also I am not a member of NRA and these "slogans" you claim I am posting I didn't get from them.

[gmoney]

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.


The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms. That's 10,650.

Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%


During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

Only 2% and you speak of assault weapons bans.

By the way there's more than 260 million guns in the USA.
and 10, 650 deaths(2004). You do the math.

another number I'll throw out there is "average amount of guns stolen a year is 150,000 or so.
221,000 in 1993 to 138,000 in 2003.

More good news
It is 23 times more likely that a firearm will be stolen than used by a child to commit suicide or cause accidental injury or death.
More than 80% of firearm thefts are from homes or cars.
Federal prosecutors rarely bring charges for possession or sale of stolen guns. In 1999 and 2000, they prosecuted 708 stolen-gun cases. In those years, more than 286,000 guns were reported stolen. Under federal law, stolen-gun crimes carry up to 10 years in prison

Remember I spoke of enforcing existing laws? Ain't happenin.

In Canada, an average of 1,300 people die of gunshot wounds each year.
What's happening here?

[Navigator]

again both of you are referring to a very small % of people. You are trying to make it look like the masses are doing what you're saying.
That makes me think you are the fearful ones.


I wouldn't think of responding for Sanslines...but if you read what I've written on this thread I think I've made it clear that even one incident is too many IMO. There is no magic percentage of problems with gun nuts that is acceptable.

I'll avoid the long string of adjectives I used in earlier posts to describe some of the people you find belligerently advocating their gun "rights". But you bet those types of people scare me...if they're armed... and they have no place in State or National Parks or public lands as far as I'm concerned. Apparently, in lots of places, the National Park Service and the BLM agree with me...which is why they ban guns in some places.

But, they sure as "shooten" don't scare me so much that I won't go straight to a Ranger with a complaint, signed if necessary, if I see some clown waving a gun around any of the National and State Parks I plan to visit this summer with my family.

[gmoney]

useul info here.

http://www.johnrlott.com/phillyinquirer.html

[gmoney]

I wouldn't think of responding for Sanslines...but if you read what I've written on this thread I think I've made it clear that even one incident is too many IMO. There is no magic percentage of problems with gun nuts that is acceptable.

I'll avoid the long string of adjectives I used in earlier posts to describe some of the people you find belligerently advocating their gun "rights". But you bet those types of people scare me...if they're armed... and they have no place in State or National Parks or public lands as far as I'm concerned. Apparently, in lots of places, the National Park Service and the BLM agree with me...which is why they ban guns in some places.

But, they sure as "shooten" don't scare me so much that I won't go straight to a Ranger with a complaint, signed if necessary, if I see some clown waving a gun around any of the National and State Parks I plan to visit this summer with my family.

I would say they would "scare" me as well and I'd be happy to report them.

[gmoney]

•In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.

•In England and Wales alone — discounting Scotland — there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.

•By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.

•In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.

•In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).

•In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).

•That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

[jon71]

This is incorrect. Homicide rates are much lower in places like New Hampshire, or Switzerland, where there is little gun control and guns are readily available. Homicide rates are very high in places like Washington DC, where guns were banned, or countries like Mexico, where they are also hard to get legally.


The suicide rate in Japan is something like twice what it is in the US, and there are very few guns available to the Japanese. The suicide rate is far higher Russia than the US. Clearly, other factors are much more important than the availability of firearms.
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/


Japan is the only exception because of cultural acceptance. It'a about the only place in the world where suicide is not taboo. That's why you pick Japan to "prove" (lol) your point.

[jon71]

The 90% figure is not valid. The following was written by Chris Cox, at the NRA:


Why would anyone with a brain assume that the N.R.A. figures are remotely trustworthy.

[jon71]

I think youre just scared of guns. They can and will protect you!
I have 10 guns and never once has any of them been even pointed at a human being.
Why? Cause I am a law abiding USA citizen not a criminal. Enforcing existing laws is all that needed...


You're actually so soft in the head you believe that don't you. Amazing. National geographic should do a feature on the American Redneck. You wouldn't be quite as different as the Tasaday people but you'd come close.

[jon71]

Guns aren't allowed in California's State or National Parks Skinview, unless you're a cop or have a concealed carry permit which is relatively difficult to get. You're as wrong about this as you were in a previous post where you stated you can't get a DUI unless the car moves. You most certainly can in California, thank gawd.

What makes parks a special concern is that alcohol is allowed and law enforcement is thinly scattered through the vast numbers of square miles in western state parks, national parks and BLM lands.

You want to believe and argue that gun owners are responsible and law-abiding. I disagree that all are.

In fact, Calif. law assumes that some are not, and thus restricts many of the rights for all that you want to proclaim and expand. I think the law in California has it right.

I'll just say "Oh Brother" to myself and ignore your extreme right-wing whackaloon fantasys about there being a civil war if Obama takes your guns away...so please don't tell us about your "cold, dead, hands."

Instead, why don't you tell us that there is not, and never will be, such a thing as a drunken, immature, irresponsible, macho gun nut waving a weapon around a park campground just hoping he can find an excuse to "defend" himself from crime, or face down a grizzly, or be a hero and rescue someone...to use just three of your reasons for carrying in a park. Also, tell us that all gun nuts know when deadly force in self defense would not be judged to be murder...and that they will *all* restrain themselves in *all* of those cases where the law wouldn't approve deadly force. And one more, please tell us that alcohol and people with guns can't ever cause accidents.

Do you really think guns are allowed "virtually everywhere else"? Guess what would happen if you tried carrying your gun into the Burningman Festival in the remote wilderness of Nevada's Black Rock Desert which is administered by a Federal Agency called the Bureau of Land Management or BLM. If someone reported seeing your gun, the Rangers and Sheriff's would have you on your face in the dirt, handcuffed and shackled, so fast you wouldn't even have time to put clothes on. Guess what would happen if you tried to stand on your "rights" or your concealed carry permit....same dirt, same shackles. The BLM says no guns in that wilderness area, and they mean it. You'd be locked up and forgotten in some gawd-forsaken small town desert jail for weeks before you even got to talk to a lawyer...and I'm guessing you'd never see your gun again. The White House is a National Park also. Guess what will happen to you in that National Park if you assert your "rights".

American society is now too large and too populated with too many irresponsible clowns to not pass laws limiting, as much as possible, the chances that even one will endanger the public even once with guns or cars and alcohol.


Right now in the conservative, right wing, went for John McCain, gun friendly state of Tenn. the state legislature is just now permitting guns in state parks. It is an outrageous move that has people all across the state upset. Luckily they did include a provision where local govt. can choose to "opt out" of this and keep the parks in the county gun free. Nearly all are expected to exercise this option. Many counties are already passing measures to that effect and the new law hasn't even kicked in yet. The N.R.A. can fool people when they're talking in the abstract but when it comes close to home, that's a different matter.

[jon71]

again both of you are referring to a very small % of people. You are trying to make it look like the masses are doing what you're saying.
That makes me think you are the fearful ones.

I don't live in Fear. I live ready to keep living whatever it takes.
Also I am not a member of NRA and these "slogans" you claim I am posting I didn't get from them.


No, you live in the peaceful comfort of mindless slogans. We've all heard these lines before. They aren't original and no one is impressed.

[Navigator]

Right now in the conservative, right wing, went for John McCain, gun friendly state of Tenn. the state legislature is just now permitting guns in state parks. It is an outrageous move that has people all across the state upset. Luckily they did include a provision where local govt. can choose to "opt out" of this and keep the parks in the county gun free. Nearly all are expected to exercise this option. Many counties are already passing measures to that effect and the new law hasn't even kicked in yet. The N.R.A. can fool people when they're talking in the abstract but when it comes close to home, that's a different matter.

I was thinking about just this type of thing while I was answering some of the earlier posts on this thread. The NRA and gun advocates across the country seem to believe they have a major victory with this Federal law allowing guns in National Parks. But, the artlcle about it I quoted earlier, says that the new federal law is limited by state laws. It will only allow guns to the extent that the state laws allow them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30832809/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

This whole thing might turn out to be a "win" with disasterous unforeseen consequences for the NRA.

If Americans are as disgusted with the idea of a Federal law allowing guns in our nations parks and public lands as I am...they'll pressure their local elected state representatives to ban guns in local parks and that will make the federal law moot....and bring the gun-ban issue to maturity far faster, all across America, than it would have if each county had to wait until it had a murder or accident in it's local parks.

It sounds like your area might be on the leading edge of that jon71.

One has to wonder if Obama planned it that way. There's no doubt the guy is brilliant. He's only been Prez 6 months but it's not hard to notice that a lot of things happen around him that get done without him taking a head-on approach to advocacy about them.

[Sanslines]

A gun is just one tool in the hands of murderers. Why are you not requesting kitchen knives and ropes as being outlawed? The point is again people kill people not guns.
I don't live in any fear, I am armed and not afraid?
The unarmed are afraid because they have no way of defense.

A gun can end a confrontation with a criminal within seconds. the other alteranative is a cop which may be 10 minutes to late.

Do you feel it would be OK for all be to unarmed(except the criminals) so they can provoke everybody?
You realize now they have to be selective on who they attack because some will defend themselves(that is our RIGHT)

WHY are you so set on protecting the criminals of the world instead of law abiding citizens?
When you do choose to answer my question with some stats and links, I answer yours.
Again What % of guns are used in crimes?
What % of POPulation is this "large number of people" you speak of that resort to gun violence? hint* look up criminals...

As has been stated previously, the primary purpose of a gun is to kill. The primary purpose of a kitchen knife or rope is not for killing There is a difference. Guns facilitate killing in a very easy and effective way. The argument that other items may be used to kill can not be used to mitigate the fact that guns are primarily used for killing. The statistics bear this out.

The statement that "people kill people" is misleading because we are talking about people USING GUNS to kill people. Guns facilitate the killing of others. Guns in the hands of irresponsible people can kill another human being from a short AND a long distance away (the distance depends upon the type of gun). Kitchen knives and ropes can not kill people from a long distance away. Automatic weapons do a very effective job of kiling large numbers of people at a wide variety of distances. Can the same be said of kitchen knives and ropes..........I think not.

You obviously live in fear but won't admit it. Those who do not live in fear do not need guns to protect themselves. You obviously do. The unarmed are not afraid as anyone who has lived in a nation that restricts gun ownership would know. In Britain, the police gererally do not carry firearms. The British public prefers it this way and the police do not work in fear. The British public believes that Americans are obsessed with guns and are immune to the high death rate due to guns.

The solutions to crime are not to arm every citizen with guns. Guns do not belong in the hands of anyone and everyone. Gun ownership should not be a right in a civilized society. A driver's license is a priviledge. Those who abuse their driving priviledge have that priviledge taken away. At the very least, the same standard should be applied to guns. Those who are irresponsible should have no right to a gun. Why are so many gun fanatics afraid of common sense laws which keep guns out of the hands of those who are obviously not qualified?

The argument about criminals using guns has an easy solution and that solution is to punish those criminals with guns. The police receive special training in the use of lethal force. In many case they use stun guns as an alternative to lethal force. Lethal force is always the lasty option. Why should exceptions be made for gun fanatics?

The laws concerning gun ownership and access to guns must be changed. Law abiding citizens will of course abide by the new laws just as they abide by all existing law changes (so they claim). Otherwise, their point about being law abiding citizens is a moot point.

As for stats and links, I have provided numerous stats and links in previous posts. You are certainly free to read and follow those links. Th every clear point that I will make is that you are obviously willing to sacrifice a certain percentage of american lives in order to 'protect your right'. Your claim will be that the percentages are small and are inconsequential. Yet you claim that your life is consequential enough for you to demand that you be allowed to protect your life. Why is your life more valuable then other lives? Why are you willing to sacrifice any lives for 'your right'? Hint, if you bother to read my above posts, look up 'innocent victims of gun violence'.

[Sanslines]

If Americans are as disgusted with the idea of a Federal law allowing guns in our nations parks and public lands as I am...they'll pressure their local elected state representatives to ban guns in local parks and that will make the federal law moot....and bring the gun-ban issue to maturity far faster, all across America, than it would have if each county had to wait until it had a murder or accident in it's local parks.

I am and I will.

One has to wonder if Obama planned it that way. There's no doubt the guy is brilliant. He's only been Prez 6 months but it's not hard to notice that a lot of things happen around him that get done without him taking a head-on approach to advocacy about them.

Yes , Obama is a very intelligent man who should never be underestimated as to how he will accomplish the changes that he has professed. Right now, Obama is attempting health care reform, and how he tackles the endless lies and distortions that the medical establishment promotes concerning his agenda will also be the way that he tackles gun control legislation.

[Sanslines]

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.


The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms. That's 10,650.

Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%


During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

Only 2% and you speak of assault weapons bans.

By the way there's more than 260 million guns in the USA.
and 10, 650 deaths(2004). You do the math.

another number I'll throw out there is "average amount of guns stolen a year is 150,000 or so.
221,000 in 1993 to 138,000 in 2003.

More good news
It is 23 times more likely that a firearm will be stolen than used by a child to commit suicide or cause accidental injury or death.
More than 80% of firearm thefts are from homes or cars.
Federal prosecutors rarely bring charges for possession or sale of stolen guns. In 1999 and 2000, they prosecuted 708 stolen-gun cases. In those years, more than 286,000 guns were reported stolen. Under federal law, stolen-gun crimes carry up to 10 years in prison

Remember I spoke of enforcing existing laws? Ain't happenin.

In Canada, an average of 1,300 people die of gunshot wounds each year.
What's happening here?

For one thing, you have no way to verify any of these so called statistics as the NRA has continuously refused to allow for computerized registration of guns. However, for argument's sake, lets use these stats as is.

According to the FBI stats, 10,650 murders were commited with guns. Do you consider this to be an 'acceptable casualty loss' in order to protect your right? Do you not care about the loss of over 10,000 people due to gun violence?

According to the Prison Survey, 80 percent obtained their handgun from a family member, friend, or illegal source. If we closed the loopholes and restricted gun ownership, then perhaps there would be no family member or friend or illegal source to obtain those weapons. Certainly you would support such legislation that makes it that much more difficult to obtain weapons instead of the present NRA backed system which allows basically anyone with a pulse to obtain a gun.

Your stats state that 15 percent of state inmates, 13 percent of federal inmates, and 2 percent carried a semi automatic gun.
How about considering the stat that 9 percent of the 4.7 MILLION violent crimes of rape, robbery, assault involved a gun. That's 423,000! Not such an insignificant number now is it.

"Only 2 percent and we speak of assault weapons bans"? Excuse me? Are you even aware of how many people can be killed with one assault weapon? Again I ask, how many people must die before you acknowledge that enogh is enough? Are you willing to sacrifice your family's lives as one of those statistics in order to protect your so called gun right?

I really need not go on anyomre. the bottom line with all of this is that you are attempting to rationalize and minimize the damage that guns cause in order to justify that which can not be justified. If your family was directly affected by gun violence, then you migth sing a very different tune. If just one maniac with an AK - 47 assault weapon were to ever cross paths, he or she could wipe out your entire family with that just one gun? Why are you so willing to accept the loss of your entire family or are you? Why do you so easily treat statistics as 'just numbers' when you must know that each of those statistics represents a human life? Are your so called 'rights' so important that you are so willing to accept the serious damage that such a 'right' causes to the American public? If there was ever a justification to enact immediate changes to the Second Ammendment, this certainly illustrates the necessity of such changes. Government has a duty and an obligation to protect the lives of American citizens. With the continued support of the American people, government can and will reform gun control laws, bring 'common sense' back to life, and put an dend to a small group of fanatics who obviously are willing to write off a certain percentage of human life in order to protect their 'rights'. The era of callous disregard for life must and will come to an end.

[gmoney]

I was thinking about just this type of thing while I was answering some of the earlier posts on this thread. The NRA and gun advocates across the country seem to believe they have a major victory with this Federal law allowing guns in National Parks. But, the artlcle about it I quoted earlier, says that the new federal law is limited by state laws. It will only allow guns to the extent that the state laws allow them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30832809/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

This whole thing might turn out to be a "win" with disasterous unforeseen consequences for the NRA.

If Americans are as disgusted with the idea of a Federal law allowing guns in our nations parks and public lands as I am...they'll pressure their local elected state representatives to ban guns in local parks and that will make the federal law moot....and bring the gun-ban issue to maturity far faster, all across America, than it would have if each county had to wait until it had a murder or accident in it's local parks.

It sounds like your area might be on the leading edge of that jon71.

One has to wonder if Obama planned it that way. There's no doubt the guy is brilliant. He's only been Prez 6 months but it's not hard to notice that a lot of things happen around him that get done without him taking a head-on approach to advocacy about them.

I am and I will.



Yes , Obama is a very intelligent man who should never be underestimated as to how he will accomplish the changes that he has professed. Right now, Obama is attempting health care reform, and how he tackles the endless lies and distortions that the medical establishment promotes cocerning his agenda will also be the way that he tackles gun control legislation.

Yea things are above his paygrade. He's brillant.
and don't forget this...You want lies, just listen to him...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o5t8GdxFYBU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o5t8GdxFYBU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>