Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc...
Buck, the "symbolic" argument is the same old nonsense and completely avoids the real issues of firearm violence. You can't deny that a non-assault rife would have been as deadly in the same situation combined with the other factors.
Even if mass shootings are rare, as ScottW indicates, general violence from guns is still rampant. Statistically we're keeping company with the Third World...
"Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case."
and then this:
"Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc..."
I asked for examples...Murdoch has long been a gun control advocate and
Steele said this...
“I don’t even know where to begin. As a supporter of the Second Amendment and a supporter of the NRA — even though I’m not a member of the NRA — I just found it very haunting and very disturbing that our country now is talking about arming our teachers and our principals in classrooms,” Steele said on MSNBC immediately after LaPierre finished his comments.
in respose to Lapierre saying this:
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, The ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The nation's largest gun-rights lobby is calling for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."
The National Rifle Association broke its silence Friday on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.
He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out.
LaPierre stood by remarks he made at an event Friday billed as a news conference -- though he took no questions -- in which he argued for armed guards in schools.
"If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy," he said on Sunday.
"We're going to support an immediate appropriation before Congress to put police officers in every school," he vowed.
I guess Steele didn't listen very closely...
so what are the "conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case"? etc....etc....because I haven't seen it and I actually read conservative papers
I don't know how effective having security at schools will/would be, I know that it's a likely deterrent, I know that many schools already have security and those are probably the schools that most of our politician's children happen to attend... if you are a progressive democrat...just look at it as an opportunity to create another bureaucracy with new union members
...Merry Christmas to all of you!!!!
just a sidenote....Politico then took Steeles comments and titled their article on the subject to claim that Steele called Lapierre's comments "haunting and very disturbing" ....you see how it works
Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc...
Buck, the "symbolic" argument is the same old nonsense and completely avoids the real issues of firearm violence. You can't deny that a non-assault rife would have been as deadly in the same situation combined with the other factors.
Even if mass shootings are rare, as ScottW indicates, general violence from guns is still rampant. Statistically we're keeping company with the Third World...
By Washington Mall you mean the incident in 2005?
-spence
I meant the Oregon mall sorry. But I understand why that didn't pop into your head.
Spence there can be meaningful debate... As soon as they realize banning guns doesn't work.
Heavily penalizing gun violence does work. Something the NRA has worked hard for. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
A very horrific tragedy...lets hope it never happens again
Spence:La Pierre mentions to put cops in schools and you and your progressive party call him a nut case...where was your group when Bill Clinton mentioned putting cops in schools...he even appropriated monies to do it..."cops never placed.'...
News media reports that an automatic weapon was used...now your president keeps saying he wants to band automatic weapons scaring the mis informed public....it is hard to get a permit for an automatic weapon....need a class 3 license....weapon used not an automatic...just as much damage would have been done with a Klock
What R cops going to do at the school...it will provide a falsehood of being safe....there was an armed guard at the columbine tradegy...a cop will not be alert for 8 hrs....they R not alert doing road duty...we expect them to sit for 8 hrs.reading a news paper and or take a break to urinate or smoke break...if correct the guard at columbine took a break at the time of that shooting spree.
I meant the Oregon mall sorry. But I understand why that didn't pop into your head.
Spence there can be meaningful debate... As soon as they realize banning guns doesn't work.
Heavily penalizing gun violence does work. Something the NRA has worked hard for. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I can understand how it's easy to confuse shootings, there's been so many in recent memory. It's also probably a stretch to claim the incident was stopped by a concealed carry. He said he didn't shoot because there was another person he could have hit. To say the shooter just happened to see his handgun and decided to kill himself instead is taking a giant leap of faith...
I'm not saying that people are going to stop wanting firearms, I'm stating that the banner of the NRA as the protector of the Second Amendment will continue to be tarnished if they can't engage in a reasonable debate.
Aside from some papers there have been a number of Republicans rethinking their position on how we regulate guns.
I can understand how it's easy to confuse shootings, there's been so many in recent memory. It's also probably a stretch to claim the incident was stopped by a concealed carry. He said he didn't shoot because there was another person he could have hit. To say the shooter just happened to see his handgun and decided to kill himself instead is taking a giant leap of faith...
I'm not saying that people are going to stop wanting firearms, I'm stating that the banner of the NRA as the protector of the Second Amendment will continue to be tarnished if they can't engage in a reasonable debate.
Aside from some papers there have been a number of Republicans rethinking their position on how we regulate guns.
-spence
Regulating guns is different than regulating people. The second amendment is not about regulating guns. It is about the right of the people to own them. If it were possible, and it may be, to regulate the manufacture of guns to only fire when used by those legally issued to own them, that would go a long way to prevent gun violence by those who steal them, borrow them, or buy them illegally.
As far as the NRA not engaging in a reasonable debate, I am sure that it believes it is being reasonable and that the anti-gunners are not. To dismiss, out of hand, statements and positions of the NRA as being unreasonable, seems unreasonable to me. To accuse them of not being able to have an adult discussion, then dismissing their suggestions without debating them, seems very unadult. Their so-called banner of the protector of the second amendment, if there is such a thing, has been well-earned. What other interest group has been influential enough, and engaged enough to fly such a banner? The NRA's position, if I understand it right, is that the goal of those who wish to further restrict gun ownership IS the repeal or re-interpretation of the Second Ammendment . The putative reason for banning what are called "assault" rifles is that they allow the user to kill larger numbers in a shorter time. I have not understood what the acceptable number of victims is before "something must be done." People have been arguing that "something must be done" about handguns for a long time. And handguns have been used to kill far more people in this country than those killed by "assault" weapons. The whole argument has long been about criminals killing people, not how many. And if you can set a precedent that some guns can be used to kill larger numbers and so must be banned, the door to banning "less" lethal guns will be opened a crack more.
I don't know where reason stands between the second ammendment and an adult or reasonable discussion about it. Arguments about what it means or what types of arms it means are like most other arguments about what portions or clauses of the Constitution "mean." That is, discussion of constitutional meaning , except by strict constructionists, are about how the Constitution can be bent or changed to fit the preference of majorities, or interest groups, or judges who feel their position to be above the law and are thus empowered to write it.
There is nothing in the unammended Constitution that gives the Federal Government the power to regulate private gun ownership. The Second Ammendment was not needed in that regard. Madison warned against such ammendments. The Constitution, as written, limited the central government to certain enumerated powers. The restriction of private gun ownership was not mentioned as a power or was not a part of any enumerated power. The Constitutions "silence" on the issue "means" that the Federal Government does not have the power. Madison warned against amendments that "gauranteed" rights which were already inherent in the Constitution because it would open the door to a discussion of those rights as being limited by the strict wording of the ammendment rather than being unlimited or unalienable against the power of the central government. Even worse, he warned that future mischief could be done to the entire body of the Constitution by the addition of a bill of rights because that bill could be construed as the limit of the people's rights rather than the people's rights being the vast majority which are left to them by limiting the government to the few enumerated powers. He reluctantly wrote the first set of ammendments so that the States, whose reprentatives vehemently wanted a bill of rights, would all agree to and accept the Constitution. What he feared has to a great extent happended. SCOTUS judges most often now only give strict scrutiny to Federal infraction of a few rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the rest of the Constitution having been re-interpreted to mean whatever five or more judges wish it to mean. And even those rights in the Bill of Rights have become weaker, including not only the right to bear arms but also freedom of speech and religion. And the massive changes and effective negation of the Constitution have come about by "reasonable" jurisprudence.
Last edited by detbuch; 12-24-2012 at 02:57 PM..
Reason: typos and addition
Aside from some papers there have been a number of Republicans rethinking their position on how we regulate guns.
-spence
let's see..."...."papers" and republicans rethinking their positions, a large number of Republican voices speaking out in favor of some action, usual conservative "papers" are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case"
just stick with vague and broad when did "papers" start drilling and (re)thinking
This is truly the thread I can separate the political fanboys from those who actually have a clue and know wtf they are talking about.
Bring it on boys.I know there are two representing either side of the aisle who say equally some of the dumbest things that could be uttered on this subject.
C'mon guys don't fail me now.I need to truly be disappointed by some real stupidity.
Here is my 2 cents, The media in this country sucks. They try to one up each other, and never wait for the facts to come out, often erroneously reporting facts. They originally reported he used an AR, but the police stated they found 4 handguns in the school, and they found one long gun in the trunk of the car.
In the video of them opening the trunk of the car, the long gun in question appears to possibly be a tactical shotgun. Feinstein let it be known long before the election that she was going to push an assault weapons ban again, and they are using the erroneous news reports to push her bull#^&#^&#^&#^& agenda. Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted, you need a class 3 license to buy one, then the guns usually are in the thousand of dollars, on top of that is the large tax you pay to own them.
Should there be some regulations on guns absolutely, but these regulations should not be made by people who are largely uneducated with regards to firearms.
Some things that need to change, in the south most states only require you to be a resident and show a drivers license to buy a gun. This need to change, they need to make people get a gun license, and pass a strict background check, period. I know of stories of people from down south that come up here, with 10 handguns serial numbers obliterated to sell on the street, these are your straw purchasers. They usually come up to visit relatives, but their primarily reside down south.
I am all for a magazine restriction, no one really needs 100 round Beta mags.
Institute a tax break or incentive for people to buy gun safes. I have a combination lock gun safe and I can get into it in under 5 seconds. Again no big deal.
The type of gun has no meaning, a gun is a gun , is a gun, they all go boom and can all kill you so banning a certain type is not going to solve anything, and it would take a very long time for a gun ban to go into effect. Btw the governments own studies show that the 94 law was largely in effective in reducing gun crime or deaths. So does it really work?
What will work tomorrow or right away? Armed security or police officers in the schools will work. This can be implemented right away, temporarily use current police, and hire a new armed school police force. Cost should not be a factor, we spend millions upon millions of dollars in foreign aid, lets cut that back and take care of our own kids.
Last edited by The Dad Fisherman; 12-27-2012 at 07:03 AM..
Reason: Fixed linking
Here is my 2 cents, The media in this country sucks.
the "apoplexy" that Spence speaks of is actually on the part of the main stream media and their political allies defaulting to a predictable emotional narrative that ignores facts and drums ahead with a political agenda...it shouldn't be surprising....
if you are a progressive democrat...just look at it as an opportunity to create another bureaucracy with new union members
Bring it on boys.I know there are two representing either side of the aisle who say equally some of the dumbest things that could be uttered on this subject.
Hybrid Mode
