UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (74) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1976034  
Subject: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 11:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 22
and Chuck Grassley makes me sick.

'Nuff said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57566632/giffords-at-gun...

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HMALETTER Big gold star, 5000 posts 10+ Year Anniversary! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856362 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 11:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I agree with some of the common sense gun controls such as registrations and background checks, and I'm appalled by the lack of control over gun sales at the shows.

It's just too bad they never mention the other 10,000 gun killings each year.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856366 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 12:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Then she served her purpose by making the debate emotional instead of factual.

Not going to work. You aren't allowed to compromise my freedom that way.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JeSuisHistoire Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856370 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 12:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 68
<Then she served her purpose by making the debate emotional instead of factual.>

Wait?

You mean she wasn't gravely injured in a mass shooting which took the lives of six other people?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cjb44 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856380 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 12:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Why does being a victim of a crime all of a sudden make someone an expert on the subject? If we're looking at ways to cut down on gun violence let's bring in police chiefs, FBI agents, doctors who deal with mental illness.

We don't bring in cancer patients to help us come up with a plan to beat cancer we bring in doctors and medical researchers. Do we bring in High School drop outs to help us come up with plans to improve the education system that failed them?

Why do we think victims are experts?

Should we bring in people who used guns to protect themselves against violent criminals? I'm sure we'd all be touched by the story of a mother who shot and killed an armed home invader protecting her young children. Or the woman who shot a man attempting to rape her.

We can find emotional stories on both sides. That's why emotion needs to be removed from the equation.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856392 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 12:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
cjb Why do we think victims are experts?

Because they are EXPERTS on the need for change and finding common ground.

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolishWaldo Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856395 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 1:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Then she served her purpose by making the debate emotional instead of factual.

Not going to work. You aren't allowed to compromise my freedom that way.


That sounds more emotional than factual.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cjb44 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856396 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 1:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Because they are EXPERTS on the need for change and finding common ground.

_________________

Not really, they are just props used by either side to make people emotional. Whether it's Giffords or that mother who was in the news for shooting the home intruder who followed her and her kids into the crawl space. Both are props and neither gets to the problem itself.

They might be EXAMPLES for the need to change and finding common ground. But they are not EXPERTS.

And as for common ground everyone agrees we should go after illegal guns. Obama can easily do this by telling the FBI, DOJ, DEA and ATF (Yes, I know there's overlap there) to go after the illegal guns on the street. These are illegal guns, time to start enforcing current laws before adding new ones.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BlueGrits Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856397 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 1:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Was she any more or less emotional than the NRA-holes shouting "Second Amendment" as the father of a slain student tried to testify?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856400 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 1:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Because they are EXPERTS on the need for change and finding common ground.


No, they're not. An EXPERT is someone who can offer evidence and weigh in when needed to drive to the right answer. A victim by definition is emotionally compromised.

Unless someone thinks this is political, it isn't. I have a problem with crime victims or families making emotional appeals to juries prior to the sentencing phase. It doesn't add anything factual to the case and so doesn't move justice forward.

Same thing here.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wzambon Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856407 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 1:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Why does being a victim of a crime all of a sudden make someone an expert on the subject?

She's an expert on what can happen when an idiot gets ahold of a gun.

Just as a homeowner is an expert on why he would like a gun for home defense.

Or a gun rights advocate is an expert on his or her interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

This strange desire on the part of the right to exclude victims of crime from providing relevant testimony, or to devalue their testimony as being helpful.... is a mystery to me.

Well.... maybe not.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856408 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 1:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
This strange desire on the part of the right to exclude victims of crime from providing relevant testimony, or to devalue their testimony as being helpful.... is a mystery to me.

Well.... maybe not.


Hmm.

This strange desire on the part of the left to exclude statistics on gun proliferation (with respect to crime prevention) from providing relevant information, or to devalue such testimony as being helpful.... is a mystery to me.

Well.... maybe not.

Yes. This is more accurate.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wzambon Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856412 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 1:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 35
This strange desire on the part of the left to exclude statistics on gun proliferation (with respect to crime prevention) from providing relevant information, or to devalue such testimony as being helpful.... is a mystery to me.

There is no desire on the part of the left to exclude ANY statistics.

The only group which has stifled statistics is the NRA. For over a decade they have managed to block the CDC from collecting data on gun crimes

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cjb44 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856416 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 1:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This strange desire on the part of the right to exclude victims of crime from providing relevant testimony, or to devalue their testimony as being helpful

_________________

Because it's emotional. If you read my post I want to exclude the pro-gun prop as well. I don't want to hear from the person who saved their own life by killing a stalker, rapists, murderer as much as I don't want to hear from someone hurt by a gun.

Those are emotional stories.

I guess I would wonder why Liberals don't want to hear the stories of self defense? Why not hear about the person who is alive today because of a gun they used to defend themselves.

I want all emotion out of the debate and let's deal with facts.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856419 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 1:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There is no desire on the part of the left to exclude ANY statistics.

Yes there is. On several levels.

For starters, rifles are used in relatively few murders nationwide, Sandy Hook notwithstanding. Gangs use illegally obtained handguns far more. The rifle murders there are can be controlled by controlling the mentally ill.

Secondly, the nationwide trend has been for crime to PLUMMET even as more guns are available to the general public.

Third, the prior assault weapons ban did not prevent Columbine or North Hollywood. Connecticut's current ban did not prevent Sandy Hook. For some reason this point is willfully ignored by the left.

BTW. Giffords wasn't shot with an AR-15, so even by the logic used in this thread her testimony is irrelevant.

The only group which has stifled statistics is the NRA. For over a decade they have managed to block the CDC from collecting data on gun crimes

Why would they do that? Oh, yeah. Somehow I don't think a democrat-run CDC would be interested in gathering defensive gun usage statistics and data.

If the left wants a truly open and honest conversation about guns I'm all ears. But all I've seen is nonsense, so I'm going to oppose it every time I see it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856420 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 1:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
TD1 Unless someone thinks this is political, it isn't. I have a problem with crime victims or families making emotional appeals to juries prior to the sentencing phase. It doesn't add anything factual to the case and so doesn't move justice forward.

Same thing here.


Not the same. Giffords is saying, "Do the hard work."

Your crime victim is NOT pleading with the jury to do their work. It is assumed they will do their duty as a jury.

I certainly DO NOT assume that the Congress will do the hard work necessary to find a solution to gun crime.

Peter



"Thank you for inviting me here today. This is an important conversation for our children, for our communities, for Democrats, and Republicans.

"Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important.

Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying - too many children. We must do something.

"It will be hard. But the time is now. You must act. Be bold. Be Courageous. Americans are counting on you. Thank you."


Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856424 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 2:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Not the same. Giffords is saying, "Do the hard work."

Your crime victim is NOT pleading with the jury to do their work. It is assumed they will do their duty as a jury.

I certainly DO NOT assume that the Congress will do the hard work necessary to find a solution to gun crime.


Giffords was shot with a handgun. The current debate is about "assault rifles". Therefore her appeal to do the hard things is more relevant to locking up the insane, since she was shot by one.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856426 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 2:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Was she any more or less emotional than the NRA-holes shouting "Second Amendment" as the father of a slain student tried to testify?

Debunked. Find a new meme. A true one would be nice.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856429 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Was she any more or less emotional than the NRA-holes shouting "Second Amendment" as the father of a slain student tried to testify?

Failure. Please try again, and don't use NBC and their deceptive editing next time.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856431 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 2:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
TD1 The current debate is about "assault rifles".

In your mind, not mine.

The debate is about 30,000 Americans dying from gun violence each year.

Of, if you wish to exclude suicides, 11,000 Americans dying from gun homicides each year.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

How about this:

1) Licensed hunters can own hunting rifles.

2) Members of the military or a state militia can own a semi-automatic gun.

3) Citizens (with no black marks) can own a shotgun for home defense.

4) All other firearms are destroyed.

Now try and convince me that this would make no difference in gun homicides.

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856433 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 2:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
How about this:

1) Licensed hunters can own hunting rifles.

2) Members of the military or a state militia can own a semi-automatic gun.

3) Citizens (with no black marks) can own a shotgun for home defense.

4) All other firearms are destroyed.

Now try and convince me that this would make no difference in gun homicides.


False choice. If I quartered a police officer in your house I could eliminate burglaries in the US too, couldn't I? Problem is that's a Constitutional foul. Same as if I banned name-calling I could raise self esteem by several notches.

The problem the left has is that you folks can't move the debate into the realm of the practical.

BTW, you're too late on handgun bans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

So you can't ban or seize handguns. Your point (1) can't discriminate between a hunter and a non-hunter, so that's out. Your point (2) would fall under the states, who would immediately declare that ALL CITIZENS are member of the militia.

See the problem? You're not approaching the root of the real problem, which is why your solutions will have ginormous loopholes. Go after the mentally ill, the gangs, and the culture of violence in pop art and then you'll have a start.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856436 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 2:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
By the way, Peter. You should pay special attention to the "overwhelming choice" part of the Heller decision. It means even if by some miracle you guys get an AWB through Congress (which you won't), that the Supremes have precedent to kill the ban on the AR-15. Why? Because it's the overwhelming choice for a rifle for home self-defense.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856437 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 2:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
How about this:

1) Licensed hunters can own hunting rifles.


Infringement on our right to own rifles tens of millions of Americans already own.

2) Members of the military or a state militia can own a semi-automatic gun.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment does not require membership in a militia to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.

3) Citizens (with no black marks) can own a shotgun for home defense.

How gracious of you.

4) All other firearms are destroyed.

That would be a violation of our right to keep and bear arms as already decided in the Heller and McDonald decisions, amongst others

Now try and convince me that this would make no difference in gun homicides.

Given that the same violent perps would still be on the streets (and just as well armed)... nope, no difference in gun homicides and a sure increase in other violent crimes. No doubt about it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856438 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 2:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 30
TD1 The problem the left has is that you folks can't move the debate into the realm of the practical.

That is a hoot. We can point to dozens of countries that have solved the problem of gun deaths in this (real) world.

You don't have a single example of a country that has solved the problem your way. In your fantasy world all persons with serious mental problems and all gang members are identified in advance and placed in institutions.

Now if you want to make the case that the problem is unsolvable in the United States because of the Second Amendment, I wouldn't argue with you. In which case the remedy is obvious.

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856452 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 3:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ...

How upset were you? Only enough to give up 2nd Amendment rights, or were you also upset enough to give up your 5th Amendment right to due process? If it was much easier to lock up the mentally ill, fewer of these tragedies would happen.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856454 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 3:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Being so afraid that you feel the need to arm yourself to the teeth isn't what I call "freedom". If anything, it's enslavement.

You want to be safe, get a dog. Their barking is enough to deter most intruders, and they work when you aren't around too.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wzambon Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856455 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 3:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Somehow I don't think a democrat-run CDC would be interested in gathering defensive gun usage statistics and data.

So you think.. an it reveals your bias.

Unfortunately, your bias also supports the ONLY REAL SUPPRESSION of statistics that is currently being done.

Show me where anyone other than the right is IN FACT suppressing statistics.

That you disagree with others' conclusions is not evidence of suppression.

It's only evidence that you disagree with them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856464 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 4:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
That is a hoot. We can point to dozens of countries that have solved the problem of gun deaths in this (real) world.

Sure. Like Switzerland, maybe? I'll remind you that those countries often don't have the culture mix we do.

You don't have a single example of a country that has solved the problem your way. In your fantasy world all persons with serious mental problems and all gang members are identified in advance and placed in institutions.

Sounds like we need to work in that direction more.

Now if you want to make the case that the problem is unsolvable in the United States because of the Second Amendment, I wouldn't argue with you. In which case the remedy is obvious.

You won't get 20% of the states to revoke the 2nd, much less 75%. Talk about fantasies.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856468 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 4:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
CD Only enough to give up 2nd Amendment rights,

I believe that under the Second Amendment, if I wish to carry a military-style weapon I can join a state militia.

I have no problem with that and do not need to give up that right.

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856470 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 4:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
So you think.. an it reveals your bias.

No, it reveals a valid concern that would be added to any legislation. Your labeling of my supposed bias just highlights your bias.

Unfortunately, your bias also supports the ONLY REAL SUPPRESSION of statistics that is currently being done.

That's your bias again. I specifically offered a way out: Have CDC do a fair and honest accounting of gun use. Assuming one proves that the "Center for Disease Control" is the correct federal agency to do so.

Show me where anyone other than the right is IN FACT suppressing statistics.

You are. I've cited in all these threads numerous things. They all get ignored. Pot, meet kettle.

That you disagree with others' conclusions is not evidence of suppression.

It's only evidence that you disagree with them.


You folks are increasingly engaging in hyperbole over guns.

*You refuse to acknowledge that the assault weapons ban didn't prevent Columbine
*You refuse to acknowledge that the assault weapons ban didn't prevent North Hollywood
*You refuse to acknowledge that the assault weapons ban in CT didn't prevent Sandy Hook
*You refuse to acknowledge that the increases in gun ownership have not correlated with an increase in crime.

I could go on, but in short your side has engaged in an amazingly dishonest campaign of hyperbole and irrelevant emotionalism aimed at restricting guns. You've made tons of baseless accusations that don't hold water.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856480 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 5:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I believe that under the Second Amendment, if I wish to carry a military-style weapon I can join a state militia.

According to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller, the Second Amendment is an individual right. Therefore, if a ban on so-called "assault weapons" or "large capacity" magazines is enacted, your Second Amendment rights will be infringed.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: richieds Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856496 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 6:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Why does being a victim of a crime all of a sudden make someone an expert on the subject?"

Why not?

It's not like she wasn't an accomplished woman before she was shot.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jwiest Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856502 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 6:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not going to work. You aren't allowed to compromise my freedom that way.

And you aren't going to compromise my freedom from your empathetic void and bed-wetting paranoia.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856503 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 6:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why not?

It's not like she wasn't an accomplished woman before she was shot.


She's not a criminologist, so thanks for helping make my point.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856505 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 6:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
And you aren't going to compromise my freedom from your empathetic void and bed-wetting paranoia.

You're the ones talking about taking things away. I think your rage is misplaced again.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: richieds Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856506 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 6:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"She's not a criminologist, so thanks for helping make my point."

You didn't make a point. I was responding to another poster.


On the other hand, if I quote a criminologist who is for gun control, does that mean you will agree with them?

Now, here is another "point" from that same poster...


"If we're looking at ways to cut down on gun violence let's bring in police chiefs, FBI agents, doctors who deal with mental illness."

I've heard plenty of police chiefs and FBI agents come out against 30 round magazines and for tightening up background checks.

So, are they right?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BlueGrits Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856508 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 6:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 37
ME: Was she any more or less emotional than the NRA-holes shouting "Second Amendment" as the father of a slain student tried to testify?

COLOVION: Debunked. Find a new meme. A true one would be nice.

Me again..

I did see where some are trying to parse the phrasing used and the definition of "heckle", but I'll stand with the multiple reports from the media unless you can provide substantive evidence to the contrary. Here are just a few of the headlines which feature the word "heckle":

"NRA Heckles Father of Sandy Hook Shooting Victim"
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/nra-bullies-father-newtown-...

"NRA Tactics Under Fire After Father of Newtown Victim Heckled"
http://www.politicususa.com/nra-tactics-fire-father-newtown-...

"Gun rights advocates heckle father of 6-year-old Newtown victim at Connecticut hearing"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gun-rights-advocate...

"Father of Sandy Hook Victim Gets Heckled by Gun Nut"
http://www.politicolnews.com/father-of-sandy-hook-victim-get...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: richieds Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856513 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 7:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"If we're looking at ways to cut down on gun violence let's bring in police chiefs, FBI agents, doctors who deal with mental illness."


So, were you impressed by the testimony of James Johnson, the police chief in Baltimore, MD., who has studied the proposals extensively and said he absolutely believed that they would have a positive effect on gun violence?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856522 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 8:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You mean she wasn't gravely injured in a mass shooting which took the lives of six other people?

Yes, she was. But enough Gabby Giffords already. I don't ever hear about the other people who are still healing or worse, dead. It's Gabby, Gabby, Gabby, blah blah blah.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856526 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 9:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Yes, she was. But enough Gabby Giffords already. I don't ever hear about the other people who are still healing or worse, dead. It's Gabby, Gabby, Gabby, blah blah blah.

Classy.

Kind of difficult for the dead ones to testify before Congress.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wzambon Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856527 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 9:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I don't ever hear about the other people who are still healing or worse, dead. It's Gabby, Gabby, Gabby, blah blah blah.

You do hear about them- just not as much.

And what you hear may not register because all you can hear is "Gabby, Gabby, blah blah blah".

I dunno... it might have something to do with the fact that she was a Congresswoman.

I'm shaking my head at all the posts today which basically say:

"Enough already! Who wants to hear from all of those whiney shooting victims?"

I mean... what's a dead kid.. uh... many dead kids, and a permanently maimed Congresswoman have to do with my constitutional right to buy any damned weapon I want?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856533 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 9:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You aren't allowed to compromise my freedom that way.

You aren't allowed to kill my son.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856535 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 9:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

You mean she wasn't gravely injured in a mass shooting which took the lives of six other people?


Doesn't matter to sociopaths.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856537 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 9:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Wouldn't it be nice to argue with the person who actually creates These dumb remarks? Giffords was shot with a clip larger than a righty IQ. So we're the kids. Regulation of those clips is very much part of the conversation.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nigelwhalmsley Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856541 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 9:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Yes, she was. But enough Gabby Giffords already. I don't ever hear about the other people who are still healing or worse, dead. It's Gabby, Gabby, Gabby, blah blah blah."

When we have talked about Gabby as much as we have talked about Palin, I might agree with you. That is a long way off.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856545 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 9:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
Why do you guys always miss this from Heller?

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose....
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia for the USSC

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856558 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 10:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why do you guys always miss this from Heller?

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose....
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia for the USSC

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


That's easy. It contradicts their argument.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856561 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 10:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I did see where some are trying to parse the phrasing used and the definition of "heckle", but I'll stand with the multiple reports from the media unless you can provide substantive evidence to the contrary. Here are just a few of the headlines which feature the word "heckle":

You can use google, congrats. Now try using your frontal lobe and read this, complete with the unedited tape that proves no heckling occurred:

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/29/the-newtown-heckle-hoa...

Even Frum had conceded that there was no heckling. Face it, you've been had by a media hoax. Put on your big girl pants and admit you were wrong. I'll be waiting patiently.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856563 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 10:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The right never quotes the part of Scalia's decision that says the 2nd Amendment does not preclude regulation. Anyone who's such a bad shot that he needs a 30 round clip to defend himself should be regulated to use nothing more lethal than a nail clipper. Anyone who needs an AK or AR to hunt deer should be required to prove that deer keep returning his fire. The requirements of firearm self-defense and sport (which are permitted by the 2nd Amendment under Heller) are somewhat different than those of mass murder and war, the implements of which ought to be regulated.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856564 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 11:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
no heckling occurred

Perhaps an intellect sufficient to put this post in the correct thread would get why the outburst was extraordinarily innappropriate to the point of being inhumane. Personally, I don't think it's your intellect. I do think, though, that reactionaries are inherently sociopathic, which well explains the "So what?" attitude. I know you really don't get it, but it's still there.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856569 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 11:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ...
=================================

Liberals, making irrational arguments based on emotions and feelings not grounded in logic, common sense, or reality.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856570 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 11:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Rational arguments not allowed on this thread. Sorry. They are liberals.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdvocatusDiaboli Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856573 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 11:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Unless someone thinks this is political, it isn't. I have a problem with crime victims or families making emotional appeals to juries prior to the sentencing phase. It doesn't add anything factual to the case and so doesn't move justice forward.

Same thing here.


The problem I have with emotional appeals (especially in jury trials) is their impact on the decision about guilt or innocence.
It tends to be like: "The victim suffered so horribly, someone has to pay - and here we have the defendant" and then you end up with an absolutely horrendous wrongful conviction rate.

I don't see anything wrong with emotional appeals in sentencing, though, or in the case of deciding about gun policy.
Crimes cause human suffering, and the easy availability of guns causes death, injury and suffering on a massive scale, and reading out dry statistics doesn't give you an understanding of the real human impact.

I think it is absolutely vital that politicians (and their supporters) every once in a while face those whose lives their policies have destroyed. If a politician is not able to do that and say (at least silently, to himself): "I am sorry for the pain and the loss I have caused you, and I feel for those whose lives are going to be destroyed in the future by the 2nd amendment, but I think that overall it is for the best" - if a politician is not able to say that, then maybe he should rethink his position.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: wzambon Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856576 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 11:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think it is absolutely vital that politicians (and their supporters) every once in a while face those whose lives their policies have destroyed.

Hear! Hear!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856577 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/30/2013 11:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
On the other hand, if I quote a criminologist who is for gun control, does that mean you will agree with them?


Not unless he/she answered the question, "Can you explain Chicago?"

I've heard plenty of police chiefs and FBI agents come out against 30 round magazines and for tightening up background checks.

So, are they right?


I don't know. Let's ask Milwaukee's police chief and see what he thinks.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856611 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 7:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"You aren't allowed to compromise my freedom that way."

Yeah, No one can stop you from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or libeling someone without consequences. No one is allowed to compromise your freedom to copy whatever song you want.

Oh wait.....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856622 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 9:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Why do you guys always miss this from Heller?

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose....
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia for the USSC


I didn't miss this. Scalia even says unusual weapons are not protected.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Twenty and thirty round magazines for an AR-15 are not unusual. So the AR-15 and 20 and 30 round magazines are protected.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856627 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 9:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The requirements of firearm self-defense and sport (which are permitted by the 2nd Amendment under Heller) are somewhat different than those of mass murder and war, the implements of which ought to be regulated.

Under Heller, yes, but many 2nd Amendment fanatics will tell you that it is precisely weapons of war the amendment was intended to protect. And I agree. My problem with the 2nd is that it's anachronistic. A well-regulated militia was once, but is no longer, necessary to the security of a free state. Federalists made this moot in 1865 and the U.S.'s standing army is now preeminent. Furthermore, in addition to concerns about a standing army (which most NRA types now ironically worship) the 2nd was also crafted to defend states from tax rebellions and slave rebellions, not to encourage them. Self defense, hunting, sport and collection are the only valid reasons for gun ownership now. And, as you note, you don't need assault weapons or high-capacity magazines for that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wzambon Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856634 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 10:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Twenty and thirty round magazines for an AR-15 are not unusual. So the AR-15 and 20 and 30 round magazines are protected.

Pain killers are the most popular drugs in America. Prescriptions for oxycodone and vicodin are not unusual. So pain killers should not be regulated.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856641 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 10:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Twenty and thirty round magazines for an AR-15 are not unusual. So the AR-15 and 20 and 30 round magazines are protected.

I believe the rifle itself may be protected, but the magazine capacity could be challenged.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856642 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 10:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Pain killers are the most popular drugs in America. Prescriptions for oxycodone and vicodin are not unusual. So pain killers should not be regulated.

There is no Constitutional right to prescription drugs.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856644 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 10:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
...the problem is unsolvable in the United States because of the Second Amendment...

I disagree. We just need a SCOTUS that interprets it as-written. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." is the key. I read a summary of Scalia's opinion in the Heller case, and it's complete rubbish. He spent (evidently) pages and pages trying to say that it doesn't mean the right to bear arms is related in any way to maintaining a militia. Rather it is the right of a state to form a militia AND the right of people to bear arms. Based on the summary, he basically argues that they are separate things, which clearly (to anyone who can read English) is not the case.

Once Scalia (and Thomas) dies, if we can get some sensible folks in there, we might be able to get some changes. One needs only know the history to know that some of the Founders (particularly Jefferson) did not believe in maintaining a standing army (the Constitution limits it to two years, as a matter of fact). They feared a standing army might overthrow the government (which happens often, it seems, even today). They believed in raising militias from the states when needed. Hence the 2nd Amendment.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856658 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 11:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Twenty and thirty round magazines for an AR-15 are not unusual. So the AR-15 and 20 and 30 round magazines are protected.

Exactly. Somebody forgot to think before posting.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856667 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 12:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
One needs only know the history to know that some of the Founders (particularly Jefferson) did not believe in maintaining a standing army (the Constitution limits it to two years, as a matter of fact). They feared a standing army might overthrow the government (which happens often, it seems, even today). They believed in raising militias from the states when needed. Hence the 2nd Amendment.

That's not the reason. Go read Madison's Federalist 46.

BTW, you've interpreted Scalia's opinion incorrectly.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: gagafool One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856755 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 5:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Should we bring in people who used guns to protect themselves against violent criminals? I'm sure we'd all be touched by the story of a mother who shot and killed an armed home invader protecting her young children. Or the woman who shot a man attempting to rape her.

Oh, they had those stories also. Saw a woman who had testified being interviewed on tv last night. The pieces I know; Her main point was supposed to be about how women need weapons for protection. She told about a mother who defended herself in her home with a hand gun. She had to make up a hypothetical situation regarding automatic weapons, because they had no real story involving one being used by a woman for defense. The hypothetical situation was a mother in a home with SEVERAL children screaming in the background when FIVE armed men broke into her home.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: richieds Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856768 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 5:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I don't know. Let's ask Milwaukee's police chief and see what he thinks."

Why not ask Baltimore's police chief and see what HE thinks?

In fact, you can just read the transcript.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856771 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 6:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why not ask Baltimore's police chief and see what HE thinks?

In fact, you can just read the transcript.


And you can listen to the Milwaukee audio.

So what does that tell us?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: richieds Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856775 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 6:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"So what does that tell us?"

Tells us people have different opinions and, in the end, the voters will decide.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856797 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 7:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Tells us people have different opinions and, in the end, the voters will decide.

Actually it tells us that we need to have a factual debate that involves some thinking.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: richieds Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856809 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 7:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Actually it tells us that we need to have a factual debate that involves some thinking."


Whose facts? You have one expert that believes one way and I show another expert with the opposite view. At some point it becomes useless to argue further.

Nothing, when it comes to guns, health care or economics can ever be "proven" to the point where one or the other of us says..."wow, I didn't realize that...I'm with you".

We are at that point now. The NRA has made it's stand. No limits on guns. No limits on magazines and no further background checks.

We won't change each other's minds and, so, now it comes down to 2014.

2013 will be the year of the debate with no changes in the law. Then, 2014 becomes decision year when each side's commercials will hit the airwaves and the chips will fall where they may.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856819 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 8:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

Who taught Scalia how to write? If he was clerking for me, I'd re-write the sentence like this:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is limited.

Reads much nicer.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856826 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 9:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You've never read Heller, I presume, asI don't think you're a complete moron. The use of "unusual", which I presume you've innocently picked up from the usual sociopaths, is an extraordinarily deceptive distortion of the COurt's reference to weapons "in common use at the time" the 2nd Amendment was written. What is or is not in common use now has no bearing on the meaning of the second amendment, but to a jurist of Scalia's inclinations the meaning of the words at the time of writting means everything. The USSC has held that the Second Amendment protects any weapon that was "usual" at the time it was written.

Though Dope will likely jump up and down as usual thinking that the fallacy of appeal to authority makes an authoritative opinion wrong, well, what can I say? He's Dope. You might want to consider the view of the ABA President:


Second Amendment rights...must be balanced against the need to protect citizens from especially dangerous weapons. Bellows says this recognition has supported regulation of fully automatic “machine guns” since the 1930s.

She quotes a portion from Scalia’s Heller opinion in which he interprets a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision as giving Second Amendment protection to weapons “in common use at the time” of its adoption. According to Scalia, “We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”...“The muskets of the 18th century and other single-shot weapons have little in common with the military-style assault weapons today and the 100-round ammunition drum that was used at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado...These are unusually dangerous weapons, which the government may regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision. We believe the government has a duty to do so to protect the common good—specifically, the safety of American citizens.”


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856827 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 9:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The requirements of firearm self-defense and sport (which are permitted by the 2nd Amendment under Heller) are somewhat different than those of mass murder and war, the implements of which ought to be regulated.

Under Heller, yes, but many 2nd Amendment fanatics will tell you that it is precisely weapons of war the amendment was intended to protect. And I agree. My problem with the 2nd is that it's anachronistic. A well-regulated militia was once, but is no longer, necessary to the security of a free state. Federalists made this moot in 1865 and the U.S.'s standing army is now preeminent. Furthermore, in addition to concerns about a standing army (which most NRA types now ironically worship) the 2nd was also crafted to defend states from tax rebellions and slave rebellions, not to encourage them. Self defense, hunting, sport and collection are the only valid reasons for gun ownership now. And, as you note, you don't need assault weapons or high-capacity magazines for that.


Guys like Scalia who want to honor what the founders meant when they wrote the 2nd have now twice (once in the 30's and in Heller) held that the protection applies to weapons as they were known at the time of writing. I'm ok with guys have muskets, and technological upgrades tinsufficient to virtually change the weapon's use. In other words, weapons that will pick off one target at a time seem to me consistent with the weapons of which the authors thought when writing, but a piece that will kill a whole squad in 40 seconds is another matter.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1856832 of 1976034
Subject: Re: Gabrielle Giffords made me cry ... Date: 1/31/2013 9:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sorry, I omitted the link.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/quoting_scalia_aba_pr...

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (74) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement