View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Charlie Vignola: Sensible about gun control

Posted: May 20, 2014 6:03 p.m.
Updated: May 20, 2014 6:03 p.m.
 

Gun owners are passionate about their guns, and there’s nothing wrong with that – but wouldn’t it be refreshing if they were just as passionate about reducing all the needless deaths caused by gun violence every single year?

Unfortunately, the gun lobby only ever seems to have one perpetual solution to the problem: more guns.

Truth is, there are still lots of sensible things we should be doing – criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees, limits on excessive ammo clips, mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen, closing the gun show loophole that allows even the mental ill to buy guns, etc.

The problem is any time these ideas are floated, the NRA shrieks about “attacks” on the second amendment to shut down the conversation. But if we can’t have adult debates about gun safety, then we can’t have gun safety.

One measure conservatives always fight against is the idea of requiring people to register their firearms, explaining as if we’re all idiots that “criminals don’t follow laws.” Why should law-abiding citizens have to register their guns if criminals won’t do it?

Well, the obvious answer is that’s an absurd argument. You could just as easily ask why we bother to have any laws at all since criminals will just ignore them.

I’ve never quite understood why conservatives are so paranoid about having to register their firearms with the proper authorities. Why do they want the fact that they’re armed to be such a big secret anyway?

It can’t be privacy, since gun owners seem to be universally very public and vocal about their right to carry guns – and please don’t tell me it’s to prepare against the coming of the New World Order.

We know more about people’s children than we do about their guns: they get social security numbers, and are tracked in census information and public school testing. Are we really suggesting that guns are more sacred than children in terms of privacy and secrecy from the government?

Speaking of children, it’s only been 17 months since the senseless slaughter of 20 students at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December of 2012. Since then, there have been over 48,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. according to the Center for Disease Control – equivalent to 16 times the number of casualties we suffered on 9/11.

So the big question is: why aren’t Republicans just as outraged about this on-going horror show? 4 deaths in Benghazi is worth considering impeachment hearings... but 48,000 deaths of Americans on U.S. soil doesn’t merit a robust national discussion?

It often seems like conservatives are only concerned about American deaths when it’s foreigners doing the killing.

If it’s just other armed Americans killing Americans, well that’s just the price we pay for having the 2nd Amendment.

Some conservatives believe that the homicide rates in England and Australia are just as bad as America even though they’ve outlawed guns. Well, let’s look at the stats: According to Interpol, the homicide rate per 100,000 population in America is 5.6. The homicide rate per 100,000 in England is 1.6, and in Australia it’s 1.3.

That means you’re more than three times more likely to be murdered in America than in England, and four times more likely than in Australia. And that doesn’t even take into account suicides by gun: after Australia’s gun ban, firearm suicide rates dropped a whopping 65%.

I wonder what the number of gun deaths per year would have to be for people to get serious about gun control in America? It’s already around 30,000 per year – but what if it was twice that? Three times? 100,000 people a year killed by guns, would that do it?

Seriously, what’s the tipping point where even the NRA would have to take a breath and say, “Okay, yeah, maybe this has gotten out of hand?” Because that tipping point exists – we just don’t know what it is yet.

You see, the pendulum swings both ways. The NRA and the gun lobby have enjoyed a lot of influence for a long time, but nobody stays hot at the casino forever – and the ones who ignore that warning are the ones who walk away broke, wondering if maybe they should’ve quit while they were ahead rather than pressing their luck.

The recent Georgia “guns everywhere” law – allowing people to bring guns into schools, government buildings, churches and bars – would be an example of pressing their luck. It’s idiotic and reckless decisions like that that anger reasonable people and show how the NRA’s influence has gotten out of hand.

You want to keep gun ownership safe and legal? Then stop passing new laws expanding the number and presence of guns until you go too far and rouse the vast silent majority of non-gun owners – 68% of households – who finally get fed up and suddenly demand drastic measures that won’t make you happy.

And if you think that can’t happen, just talk to the people in Australia.

Charlie Vignola is a former college Republican turned liberal Democrat. He lives in Fair Oaks Ranch, works in the motion picture industry and loves his wife and kids.

 

Comments

therightstuff: Posted: May 20, 2014 7:26 p.m.

"""So the big question is: why aren’t Republicans just as outraged about this on-going horror show? 4 deaths in Benghazi is worth considering impeachment hearings... but 48,000 deaths of Americans on U.S. soil doesn’t merit a robust national discussion?"""

A better question is why someone would exploit these deaths for partisan political attacks with a bogus charge about impeachment hearings. Damn those evil Republicans, right Charlie?


therightstuff: Posted: May 20, 2014 7:42 p.m.

""""Since then, there have been over 48,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. according to the Center for Disease Control – equivalent to 16 times the number of casualties we suffered on 9/11."""

And since that same time, over 200,000 abortions, 66 times the number of from 9/11. And yet you actually support this practice, huh Charlie?


chefgirl358: Posted: May 20, 2014 8:55 p.m.

"I’ve never quite understood why conservatives are so paranoid about having to register their firearms with the proper authorities. Why do they want the fact that they’re armed to be such a big secret anyway?"

Gee, maybe it's because liberals like you want to take our guns away! I just got back from a trip to Arizona. We went to Cabela's, where they have the most magnificent gun museum I've personally been to, and an INCREDIBLE array of awesome guns for purchase, many of which are illegal in our stupid state. The shotguns are actually out like fishing poles for anyone to pick up and check out and there were several rows of them. It was so great and such a refreshing change from CA.

One of my good friends moved to Idaho years ago. She got a CCW a few years back, every single person she knows there has one, literally, it's like a 2 hour safety course.

I'd venture to say that the vast majority of our states have laws like this and firearms accessibility to pretty much whatever you want and guess what, with the awful exception of a few fruit loops that do stupid and vile things that happen everywhere no matter what laws are in place or how many guns are banned, there are very few issues for law abiding citizens to buy, own and carry guns. In fact, many of those other states are MUCH safer because no criminal wants to mess with people they know have a strong chance of being armed.

How many people have died in car accidents? How many kids strangled themselves with vertical blind cords? Stuck their head in plastic bags? Drowned in a pool? Struck by lightning? Washed away in a mudslide in Washington? What about the psycho kid stabbing up the high school last month? The other kid that stabbed the girl who turned him down for prom? Crap happens. It happens less if you're a gun owner. Team gun all the way!


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 10:13 p.m.

Ah, yes..."responsible gun owners". Like these guys:

http://aattp.org/meet-the-dangerous-ammosexuals-and-gun-fetishists-that-invaded-chipotle-with-their-blessing/


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 10:57 p.m.

Mr. Vignola repeats the usual lazy gun control canards. Additionally, if he was a more diligent researcher, he'd discover that England has historically been a less violent society than the USA, even when their firearm laws were quite similar. Control for urban drug turf gang shootings and America statistically aligns with other advanced Western nation states.

Unlike his unsupported assertions, here's some actual data:

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 11:14 p.m.

"And that doesn’t even take into account suicides by gun: after Australia’s gun ban, firearm suicide rates dropped a whopping 65%."

Embarrassingly sloppy factoid. Obviously, those who are determined to commit suicide find the means to do so.

Suicide rates in Australia peaked in 1963 (17.5 per 100,000), declining to 11.3 per 100,000 in 1984, and climbing back to 14.6 in 1997. Rates have been lower than this since that year. The age-standardised suicide rate for persons in 2012 was 11.2 per 100,000.

http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats#sthash.rvuPvXUv.dpuf

Australia's suicide rate climbs as experts declare a 'national tragedy'

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/26/australias-suicide-rate-climbs-as-experts-declare-a-national-tragedy


Pottering: Posted: May 21, 2014 2:24 a.m.

Charlie, I'm one of those "people in Australia" you mentioned and you got it spot on in your article. The overwhelming majority of Australians look at America's gun culture and gun crime with bewilderment and wonder why you guys accept the situation you have when there are alternatives that are nowhere as draconian as folks like the NRA would make out.


Pottering: Posted: May 21, 2014 4:53 a.m.

Australian suicide rates peaked in 1997 (14.7) as the gun buyback was occurring and dropped away from that point. It is basically hovering around the 11 mark now. While the rate drop coincided with the gun laws there's only so much those laws can impact on that particular crime. While it wasn't promulgated as a reason for the laws it appears to have had a big influence.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 21, 2014 6:25 a.m.

This column is basically a rerun, so my comment will be the same.

Vignola is basically making the intellectually flaccid argument that guns cause their own misuse.

He quotes the usual anti-gunners' statistical canards, while overlooking a biggie that illustrates its falsehood: Switzerland.

In Switzerland, gun ownership is virtually universal... and in fact, mandatory. All people of military age are in the Swiss militia, if not on active duty, and REQUIRFED BY LAW to keep their military weapons -- including fully automatic machine guns -- in their homes with an appropriate amount of ammo on hand. Once they're too old for military service, they're allowed to purchase and retain those weapons for their own use.

If guns are the problem, how come the streets of Geneva aren't running ankle-deep in blood?

Further, even in this country, WHERE are the crime rates the highest? Why, in those very jurisdictions where gun restrictions are the most severe: Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, places like that.


Lotus8: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:33 a.m.

Brian Baker nailed it. The liberal arguments always make the assumption that people are not the problem, when in fact, people are at the root of all of these types of issues. From poor school performance (poor parenting) to guns (personal responsibility), the real root of the problem is never addressed.


17trillion: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:58 a.m.

" criminal background checks on gun owners"

We do that.

"and gun shop employees,"

We do that.

"limits on excessive ammo clips,"

We do that.

"mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen,"

I'm not sure if that is a law or not, but it's common sense. Naturally criminals would ignore this law.

"closing the gun show loophole that allows even the mental ill to buy guns,"

Who decides if you're mentally ill? I think your mentally ill and shouldn't be able to own a gun.

"etc."

Exactly! This is the problem. You use the word sensible Charlie? I do not think it means what you think it means.


17trillion: Posted: May 21, 2014 8:02 a.m.

"after Australia’s gun ban, firearm suicide rates dropped a whopping 65%"

Did suicide drop 65%? Slippery Charlie at work again...

Charlie, there is one reason you can't have our guns nor will we cede total control to the government on this issue. Are you ready? The answer is because WE WILL NEVER ALLOW YOU OR YOUR ILK TO HAVE THAT CONTROL. YOU WILL NEVER, EVER, PRY 2 OR 3 HUNDRED MILLION GUNS FROM OUR HANDS. NOT EVER! I would go to jail before I submit to you and your fascist buddies.


17trillion: Posted: May 21, 2014 8:03 a.m.

Blaming gun deaths on guns is like blaming obesity on spoons.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 21, 2014 8:07 a.m.

BrianBaker, excellent response, thank you.

17, I'm pretty sure they passed some CA law in the last few years that made it a crime to NOT report your gun stolen.

Define normal. A lot of people are mentally ill by textbook definitions, that doesn't mean they are going to run out and murder shopping malls full of people. Shouldn't there be some sort of nexus for the TYPE of mental illness? i.e.; schizophrenia or something along that line? I'm just saying, if someone has say, an anxiety disorder, eating disorder, is OCD, etc., should that preclude them from owning a firearm? I don't think so! Who gets to make these decisions, who reports someone as mentally ill? Who do they report it to? And do these people have an appeals process or something set up so they can dispute such a ruling? Believe me, I don't want people like Jared Loughner owning guns either, but there are millions and millions of people who suffer from various mental disorders technically speaking, that doesn't mean they're all psychopaths...far from it! Just because someone takes prozac shouldn't ban them from owning a gun.


OldReliable: Posted: May 21, 2014 8:30 a.m.

Liberals such as Vignola rail on and on about how tougher gun control laws will save children's lives, yet they are perfectly happy aborting unborn babies by the millions. Hypocrites.


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 8:33 a.m.

"it’s only been 17 months since the senseless slaughter of 20 students at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December of 2012."

That's just the price we have to pay for the 2nd Amendment. A few dozen dead children every once in a while. Oh, well.

" Since then, there have been over 48,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S."

Also, just the price we have to pay. 30,000 or so dead Americans each year. Just too bad, but again, nothing can be done. Just have to accept it and move on.


17trillion: Posted: May 21, 2014 8:42 a.m.

What exactly do you want Steve? Registration? Magazine limits? Waiting periods? WTF MORE DO YOU WANT?

Hammers kill more people in the US than rifles. Care to know the statistics on car deaths? You people will never, ever, get it. And to show you how little I care about what you think, I think I'll take my family to the shooting range this weekend and pick up some more ammunition.


17trillion: Posted: May 21, 2014 8:43 a.m.

55 million deaths from abortions since Roe. I guess that's just the price we have to pay for having a population too friggin stupid to buy a rubber. Oh well.....


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 9:13 a.m.

"What exactly do you want Steve? Registration? Magazine limits? Waiting periods? WTF MORE DO YOU WANT?"

Did I say I wanted anything? And even if I did, the pro-gun folks sure have ZERO ideas about how to reduce gun-related deaths, anyway.

Like I said before...nothing's going to change, we're going to continue to see dead children and 30,000 dead people overall each year. It's just the way it is.


17trillion: Posted: May 21, 2014 9:33 a.m.

"Did I say I wanted anything?"

If you don't want anything then I guess we'll have to be exposed to your continued whining! The point is that we already have all those things and it's still not enough. Have the balls to say you want a total ban or get out of the discussion.

"And even if I did, the pro-gun folks sure have ZERO ideas about how to reduce gun-related deaths, anyway."

Waaaaaaaa!


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 9:39 a.m.

Nonsense, Steve.

• Drain profits from the trade by halting the total failure of the "War on Drugs".
• Welfare reform to remove pernicious incentives for non-intact families and generational poverty.
• Families proactively monitor their members and ensure the mentally unstable or suicidal do not have access to firearms. Communities ensure that resources are available so the troubled individuals don't overwhelm these families as a public safety measure.
• Expand programs such as Cops in Schools (CIS)* to eliminate "Gun Free Zones" targets.

*The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help law enforcement agencies hire new, additional school resource officers (SROs) to engage in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools. CIS provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use community policing efforts to combat school violence.

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=54


CaptGene: Posted: May 21, 2014 10:01 a.m.

As if access to a gun was the reason Sandy Hook happened. What a simpleton.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 21, 2014 10:04 a.m.

More FACTS for you to try to dispute, stevie.

Switzerland.

As I wrote further up the thread.


17trillion: Posted: May 21, 2014 10:08 a.m.

Cars wouldn't kill if we didn't have access to tires! All this gun talk makes me want to go out and buy one....ooops, ANOTHER one!


garyr: Posted: May 21, 2014 10:36 a.m.

"Gun owners are passionate about their guns"

Meh... I own one and am not terribly passionate about it. It's just a tool. I'm about as passionate about it as am about my power drill or pneumatic stapler. I'd also be as annoyed if someone wanted to ban staplers and nailers, since you could certainly kill someone with them.

Both sides are way to emotional about it and that confuses the facts. Charlie's article does this and so do most of the posted comments. Violent crime rates have indeed been dropping since the 70's. Mass shootings are incredibly rare and have also been declining (I know it doesn't seem like it). If you exclude the former Confederacy, violent crime and gun crime rates look like those typical around the world.

We are asking the wrong questions.


therightstuff: Posted: May 21, 2014 10:53 a.m.

"""The liberal arguments always make the assumption that people are not the problem"""

Unless they're talking about global warming...er..uh...I mean climate change....or whatever the politically correct term is these days.

Look, Charelton Heston said best: Guns don't kill humans. Apes kill humans!


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 11:24 a.m.

I concur mostly with what you stated, garyr. How do you explain the violent crime rates in Chicago, Detroit, Trenton, etc.? They weren't part of the Confederacy.

Rather, control for the gang related drug crime in urban areas and violent crime statistics would be normalized.


garyr: Posted: May 21, 2014 11:40 a.m.

Those cities are the outliers that you would expect in any country. They happen and have specific causes that can be dealt with. The deep south is a complicated cultural problem with roots in cultural norms about honour and machismo that go back to the people that moved there from Europe a long time ago.

Gang related drug crime seems to be a key part of the problem. Part of the larger problem of our ill thought out and totally failed War On Some Drugs. Mexico has very strict gun laws. It also hugely profitable drug gangs (created by the US) so those laws make no difference.


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 11:49 a.m.

The one good idea I've heard here is to get rid of the "war" on drugs. It's completely ineffective, and only causes more violence (not to mention, adding to the police/surveillance state mentality). It's like we learned absolutely nothing from Prohibition.


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 12:14 p.m.

With the caveat that I'm not ascribing this to garyr and stevehw, this is why I find a huge disconnect among gun control advocates, i.e. apply the same recognition of the inability of laws and enforcement to eliminate drugs from society for 50+ years to gun regulation. As Steve noted, Prohibition is a casebook example of how elimination of a product when society accepts demand among the non-criminal class as legitimate creates the behavior legislation seeks to eliminate.

Even if you fallaciously ascribe inherent evil to objects (drugs or guns) rather than the people that misuse them, intellectual honesty requires admission that they can't be controlled by government.


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 12:19 p.m.

"intellectual honesty requires admission that they can't be controlled by government. "

That's not true...they *could*, but the measures any government would have to take would be draconian. Even then, they might not be 100% controlled, but it'd be close.

What it would truly take is a change in culture, and that's not likely to happen.


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 12:21 p.m.

Garyr, where's the data to support your assertion that the "deep south" has a dueling culture that's more problematic than the violent crime factors I noted? The data I've reviewed reflects the inverse, namely the urban area factors are the norm rather than outliers.


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 12:32 p.m.

I disagree, Steve. Police states have never been able to control black markets. Instead, the oligarchy and the criminal class become indistinguishable. Your belief in the ability to control doesn't comport with reality.

I agree that culture and society particular to each nation state determine violent behavior. Regulating those that aren't the causation of violence as the columnist suggests is magical thinking.


garyr: Posted: May 21, 2014 12:47 p.m.

The_Gun_Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know
By Philip J. Cook, Kristin A. Goss
Oxford University Press


Up in Arms
THE BATTLE LINES OF TODAY’S DEBATES OVER GUN CONTROL, STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS, AND OTHER VIOLENCE-RELATED ISSUES WERE DRAWN CENTURIES AGO BY AMERICA’S EARLY SETTLERS

http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/


http://www.alternet.org/economy/souths-battered-psyche-8-trends-bad-health-gun-violence-religious-fervor-and-poverty


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 21, 2014 2:18 p.m.

Try to buy a gun in Calif. Its a nightmare. Charlie obviously has not done that lately otherwise, he'd know that the restrictions are already there. He is thinking its the 1970's.

http://www.signalscv.com/archives/14177/ --edited.


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 2:19 p.m.

So as I said...there's really nothing to be done, nor *will* anything be done, about gun violence.

The government isn't going to end the "war" on drugs. They're not going to implement any more gun control laws (for various reasons), and as pointed out, we already have quite a few in place, already.

The culture sure isn't going to change and, in fact, seems to be going the *opposite* direction, with ever-more-vocal RKBA and CCW groups (including ever-more-outrageous groups like the one above, the militia groups like the ones who showed up to "stand down" the federal agents in Nevada, etc.).

So nothing is going to change, we're just going to have to accept that 30,000 people a year are going to die from gun violence, and that every so often, somebody is going to mow down a bunch of kids in a school or in a mall or wherever, and *there is nothing we can do about it*.

It's just the price we have to pay for having the 2nd Amendment.


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 2:20 p.m.

I'll review your links this evening, garyr.

Here's my source:

Crime rates per 100,000 people (2012)
Crime statistics are listed for U.S. cities with a population of 250,000 or greater. Rates are based on cases per 100,000 people for all of calendar year 2012.

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

I sorted the table by violent crime, descending.


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 3:55 p.m.

"The one good idea I've heard here is to get rid of the "war" on drugs." - stevehw

They're all good ideas and constitute a sum greater than the "ZERO" you asserted. You found one you agreed on.

By the I'm taking a project break with a K. Hansotia & Co. Park Avenue 44 on my patio. Also, Cigars International has excellent deals on Rocky Patel assortments. :-)


garyr: Posted: May 21, 2014 4:05 p.m.

Yes. Cities over 250,000 is skewing your perspective. Most of the US south doesn't clump up that way so it gets filtered out. Remove that filter. Sorting by state is far from perfect, but it's better.
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/2/

stevehw: Don't forget - gun violence IS going down and has been for a long time. Disaster porn on TV news makes seem like it's increasing, but it isn't.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 21, 2014 4:05 p.m.

Tech, I did the same thing before I wrote my first post, the one that mentioned Switzerland and the crime rates of American cities.

I want to point out that the data chart we both used doesn't have the crime rate for Chicago, listing it as "N/A". That skews the results, because if Chi-town's crime rate were in there, it'd be at or near the top of the list.

The stories about Chicago's soaring crime rate have been rampant in the media lately, some labeling it the new "Murder Capital" of the country. And needless to say, it has one of the most restrictive sets of gun laws in the country.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 21, 2014 4:13 p.m.

I don't think sorting by states helps, either.

For example, look at the rates for Oakland and San Francisco, right across the Bay from each other, in the same state. Very low in San Fran, extremely high in Oakland.

The issue, IMO, has more to do with cultural subsets, some economic factors, gang presence, things like that.

The majority of gun violence is committed by people with criminal records (I think I remember reading somewhere that most of the perps had more than one conviction), much of it drug or gang related.

Gun laws that are aimed at law-abiding citizens aren't going to do a thing to affect those factors, or those rates. Registration, magazine limits, one-gun-a-month, stuff like that... useless, and only affect people who are already law-abiding by default.


garyr: Posted: May 21, 2014 4:42 p.m.

"perp" thinking also obscures more than it reveals. Copthink breaks down the population to 1) cops 2) perps 3) perps that haven't been caught yet. Given the day to day experience of being a cop somewhere like Oakland I can totally understand how over years someone would come to think that way - still wrong.

Oakland's problem is not too many guns. It's not the "urban" culture. It's part poverty. It's a large part the idiotic War On Some Drugs. It's hugely about the for profit prison industry that makes $$$ from locking up young "urban" men for trivial drug "crimes". Once they get out of the prison factory they have no chance of a decent job or any kind of life outside of the underground economy. In that respect it's the same problem as Detroit and comparing it to nearby San Francisco is as meaningless as comparing Detroit to nearby Winsdor, Ontario.


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 5:18 p.m.

Here's a by state ranking of violent crime:

http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/pages/indexcrimerate09.aspx

And by homicide:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/576114-us-states-ranked-murder-rate-per.html

2012 update to homicide by state with map:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1956994-map-us-states-murder-rate-2012-a.html --edited.


garyr: Posted: May 21, 2014 5:45 p.m.

I don't know what that Oregon site is trying to present. The city-date one makes sense though:

1. District of Columbia 30.8
2. Louisiana 14.2
3. Maryland 9.8
4. Alabama 8.9
5. New Mexico 8.2
6. South Carolina 8.0
7. Georgia 7.5
7. Nevada 7.5
9. Arizona 7.4
10. Mississippi 7.1

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/576114-us-states-ranked-murder-rate-per.html#ixzz32OrgFtc2


BrianBaker: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:05 p.m.

"'perp' thinking also obscures more than it reveals."

Don't get hung up on a word. That was simply a term of convenience. In this case accurate, in that people who use guns to commit crimes are, indeed, "perpetrators", regardless of the underlying socio-economic issues attached.

But those issues don't excuse the criminal acts. They ARE, however, interesting to consider when we're talking about public policy, such as gun restrictions and their efficacy.

Clearly, if the gun violence is due to issues other than the presence of guns, then gun restrictions are going to be unproductive at best, and probably counterproductive if they prevent law-abiding citizens from having the tools to protect themselves.


Nitesho: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:11 p.m.

Out of respect for the anti-gun crowd, I promise to never use my gun to help you.

Please post a "gun free zone" sign on your front yard. I am sure you will be left alone.


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:31 p.m.

Hold on there, Nitesho. Won't those signs prevent the assistance of public servants who show up with guns to protect the innocent and prevent any further violence?


tech: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:36 p.m.

In that list, there are 22 states that are above the national average:

1. District of Columbia 30.8
2. Louisiana 14.2
3. Maryland 9.8
4. Alabama 8.9
5. New Mexico 8.2
6. South Carolina 8.0
7. Georgia 7.5
7. Nevada 7.5
9. Arizona 7.4
10. Mississippi 7.1
11. Michigan 6.7
11. Arkansas 6.7
13. Florida 6.6
14. North Carolina 6.5
14. Missouri 6.5
16. Tennessee 6.4
16. Alaska 6.4
18. California 6.2
19. Oklahoma 6.1
20. Texas 5.9
20. Illinois 5.9
22. Pennsylvania 5.8
23. Indiana 5.6 **US National Rate**

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/576114-us-states-ranked-murder-rate-per.html#ixzz32PMJFf1V


Indy: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:37 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: "I’ve never quite understood why conservatives are so paranoid about having to register their firearms with the proper authorities. Why do they want the fact that they’re armed to be such a big secret anyway?"

Gee, maybe it's because liberals like you want to take our guns away!

Indy: Thanks, I’ve got the talking point down . . .

But how do you feel that some 30,000+ Americans die from guns each year?

And here’s the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What did the Founding Fathers mean with the phrase ‘well regulated’?


Indy: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:40 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: """"Since then, there have been over 48,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. according to the Center for Disease Control – equivalent to 16 times the number of casualties we suffered on 9/11."""

And since that same time, over 200,000 abortions, 66 times the number of from 9/11. And yet you actually support this practice, huh Charlie?

Indy: As we’ll see as we move to Noverber’s midterm election, the conservative media will really be playing up the core issues with religious conservatives that include ‘guns, God, gays, and abortion’.

The reality of abortions is that nobody I know even those that are ‘pro-choice’ wants abortions and never to be used for birth control.

Yet, religious conservatives fight against ‘sex education’ and non-abortive ‘birth control’ that eliminate abortions.

Why is that?


Indy: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:44 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: Brian Baker nailed it. The liberal arguments always make the assumption that people are not the problem, when in fact, people are at the root of all of these types of issues. From poor school performance (poor parenting) to guns (personal responsibility), the real root of the problem is never addressed.

Indy: I think most Americans have no problem with guns that are used for hunting and self-protection.

I think the issue gets cloudy with respect to militarized semi-auto assault rifles that are designed to kill people quickly, effectively, and in great numbers.

With that said, how did you feel about the young man that went to the Sandy Hook Elementary School and ‘executed’ both the young kids and teachers with an assault rifle?

Should he have had the ‘right’ to possess such a ‘weapon of war’ for ‘personal use’?


Indy: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:51 p.m.

When we discuss death by firearms, specialty ‘murder’, only three nations from this data set were above the US total of about 9,000 per year.

Australia had ‘59’ . . .

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Murders-with-firearms

In any event, the US is a ‘violent’ nation . . . with the largest military in the world that sees the US spending more than the next 10 nations ‘COMBINED’ including Russia and China (who we outspend 5 to 1).

Anyway, do you feel safe in America? Would you feel ‘safer’ in Australia?

And with the amount of guns in the US, how do you feel our ‘law enforcement’ officers feel like when they try to ‘manage’ a citizenry so willing to use guns?


WeNotYOu: Posted: May 21, 2014 8:05 p.m.

"According to Interpol, the homicide rate per 100,000 population in America is 5.6. The homicide rate per 100,000 in England is 1.6, and in Australia it’s 1.3."
The author believes that England and Australias low homicide rate is due to its gun control laws. However, the author does not mention how much the homicide rate dropped after they banned guns. I will show you why.
At this website there is a chart that shows the homicide rate of the US compared to the UK from 1901-199. Scroll down until you find it.
http://violentdeathproject.com/countries/united-kingdom
In the years 1901-1999 the UK homicide rate has never reached 2.0. In the UK they banned rifles and shotguns in 1988. Handguns were banned in 1997. The author claims the current homicide rate is 1.6. After looking at the chart explain to me how their gun ban has saved lives. You can point to a country that has never had a homicide rate above 1.6-1.8ish and claim that the country has less homicides when their current rate is 1.6. Thats why the author did not tell you how much it decreased. It hasn't gone down at all.

The Australia homicide rate peaked in the late 80's at about 2.2 then began a steady decline. In 1997 they banned all guns. Check the chart provided. In 1994 the rate was about 1.8. Now its 1.3 so the author claimed. Not much different.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/8f1f383829ef039fca2570ec001b2fc4!OpenDocument


garyr: Posted: May 21, 2014 8:19 p.m.

In my humble opinion Brian Baker is almost always wrong about almost everything. Like a broken clock he is correct twice a day.

"Clearly, if the gun violence is due to issues other than the presence of guns, then gun restrictions are going to be unproductive at best"

It is and it will be. Yes. Fine. So now what do we do? Any solution that involves a time machine is not a solution. And no - just screaming BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIII!!!! isn't a solution either.


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 9:09 p.m.

Thanks for the rehash of what I refuted a year + ago, Indy.


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 9:16 p.m.

"Should he have had the ‘right’ to possess such a ‘weapon of war’ for ‘personal use’? "- Indy

I'll address this, however. What makes the rifle Lanza used a "weapon of war", Indy?


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 9:27 p.m.

Nicely done on the the statistics in your post, WeNotYOu.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 22, 2014 9:33 p.m.

Garyr: "In my humble opinion Brian Baker is almost always wrong about almost everything. Like a broken clock he is correct twice a day.... Any solution that involves a time machine is not a solution. And no - just screaming BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIII!!!! isn't a solution either."

Hmmmmm....

And here I thought I'd actually caught you in a rare rational moment. But alas, it was not to be.

Instead, you instantly jumped into ad hominem attack mode, just like your cohorts stevie and Indy, wildly throwing around irrelevant, and in this case completely baseless, hysteria. The usual lefty Dem/socialist rant.

Gotta say, you guys completely crack me up with your stuff. Even when we agree on something, you simply can't put a cork in it, can ya?

Well, anyway, I guess I'll have to settle for being "correct twice a day". At least that means I'm twice as accurate as YOU.
--edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 22, 2014 9:43 p.m.

"Indy: I think most Americans have no problem with guns that are used for hunting and self-protection."

The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting; and semi-auto guns are GREAT for self-protection.

And here I am, quoting the Constitution and Bill of Rights to you, the guy who's clearly demonstrated his complete ignorance of both.

I'll take it a step further before you roll out the tired old cliché about the use of the word "militia" in that Amendment.

Ooops! I see I'm too late!

Indy: "What did the Founding Fathers mean with the phrase ‘well regulated’?"

Doesn't matter. What's more important is what the word "militia" means. And guess what? It's actually DEFINED by the US Code, to wit:

"10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

"(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

What that means, bud, is that anyone of military age who isn't on active duty in the military, or serving in their state's National Guard, is a member of the unorganized militia, as long as they're a law-abiding citizen or legal resident intending to become a citizen.

Period.

That's the federal definition of "militia".

(PS. In The Federalist Papers, those publications you know nothing about, the Founders actually explain the term "well regulated", as well as in their other contemporaneous writings. Get a clue. Do some research.) --edited.


stevehw: Posted: May 22, 2014 10:34 p.m.

Hey, tech...sounds like a nice break :) Unfortunately, out of town on business, no cigars in the hotel :( Have to wait until this weekend to pick up some Rocky Patels! Thanks for the tip...


stevehw: Posted: May 22, 2014 10:48 p.m.

Yes, some of us know what "well-regulated" *actually* means. And since you've given us the definition of "militia", wouldn't a proper reading of the Constitution mean that ONLY those members of the militia *as defined* have the right to keep and bear arms? That is, only males between 17 and 45, etc.?

I find it very odd that the 2nd Amendment is the only one with this nice little preamble "a well-regulated militia etc. etc.", and yet we're supposed to pretend like it means *nothing*, has *no effect*, makes *no limitations*, contains *no restrictions*, and is only there to add some flowery language that everyone is supposed to ignore.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 22, 2014 8:04 a.m.

Actually, steve, I agree. Technically, the definition of "militia" only attaches to people between the ages of 17 and 45. How age-ist! But, of course, it's because when you get to be "too old" you're not an effective warrior/soldier anymore.

As I mentioned earlier, in Switzerland they address the issue by allowing people to buy and retain their military weapons once they pass military age.

As to the term "well regulated", the terminology isn't confusing at all if you're familiar with the practices of the day. It means that militia members were required to have certain items at all times available, at their own expense. Among those items were a weapon and a specified minimum amount of ammo (ball, powder and flints). There are plenty of old contemporary documents of the era kicking around in museums and archives that you can find online and read for yourself.

Even in the modern era we've seen the value in this. During WW2 the Japanese high command was discussing the possibility of invading this country, Yamamoto wrote the following:

"To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices."

Can you imagine any country trying to invade us and facing millions upon millions of private citizens (the "unorganized militia") armed with their own guns? It would be a military impossibility, and Yamamoto recognized that.

Hell, even in the modern era we've seen examples of this. Dinky Afghanistan defeated the might of the Soviet Union, leading to the collapse of their government.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 22, 2014 8:45 a.m.

Indy, I feel about the 30,000 gun incident deaths each year the same way I feel about the 30 - 35 thousand deaths from car accidents each year in the U.S., like it's really too bad, but crap happens. I know that sounds like it's not enough, but truly that's what it boils down to. People get killed by all kinds of strange things every year from garage doors squishing them, to cars falling on top of them while working underneath, to being killed by acts of nature, car accidents, house fires, on and on and on....in fact, a lot of people are being stabbed to death lately including those three little kids in Torrance this week. Should be ban knives? It just is what it is and there will always be a yin to the yang no matter what the issue at hand is. I don't think that we should keep legislating things to death and trying to keep people protected in plastic bubbles. Life has inherent risks and the vast majority of people will NEVER be affected by gun violence of any kind, but I truly believe that we should have the absolute right to arm and protect ourselves if we choose to. I think that VERY FEW incidents happen from law abiding citizens doing something bad, it's nearly always a criminal and laws don't apply to them because they simply don't respect laws or care. More laws just make everything ever more difficult for good citizens to enjoy their constitutional rights. I also don't believe we should force people to wear helmets or seatbelts that are over the age of 18. Should we force EVERYONE to wear a condom to prevent disease? I think that people who appear to be mentally stable consenting adults should be allowed to make their own choices, even if they aren't great ones.

Also, have you ever been shooting? It's really fun and I know many people who do it as a family event. They take the kids and teach them gun safety and let them plink away on a .22 and have a ball. Last time I went to the range there was a set of grandparents there with their two grandsons (probably about 5 and 7), teaching them to shoot. It was great to see and everyone had a good time. I was 6 or 7 when my dad taught me to shoot. I frequent the range several times a year now to keep my perishable skills sharp and because I simply enjoy it. Gun enthusiasts see guns as works of art, I have guns that are simply beautiful with engraving and gorgeous wood...they are more than the sum of their parts to many people. They can also be family heirlooms. I have a few shotguns that belonged to my great, great Grandfather. One is black powder and weighs a ton and is not usable anyway, but they are cool and a beautiful display piece and a link to my family's past.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 22, 2014 9:15 a.m.

Yep, chefgirl, I took my daughter to the range and taught her how to shoot starting when she was about 5 or 6. It was an absolute hoot, and we both had a great time every time we went.

Turned out she was a natural, too. Still is. Back in high school, she could outshoot her boyfriend of the time (and since he was such a dweeb, he couldn't handle that), and can outshoot her husband. Of course, she had a pretty good teacher!

LOL

Started her out on .22s, and now she's up to 9MMs and .45 ACPs (1911-style pistols).

If I could get into my Wayback Machine, I'd encourage her to get into competing. I think she could have done very well.


17trillion: Posted: May 22, 2014 9:29 a.m.

Both of my kids 7 and 9, know how to shoot and are very familiar with gun safety. They know we have guns in the house and they know they having different kinds of locking mechanisms on them. Education, my lefty friends, is the key.


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 9:32 a.m.

Nice post, chefgirl.

My brother and I grew up plinking BB guns in our Santa Monica backyard. When we could follow safety rules consistently, Dad started us out with a .22 rifle.

My wife, 3 sons + son's girlfriend (1st time shooter) will have fun at the range with pistols this weekend.

I just purchased a pistol and installed a Crimson Trace Laserguard as an early birthday present for my wife. We've owned firearms for decades but this will be her 1st personal sidearm. We'll break that in and put some rounds through a pistol I've owned since I was 22 as well.

They all get a kick out of banging on steel targets! It'll be a great day out. :-)


chefgirl358: Posted: May 22, 2014 10:20 a.m.

Thanks guys, it's nice to know other people who can appreciate it and have the nostalgic link to their memories with their parents (usually dads) who taught them to shoot.

Tech, sounds like fun, I hope you guys have a great time!


CaptGene: Posted: May 22, 2014 11:38 a.m.

You guys just think you're having fun!

Just kidding. I too have fond memories of shooting with big brother (LAPD) and my dad (Army), as well as my memories carrying on the tradition with my children. It really is a great pastime.

For the record, nobody in my family has ever had a firearm related mishap, or, save for incidents in the line of duty, had to discharge their weapon in self-defense. So far, simply having the weapon has proven to be a very effective deterrent.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 22, 2014 12:42 p.m.

When I went into the Army back in '69, those of us who already knew how to shoot did a LOT better than the guys who were starting out from scratch. Not only during training, but even in combat.

In Basic (8 weeks at the time) there's only so much trigger time you get because you're learning all the other stuff about being a soldier, too. Those who went on to be grunts (Infantry) got an AIT of 8 weeks at the time, and again, only so much trigger time.

Those of us who went into other fields got even less. I went through Intelligence school (12 weeks, as I recall), and we spent exactly zero time at the range, yet a lot of us still ended up in combat environments. In my case I was attached to a combat unit on the front lines.

The value of civilian marksmanship becomes very obvious under those circumstances. You're not trying to learn on the job, particularly something so essential to your survival.



stevehw: Posted: May 22, 2014 12:50 p.m.

"Actually, steve, I agree. Technically, the definition of "militia" only attaches to people between the ages of 17 and 45. "

Why is it "technically"? You yourself gave us the definition:

"What's more important is what the word "militia" means. And guess what? It's actually DEFINED by the US Code..."

So "technically", doesn't the 2nd Amendment ONLY apply to those who are members of "the militia" as defined by US Code (and as you provided)?

As I said, I know what "well-regulated" means in that context...it meant well trained, disciplined and prepared (not, as most people think now, that it is "regulated" by regulations).


BrianBaker: Posted: May 22, 2014 1:02 p.m.

Didn't you see where I wrote "How age-ist!"?

Sorry I wasted a joke on you, steve.

Don't take everything so seriously. Try to loosen up; have some fun.

Kudos on your understanding of the term "well-regulated". It really does constantly amaze me at how so few people actually DO know that.


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 1:13 p.m.

My dad served in the Coast Guard and the Santa Monica Fire Dept., CG. My brother-in-law is serving as a L.A. Deputy Sheriff. He received all his initial firearm safety training and expertise from his dad and now serves and protects. We have loads of fun shooting and upgrading our tactical rifles and are planning to get back into the reloading we did in our youth. I'm looking forward to teaching my sons that skill as well.

By the way, his family is of Chinese descent, my wife's is Hispanic and mine is Anglo-Germanic. We're all 2nd-4th generation immigrants who came to America to share the American dream of freedom and self-determination. Now we're all Americans!

So much for stereotypes, eh? --edited.


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 1:37 p.m.

"The value of civilian marksmanship becomes very obvious under those circumstances. You're not trying to learn on the job, particularly something so essential to your survival."

Precisely, Brian. Civilian marksmanship is a fine American tradition we seek to preserve.

Thank you for your service.

PS: Another brother-in-law is a Swiss national and shares our values of freedom, independence and marksmanship.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 22, 2014 2:06 p.m.

Brian, Very cool story and thank you for your service.

Tech, dig the ancestry, that's awesome. I'll bet you have some good chow at family gatherings!

My dad was huge into reloading. I used to love to sit in the garage with him as a kid and watch him cook the lead on his little camping stove and make bullets, and measure the powder and make shotgun shells. In fact, most people wouldn't know what this meant but my fondest recurrent memory of my dad is the smell of Hoppe's #9 and hanging with him in the garage while he cleaned guns. People who are afraid of guns have no idea how much they actually create opportunities for family fun and quality time together.

Incidentally, no one in my family has ever had a gun related incident either. And my family has been here for 3 generations now (from Germany) and spread throughout Oregon and No Cal back when everyone hunted and farmed, at least in my family and the only accidents that occurred were with farm equipment.


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 2:54 p.m.

Tech wrote: Thanks for the rehash of what I refuted a year + ago, Indy.

Indy: The poster has once again ‘earned’ the ‘pat yourself on the back’ award . . . well done!


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 2:56 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Instead, you instantly jumped into ad hominem attack mode, just like your cohorts stevie and Indy, wildly throwing around irrelevant, and in this case completely baseless, hysteria. The usual lefty Dem/socialist rant.

Indy: LOL! But consistent . . .


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 2:56 p.m.

Regarding the chow, you know it, chefgirl! We have some excellent cooks in the family. Me, I'm assigned grill duty to keep me out of the way!

Cool reloading memories. No doubt there's "jäger" in your background.

My brother and I used to while away the hours on a custom reloading bench he built. Dad didn't reload so we taught ourselves. We were young, single and broke so it was the only way we could afford to shoot!

We still have the plans for that reloading bench and are planning to reconstitute our setup. My sons and I are organizing the garage for space. Should be a fun family project! :-) --edited.


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:01 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Indy: I think most Americans have no problem with guns that are used for hunting and self-protection."

The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting; and semi-auto guns are GREAT for self-protection.

Indy: Yes, the 2nd Amendment has everything to do with a ‘A well regulated militia’ versus a crime against humanity where gun makers provide ‘private citizens’ military designed assault weapons that as I noted above: to kill people quickly, effectively, and in great numbers.


We’ve seen this in the Sandy Hook Elementary School where some terrorist murdered/executed small children and teachers.

Does that sound ‘well regulated’? Nope . . .

BrianBaker wrote: And here I am, quoting the Constitution and Bill of Rights to you, the guy who's clearly demonstrated his complete ignorance of both.

Indy: Yes, what part of this phrase doen’t you understand: A ‘well regulated militia’?

Why would the Founding Fathers put those words into the 2nd Amendment?

No conservative has ever answered that question . . .


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:12 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: I'll take it a step further before you roll out the tired old cliché about the use of the word "militia" in that Amendment. Ooops! I see I'm too late!

Indy: "What did the Founding Fathers mean with the phrase ‘well regulated’?"

Doesn't matter. What's more important is what the word "militia" means. And guess what? It's actually DEFINED by the US Code, to wit:

Indy: From what I see as we recently ‘saw’ in Nevada with Clive Bundy (think . . . Negro) is a bunch of ‘separatist’ that believe they will ‘overthrow’ the US government.

These folks are anarchist that like Bundy, want other Americans to ‘subsidize’ their activities by ‘our taxes’.

In any event, most of militias we see reported in the media are ‘white conservative supremacist groups’ . . . that I guess ‘fit right in’ with Bundy . . .

BrianBaker wrote: "10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

"(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

What that means, bud, is that anyone of military age who isn't on active duty in the military, or serving in their state's National Guard, is a member of the unorganized militia, as long as they're a law-abiding citizen or legal resident intending to become a citizen. Period. That's the federal definition of "militia".

Indy: Gee, pal, the US had no ‘military’ and wanted ‘citizens’ to be formed in small groups of militias . . . but today, we have the most powerful military in the world!

Times have changed . . . such that we don’t need untrained ‘private citizens’ carrying around lethal military assault weapons that interestingly we saw turned on ‘federal agents’ acting the public interest.

Whu that ‘left out’ of your recital?


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:13 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: (PS. In The Federalist Papers, those publications you know nothing about, the Founders actually explain the term "well regulated", as well as in their other contemporaneous writings. Get a clue. Do some research.) --edited.

Indy: Yes, it’s important to restate that the Constitution ‘stands on its own’. Any contriving of conservative ideology in any other document ignores the point that it wasn’t included in the Constitution.

But I believe the words ‘well regulated’ means exactly that just like our military is ‘well regulated’ so we don’t have Americans running around with flame throwers, tanks, mortars, or other weapons of military design . . .

I think it’s about time you get a grip . . .


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:16 p.m.

"Indy: Yes, what part of this phrase doen’t you understand: A ‘well regulated militia’?

Why would the Founding Fathers put those words into the 2nd Amendment?

No conservative has ever answered that question . . . "

If you troubled yourself to read before repeating your prior posts, Brian already did, Indy. And so did Steve.

Try it. You might learn something.


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:19 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: I find it very odd that the 2nd Amendment is the only one with this nice little preamble "a well-regulated militia etc. etc.", and yet we're supposed to pretend like it means *nothing*, has *no effect*, makes *no limitations*, contains *no restrictions*, and is only there to add some flowery language that everyone is supposed to ignore.

Indy: Yes, the ultra-conservative nationalist want those type of assault weapons for their goal of overthrowing the US government so they IGNORE the Constitution . . .

And while these folks will never overthrow our government . . . we'll see ‘nuts’ use such military style assault weapons to brutalize, maim and kill innocent Americans to keep this ‘separatist’ vision of America alive with right wing militias . . . that we saw, have no restraint when it comes to ‘law and order’.


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:29 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: Indy, I feel about the 30,000 gun incident deaths each year the same way I feel about the 30 - 35 thousand deaths from car accidents each year in the U.S., like it's really too bad, but crap happens. I know that sounds like it's not enough, but truly that's what it boils down to.

Indy: Don’t agree . . . and really have to think about your comparison where somebody in a traffic ‘accident’ is akin to having a young man enter an elementary school and execute young children and teachers . . .

chefgirl358 wrote: People get killed by all kinds of strange things every year from garage doors squishing them, to cars falling on top of them while working underneath, to being killed by acts of nature, car accidents, house fires, on and on and on....in fact, a lot of people are being stabbed to death lately including those three little kids in Torrance this week. Should be ban knives?

Indy: Yes, knives . . . another weapon that is inappropriately linked to ‘military style assault’ weapons.

If I was a teacher at that school, I could have picked up a chair and beaten that kid holding a knife instead of a military style assault weapon. Your comparison is ‘apples and oranges’.

chefgirl358 wrote: It just is what it is and there will always be a yin to the yang no matter what the issue at hand is. I don't think that we should keep legislating things to death and trying to keep people protected in plastic bubbles. Life has inherent risks and the vast majority of people will NEVER be affected by gun violence of any kind, but I truly believe that we should have the absolute right to arm and protect ourselves if we choose to.

Indy: Here again, most Americans have no problems with anyone owning weapons like shotguns that can protect one’s property . . . but even they are restricted to how man rounds they can hold.

chefgirl358 wrote: I think that VERY FEW incidents happen from law abiding citizens doing something bad, it's nearly always a criminal and laws don't apply to them because they simply don't respect laws or care.

Indy: Yes, some 85% of criminals in our jails are ‘functional illiterates’ . . . made ‘amazing’ since ‘every’ politician is ‘110% behind quality education’ . . . for the last 40 years of my adult life.

This is where the public, about 90% of them, using its ‘wisdom’ wanted congress to enact better ‘gun purchase screenings’ to keep weapons out of criminal hands but that ‘law’ was ‘rejected’ by NRA funding politicians . . . so much for democracy.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:33 p.m.

Tech, chefgirl, thanks for those kind words.


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:37 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: More laws just make everything ever more difficult for good citizens to enjoy their constitutional rights. I also don't believe we should force people to wear helmets or seatbelts that are over the age of 18.

Indy: Yes, in legal terms, this concept is known as the ‘assumption of risk’. But sadly, the ‘public’ will still help those injured not wearing a helmet costing us enormous amounts of money to help someone who knowingly or not, acted irresponsibly for their ‘own self-interest’ while ignoring the public interest.

chefgirl358 wrote: Should we force EVERYONE to wear a condom to prevent disease? I think that people who appear to be mentally stable consenting adults should be allowed to make their own choices, even if they aren't great ones.

Indy: Provided they can cover the cost to their person over their actions . . . I would agree. But let’s say somebody with HIV without a condom infected say your sister. And now you and your family are not stuck with the cost of health services. How is that fair?

chefgirl358 wrote: Also, have you ever been shooting? It's really fun and I know many people who do it as a family event. They take the kids and teach them gun safety and let them plink away on a .22 and have a ball. Last time I went to the range there was a set of grandparents there with their two grandsons (probably about 5 and 7), teaching them to shoot. It was great to see and everyone had a good time. I was 6 or 7 when my dad taught me to shoot. I frequent the range several times a year now to keep my perishable skills sharp and because I simply enjoy it. Gun enthusiasts see guns as works of art, I have guns that are simply beautiful with engraving and gorgeous wood...they are more than the sum of their parts to many people. They can also be family heirlooms. I have a few shotguns that belonged to my great, great Grandfather. One is black powder and weighs a ton and is not usable anyway, but they are cool and a beautiful display piece and a link to my family's past.

Indy: Yes, I have fired many types of military assault weapons from ‘my time’ (think M1 Grand, M1 carbine, 45 caliber ‘burp gun’, BAR, . . . ). . . none of which I would allow the public to purchase.

I’ve also owned ‘22s’ but would sell them to anyone who hasn’t taken a course in ‘gun safety’ where the ‘new owner’ understands that bullets travel ‘great distances’ . . .

In any event, I do appreciate your comments and style of debate . . . at least a reasonable person in the ‘middle’ can see both sides of the issue.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:39 p.m.

"Indy: Yes, what part of this phrase doen’t you understand: A ‘well regulated militia’?

"Why would the Founding Fathers put those words into the 2nd Amendment?

"No conservative has ever answered that question . ."


Are you blind, or did you just feel the need to post your blather before even reading further down the page?


"Indy: Gee, pal, the US had no ‘military’ and wanted ‘citizens’ to be formed in small groups of militias . . . but today, we have the most powerful military in the world!

"Times have changed . . . such that we don’t need untrained ‘private citizens’ carrying around lethal military assault weapons that interestingly we saw turned on ‘federal agents’ acting the public interest."


Then feel free to amend the Constitution. Until then the Second Amendment stands. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure.

"But I believe the words ‘well regulated’ means exactly that just like our military is ‘well regulated’ so we don’t have Americans running around with flame throwers, tanks, mortars, or other weapons of military design . . ."


Doesn't really matter what you "believe". As usual, you're wrong.




But thanks for the laughs. Really.


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:44 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Indy: Yes, what part of this phrase doen’t you understand: A ‘well regulated militia’? Why would the Founding Fathers put those words into the 2nd Amendment?
No conservative has ever answered that question . . . "

If you troubled yourself to read before repeating your prior posts, Brian already did, Indy. And so did Steve.

Indy: BB wrote: “it’s not relevant’ or words to that effect. That’s no answer . . .

Steve isn’t a conservative in the same definition that you and Baker are.

Tech wrote: Try it. You might learn something.

Indy: I’ve noted many times that I am here to help you . . . mainly in business, economic and management issues.

If you disclose your educational background that will help me help you better . . . what are you waiting for? Isn’t knowledge something you seek?


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:46 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Both of my kids 7 and 9, know how to shoot and are very familiar with gun safety. They know we have guns in the house and they know they having different kinds of locking mechanisms on them. Education, my lefty friends, is the key.

Indy: Yes, my Father taught me in the same manner . . . and never to point a gun any anyone . . . unless you’re going to shoot them . . . which is in ‘self-defense’.

Gun safety is the key here . . . and every person that wants to own a gun should demonstrate competence in same.


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:52 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Indy: Yes, what part of this phrase doen’t you understand: A ‘well regulated militia’? "Why would the Founding Fathers put those words into the 2nd Amendment? "No conservative has ever answered that question . ."


Are you blind, or did you just feel the need to post your blather before even reading further down the page?

Indy: Your so called ‘response’ was really nothing . . .


BrianBaker wrote: "Indy: Gee, pal, the US had no ‘military’ and wanted ‘citizens’ to be formed in small groups of militias . . . but today, we have the most powerful military in the world!

"Times have changed . . . such that we don’t need untrained ‘private citizens’ carrying around lethal military assault weapons that interestingly we saw turned on ‘federal agents’ acting the public interest."

Then feel free to amend the Constitution. Until then the Second Amendment stands. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure.

Indy: Don’t have to . . . the Founding Fathers were clear: ‘well regulated militia’. Perhaps if you said the words ‘out loud’ you might comprehend them better.

BrianBaker wrote: "But I believe the words ‘well regulated’ means exactly that just like our military is ‘well regulated’ so we don’t have Americans running around with flame throwers, tanks, mortars, or other weapons of military design . . ."

Doesn't really matter what you "believe". As usual, you're wrong. But thanks for the laughs. Really.

Indy: When you’re losing a debate, stop digging . . . is the best advice I can give you . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: May 22, 2014 3:57 p.m.

Hahahahaha!

Bubba, I don't know what to tell ya. Right here on this very thread, I defined "militia", and steve and I specifically stated exactly what "well regulated" means. It's right there in black and white.

Deny away. All you're doing is proving either your complete lack of attention, or lack of reading comprehension skills.

Maybe you need to follow your own advice, hmmm?

I think you've almost made it to China by now... Grab me some mu-shu while you're there, okay?


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 4:07 p.m.

Indy: When you’re losing a debate, stop digging . . . is the best advice I can give you . . .

Physician, heal thyself.

By the way, in your blizzard of posts, you failed to answer my question. Here it is again, in context:

"Should he have had the ‘right’ to possess such a ‘weapon of war’ for ‘personal use’? "- Indy

I'll address this, however. What makes the rifle Lanza used a "weapon of war", Indy?


17trillion: Posted: May 23, 2014 8:08 a.m.

"Gun safety is the key here . . . and every person that wants to own a gun should demonstrate competence in same."

Do you mean like it is, today, here in CA?


tech: Posted: May 23, 2014 12:53 p.m.

Precisely, 17t. Indy mentions it because he's unfamiliar with purchase, registration and use of firearms in CA.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/hscinfo


garyr: Posted: May 23, 2014 5:19 p.m.

Can't believe you are all still going on about this. Have you changed anyone's minds?

PS Brian: in logic or rhetoric an ad hominem argument is not saying "Brian Baker is almost always wrong". That's a simple statement. True or false it just stands on its own. An ad hominem argument would be "Brian Baker is always wrong. Brian Baker thinks 2+2=4 hence 2+2 cannot possibly = 4. The words certainly mean "to the man", but a statement "to the man" is not the same as an argument to it.


tech: Posted: May 23, 2014 7:15 p.m.

The stories exchanged were worth refuting the absurd assertions, garyr.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 23, 2014 7:39 p.m.

Garyr babbles on ceaselessly. A legend in his own mind.


tech: Posted: May 23, 2014 8:16 p.m.

I'll add a final thought that I read in the WSJ a couple of years ago that sums the issue up rather neatly.

Phillip Hubbell wrote:

A few things need to be clear. First, the Founders of this nation did not put the 2nd Amendment in place to protect deer hunting. Second, the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted us by the government. The rights listed exist sans government. This document points them out lest the people in government forget. Third, when you hear that this is a republic and not a democracy that is not merely rhetoric. There is a stark difference between the two forms of governance. In a Constitutional Republic, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and may not be altered by a mere vote of the government. The majority does not have the power to remove rights from the minority…and some rights are unalienable, meaning they are not in the purview of governments.

The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure the other ones are not usurped. It is there to make certain that any government we elect doesn’t become tyrannical or dictatorial. It is not there for hunters or even self-defense of our home from crime. It is there to provide protection from government seeking to take away freedom and liberty from the people. The Bill of Rights in its entirety will be protected by whatever means become necessary. That there are forces within our nation who have decided that our rights no longer serve them is immaterial to the existence of my right to bear arms. This is not a debate.

I am not interested in the give and take of opinions about basic rights. Another’s opinion of my basic rights doesn’t matter to me. You don’t have a say in whether I have free speech or the right of self-determination. It was a violent revolution that put the government out of the “granting rights” business. It will take another such action to change that.


stevehw: Posted: May 24, 2014 9:49 p.m.

"I am not interested in the give and take of opinions about basic rights. Another’s opinion of my basic rights doesn’t matter to me."

I'll be sure to remember this quote next time other discussions about rights come up... <wink>.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 24, 2014 10:25 p.m.

You DO understand that was a quote from an article, I assume.


stevehw: Posted: May 24, 2014 9:57 a.m.

Yes, Baker, I understand. Even without the quote marks.

I presume that because he quoted it, he believes what the author wrote.


stevehw: Posted: May 24, 2014 10:11 a.m.

"Indy, I feel about the 30,000 gun incident deaths each year the same way I feel about the 30 - 35 thousand deaths from car accidents each year in the U.S., like it's really too bad, but crap happens."

A little more crap happened last night...

7 dead at UCSB.

But hey...just the price we have to pay. Nothing can be done about it. Too bad, so sad.


CaptGene: Posted: May 24, 2014 10:19 a.m.

Wow, it turns out steve actually CAN learn something...will wonders never cease?


chefgirl358: Posted: May 24, 2014 10:25 a.m.

Steve, there were undoubtedly fatal traffic collisions last night and today too, should we ban cars?


chefgirl358: Posted: May 24, 2014 10:29 a.m.

Steve, considering you don't even know yet if the gun was registered to the shooter near UCSB, I think your assumptions are a bit preliminary. What if he stole the gun? Even if he didn't, crazy people who have never been committed or reported as cuckoo are everywhere, it's impossible to know who they are until they do something awful. We have no way of knowing who is going to snap, but in some of these cases, not all but some, like Jared Loughner, the family knows and they should bear some responsibility.


stevehw: Posted: May 24, 2014 10:47 a.m.

Did I ever say we should ban guns, chefgirl? And what assumptions did I make, anyway? I just stated the facts...somebody killed 7 people last night, shooting them to death, near UCSB. That's a fact.

Just a simple statement, that's all. There isn't anything we can do to stop it. It's just the price we have to pay. Like you said.


tech: Posted: May 24, 2014 11:51 a.m.

"I presume that because he quoted it, he believes what the author wrote."

I do. However, I delineate between the rights recognized by the Constitution and those granted legislatively that are subject to modification/removal via the same process.


stevehw: Posted: May 24, 2014 1:24 p.m.

"I delineate between the rights recognized by the Constitution and those granted legislatively that are subject to modification/removal via the same process."

Such as? (Let me guess...)


tech: Posted: May 24, 2014 2:53 p.m.

No guessing required. My statement stands on its own and requires no explanation. :-)


chefgirl358: Posted: May 24, 2014 6:25 p.m.

He also stabbed three people to death before he started shooting others. News says 4 guns were registered to him, parents called cops last month to say he was posting freaky videos online. He's pissed at the world because he's a 22 year old virgin and he hates women for not screwing him and hates men that are getting some. He could've just hired a hooker! The LA Times has articles about all of his rantings regarding being a hate filled virgin.


hopeful: Posted: May 24, 2014 6:42 p.m.

I wish that politicians would focus on reforming mental health laws instead of focusing on gun control. The Isle Vista Murderer was being seen by multiple therapists, and the parents KNEW that their son was about to explode, yet this murderer still couldn't be committed, despite the parents calling the police last month. As the laws are right now, it is nearly impossible for a parent or the police to force an adult to be institutionalized. Even if someone is successful at getting an adult admitted to a mental hospital against their will, they are usually only held for a 72 hour hold, which is not sufficient in most cases.

We need to increase mental health care, and we need to make it easier for parents, law enforcement officers, and therapists to commit mentally ill adults, so the mentally ill can get the help they need, and so these individuals can no longer go on killing rampages.


Indy: Posted: May 24, 2014 7:46 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Hahahahaha!

Indy: Hmmmmm . . .

BrianBaker wrote: (smartest person at this forum), I don't know what to tell ya. Right here on this very thread, I defined "militia", and steve and I specifically stated exactly what "well regulated" means. It's right there in black and white.

Indy: Keep in mind that a ‘well regulated militia’ in the modern world isn’t about a bunch of individual Americans having ‘military style assault weapons’ without ‘supervision’.

Why do you think even our Army ‘issues’ weapons prior to combat and takes them back thereafter?

Think . . . ‘well regulated’.

BrianBaker wrote: Deny away. All you're doing is proving either your complete lack of attention, or lack of reading comprehension skills.

Indy: Again, I’m just here to help you interpret the ‘Constitution’ ‘as written’ . . . not interpreted by conservative ideologies to fit their own particular needs . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Maybe you need to follow your own advice, hmmm?

Indy: As I can see here . . . lots of conservatives here need help with topics in law, management, economics and basic business . . . again, just here to help you.

BrianBaker wrote: I think you've almost made it to China by now... Grab me some mu-shu while you're there, okay?

Indy: Yes, I really like Chinese food . . . Panda Express a must!


Indy: Posted: May 24, 2014 7:53 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: When you’re losing a debate, stop digging . . . is the best advice I can give you . . .

Indy: Thanks for the tip . . . and I’m here as well to help you understand again basic economics, business, and management.

Tech wrote: Physician, heal thyself.

Indy: Without hands! Too cool . . .

Tech wrote: By the way, in your blizzard of posts, you failed to answer my question. Here it is again, in context:

"Should he have had the ‘right’ to possess such a ‘weapon of war’ for ‘personal use’? "- Indy

I'll address this, however. What makes the rifle Lanza used a "weapon of war", Indy?

Indy: Again, the 2nd Amendment was written when Americans had ‘single shot flintlocks’ is a bit different than an individual today with a semiautomatic military style assault weapon . . . designed to kill people quickly, efficiently, and with deadly force . . . now with ‘barrel clips’ that hold 100 rounds is something we don’t need people running around with.

The results of such possession is the horrific killing sprees that now include small children in a elementary school or people going to the movies . . .

So no, these weapons should be removed . . . in much the same manner we don’t allow people to have fully auto machine guns, mortars, flamethrowers, or grenade launchers.

Just think ‘well regulated’ and you’ll see the light . . .


Indy: Posted: May 24, 2014 7:57 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "Gun safety is the key here . . . and every person that wants to own a gun should demonstrate competence in same."

Do you mean like it is, today, here in CA?

Indy: Here’s a good summary . . . http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ca.htm


tech: Posted: May 25, 2014 11:08 p.m.

Indy: Again, the 2nd Amendment was written when Americans had ‘single shot flintlocks’ is a bit different than an individual today with a semiautomatic military style assault weapon . . . designed to kill people quickly, efficiently, and with deadly force . . . now with ‘barrel clips’ that hold 100 rounds is something we don’t need people running around with.

Those flintlocks represented leading edge weapons of the time. Technology evolves and the terminology you used indicates you have zero expertise in weapons tech.

You wouldn't posit that the 1st Amendment only applies to hand operated printing presses and not the internet or mobile platforms, would you? --edited.


tech: Posted: May 25, 2014 11:13 p.m.

Tell me which of these rifles have greater lethality, Indy.

http://www.benelliusa.com/r1-big-game-rifle

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?fid=002B&cid=031&tid=001

http://www.impactguns.com/sig-sauer-m400-ar15-carbine-16in-556-california-legal-rm400-16b-c-ca-798681436347.aspx --edited.


Pottering: Posted: May 25, 2014 4:55 a.m.

WeNotYou wrote, "The Australia homicide rate peaked in the late 80's at about 2.2 then began a steady decline. In 1997 they banned all guns. Check the chart provided. In 1994 the rate was about 1.8. Now its 1.3 so the author claimed. Not much different."

First of all they did not, "Ban all guns", that's simply a pro-gun lie trying to fool anybody dumb enough to believe it.

The murder rate has dropped by a third since 1996 and the specific crime the gun laws targetted (firearm mass murder) has gone from 11 events in the preceding decade to zero in the 18 years since. It seems it's hard to please some people.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 25, 2014 6:49 a.m.

How come none of you gun-banners have responded to what I wrote about Switzerland WAY up the thread?

If your thesis that guns cause crime were true, the streets of Switzerland would be awash in blood. Instead, that country has one of the lowest crime rates on the continent, if not the world.


tech: Posted: May 25, 2014 7:39 a.m.

Topics: campbelltown, drive-by shooting, gun crime, shooting, sydney

Woman in bedroom injured during drive-by shooting
Comments (1) » APN Newsdesk 22nd Sep 2013 4:00 PM

http://www.ballinaadvocate.com.au/news/Woman-in-bedroom-injured-during-driv-b-shooting/2028082/

Topics: armed robbery, editors picks, gold coast, guns, police, shooting

Police officer shot in face at Gold Coast armed robbery
Emma Galliott and APN reporters 27th Sep 2013 6:29 AM Updated: 10:07 AM

http://www.ballinaadvocate.com.au/news/police-officer-shot-after-call-gold-coast-armed-ro/2034258/





stevehw: Posted: May 25, 2014 10:44 a.m.

"How come none of you gun-banners have responded to what I wrote about Switzerland WAY up the thread?"

Doesn't Switzerland have mandatory military service?


stevehw: Posted: May 25, 2014 10:50 a.m.

Let's look a little closer at Switzerland, shall we?

"The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (recruit school), the basic-training camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).

Each soldier is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm SIG SG 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home or (as of 2010) in the local armoury (Zeughaus). Up until October 2007, ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.[4] The ammunition was intended for use while travelling to the army barracks in case of invasion.

In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still store ammunition at home today.[5]"
...
"The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.[citation needed]"

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


stevehw: Posted: May 25, 2014 10:55 a.m.

"To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disqualified (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.[9][better source needed]
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 must ask for Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit).[10][better source needed]"

And here is what is probably the key info:

"Government statistics for the year 2010[18] records 40 homicides involving firearms, out of the 53 cases of homicide in 2010.

The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population was 0.70, which is one of the lowest in the world.[19] The annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 0.52.[20]"

Switzerland *already has* a very low homicide rate...and even with that, 80% of the homicides were gun-related.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 25, 2014 12:16 p.m.

Funny how you left something out, steve. Lemme help you out:

You got this part right: "In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still store ammunition at home today.[5]"

But you left THIS part out: "There is no restriction on possessing personally purchased ammunition capable of being used in their issued weapon, and such ammunition is readily available in shops and at many firing ranges.

"The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia."


What happened, steve? More of your selective reading ability? It just didn't fit your narrative?



You asked this question: "Doesn't Switzerland have mandatory military service?"

Indeed it does. Every Swiss citizen is a member of the Swiss militia. Just as every law-abiding American is a member of the militia, too, as we've already discussed. Kinda renders your question moot.


I particularly like this one: "Switzerland *already has* a very low homicide rate...and even with that, 80% of the homicides were gun-related."


Yes. Exactly. You said it yourself: "Switzerland *already has* a very low homicide rate".

And yet they are absolutely SATURATED with guns, including privately-held full-auto submachine guns. So I guess it's not the guns, or their presence, causing crimes.

Thanks for illustrating my point.


tech: Posted: May 25, 2014 12:20 p.m.

Review this Swiss video.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=612_1312658863

In the past, civilian marksmanship safety programs were common in US schools.


Indy: Posted: May 25, 2014 3:30 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Again, the 2nd Amendment was written when Americans had ‘single shot flintlocks’ is a bit different than an individual today with a semiautomatic military style assault weapon . . . designed to kill people quickly, efficiently, and with deadly force . . . now with ‘barrel clips’ that hold 100 rounds is something we don’t need people running around with.

Those flintlocks represented leading edge weapons of the time. Technology evolves and the terminology you used indicates you have zero expertise in weapons tech.

Indy: That’s not addressing my point . . . and you ignored the weapons I noted that the military takes ‘back ‘from soldiers ‘not in combat’.

This is why many of your argument simply fall flat on their face since you keep trying to ‘ignore’ the ‘big picture’.

Tech wrote: You wouldn't posit that the 1st Amendment only applies to hand operated printing presses and not the internet or mobile platforms, would you? --edited.

Indy: Apples and oranges . . . but nice try though . . . but another failed analogy.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 25, 2014 4:32 p.m.

Wrong-O, Indy. That's a perfectly apt analogy.

You're making the argument that the Second Amendment, having been written in the 18th Century, doesn't apply to modern weapons. To wit: "Indy: Again, the 2nd Amendment was written when Americans had ‘single shot flintlocks’ is a bit different than an individual today with a semiautomatic military style assault weapon..."

Therefore, the First Amendment, having been written at the same time, and using your own "logic", doesn't apply to any technology subsequent to its passage, either.

Not TV, nor the internet, nor radio, nor modern printing presses, nor movies... nada.


tech: Posted: May 25, 2014 7:08 p.m.

Indy: Apples and oranges . . . but nice try though . . . but another failed analogy.

Rather, an apt one that doesn't require your approval, especially so with your demonstrated Constitutional ineptitude. Every amendment in the Bill of Rights equally applies then and now. You don't get to choose your preferences, Indy.

Care to demonstrate your lack of expertise further on the 3 firearms I listed?


stevehw: Posted: May 26, 2014 10:28 p.m.

'You asked this question: "Doesn't Switzerland have mandatory military service?"

Indeed it does. Every Swiss citizen is a member of the Swiss militia. Just as every law-abiding American is a member of the militia, too, as we've already discussed. Kinda renders your question moot.'

Not really...it's not that they are members of the militia that I was pointing out...it's that they are required to be inducted into and trained by the military for a period of time. It's not like the U.S., with a volunteer military, at all.

I wasn't so much focused on the ammo, actually...it was the *mandatory military service* that I was trying to point out.

"And yet they are absolutely SATURATED with guns, including privately-held full-auto submachine guns. So I guess it's not the guns, or their presence, causing crimes."

Let's take a look at this statement, from a statistical standpoint.

According to this:

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

Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 residents, highest in Europe, but 1/2 of the U.S. rate of 90 per 100 residents. So I don't know if "absolutely saturated" is a fair term, although it is quite high compared to the rest of the EC.

Now let's look at firearm-related death rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Sort by homicides, and once you get past the banana republics and such and into 1st world nations, the U.S. way up at the top, at 3.6 per 100,000 residents. Switzerland is, unsurprisingly, also near the top of the EC countries at .52 per 100,000, beaten out only by Luxembourg at .6 (which I find odd...Luxembourg? Really?).

Clearly, there's more going on here than meets the eye, and a simple-minded "more guns = less crime" probably isn't going to suffice.

Granted, Switzerland has a very low crime rate, but I'm willing to hypothesize that is has more to do with a pretty high standard of living, relatively higher educational levels, etc.

I like Switzerland...if it weren't for the fact that it costs a small fortune for everything there, I wouldn't mind living there :) The cities are clean and safe, the people are courteous and polite, the food is good, and the scenery and outdoor activities are outstanding. :)


stevehw: Posted: May 26, 2014 10:30 p.m.

"
Indeed it does. Every Swiss citizen is a member of the Swiss militia. Just as every law-abiding American is a member of the militia"

Didn't you just post the legal definition, where it's NOT everyone, but only males between 18 and 45?


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 11:12 p.m.

"Clearly, there's more going on here than meets the eye, and a simple-minded "more guns = less crime" probably isn't going to suffice."

Nor is the opposite statistically valid, i.e. more guns = more crime. Societal violence is, as you implied, more complex.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 6:57 a.m.

steve: "Clearly, there's more going on here than meets the eye, and a simple-minded 'more guns = less crime' probably isn't going to suffice.

"Granted, Switzerland has a very low crime rate, but I'm willing to hypothesize that is has more to do with a pretty high standard of living, relatively higher educational levels, etc."


I agree, in that it's also "simple-minded" to take the approach of the gun-haters that "more guns = more crime". That's exactly my point; that there are other factors in play that determine crime rate, and gun availability is irrelevant to the issue.


(Tech beat me to the punch on this)


Steve: "Didn't you just post the legal definition, where it's NOT everyone, but only males between 18 and 45?"

And did you miss the part where the Swiss are only part of their militia until the age of 30?

(BTW, re-read the USC section I cited. Certain defined women are also part of the US Militia)


stevehw: Posted: May 26, 2014 9:53 a.m.

So since "the militia" is carefully defined under law as men between 17 and 45 and women who are in the National Guard, and the 2nd Amendment *specifically* references the militia, shouldn't the right to keep and bear arms ONLY apply to men between 17 and 45 and women who are in the national guard?

You, yourself, highlighted what constituted the militia...

I'm only pointing out, again, that whereas everyone yells about how the Constitution is the ultimate word on everything, and can never be violated, etc., etc., and then *immediately ignore* half of the 2nd Amendment's words.

Seems disingenuous to me.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 10:22 a.m.

Nope.

Let's examine that, steve, because it's a common misperception.

In the Bill of Rights, "the people" are mentioned 5 times; in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

The Founders are always consistent in their usage of language.

The First Amendment protects "... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Second says "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Fourth says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,..."

The Ninth says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Tenth says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As we can see, particularly in the Tenth, the Founders draw a clear distinction between "the States" and "the people". They're two separate and distinctly different entities.

Are you saying that in the First A, it's actually "the State" that has the right to assemble and petition? And the Fourth actually protects some state government from unreasonable searches? That these are all "collective" rights when the BOR mentions "the people"?

Of course not. "The people" are the entire body of people as individuals, as the BOR protects individual rights.

Further, as to the Second's phrase about the militia, that's a statement of purpose, not a limitation. If they wanted the right limited to those actually in the militia at any given time, they'd have actually said so. Something like "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while of military age", or something like that. They didn't.

First, all law-abiding Americans are members of the militia at some point in their lives as defined by the USC.

Secondly, at the time the BOR was enacted, there were NO age limitations involved. Militia membership was understood to be universal. It was only subsequent legislation that attached age limits.

But more importantly, just because you've passed that age doesn't mean you lose the right. It's a universal right that also serves another purpose, that of equipping "... a well-regulated militia...".

On top of all of that, a country never knows when people even beyond the statutory militia age limit may be called upon to perform the function of the militia. Remember the LA Rodney King riots? How those Korean shopkeepers armed themselves to protect their stores and properties against looters and rioters when even the cops wouldn't go into that area?

That's an absolutely CLASSIC case of the citizen militia in action, and no one was checking ID for ages.


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 11:25 a.m.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal- ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms- bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 11:32 a.m.

Yep. Thanks, tech.

They reaffirmed that in the McDonald v. Chicago case, too.

Then there's "The Embarrassing Second Amendment", written by Sanford Levinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Levinson), a liberal Professor of Con Law and no friend of gun rights:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

And, of course, the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit in the case of Peruta v. San Diego.



I wonder if steve "knows better" than all of them, too.


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 12:04 p.m.

Interesting essay by Levinson that I hadn't read, Brian. Thanks for the link.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 12:23 p.m.

You're welcome.

Yeah, that's been out there for YEARS, but most people are unaware of it.


stevehw: Posted: May 26, 2014 1:02 p.m.

I'm not claiming to "know better" than any court here. I'm just find the logic necessary to avoid the "well-regulated militia" clause tortured at best and outright phony at worst. That said, it is what it is, and like I've said...we just have to accept the number of killings and mass murders we have, because it's not going to change.

I'm sure that's great comfort to the parents of the students at UCSB who were killed this past weekend.

Nothing to be done about it. It's just the price you have to pay. Sorry for your loss.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 1:23 p.m.

"That said, it is what it is, and like I've said...we just have to accept the number of killings and mass murders we have, because it's not going to change."

Yup. There's always a cost to liberty. Today's the day we remember the soldiers who also paid that price.

There's a cost to having convenient high-speed freeways, too, that runs to tens of thousands of lives. I don't see anyone trying to ban freeways, which always strikes me as eminently hypocritical.


"I'm sure that's great comfort to the parents of the students at UCSB who were killed this past weekend."

Half of whom were killed with a knife.

I gotta say though, I got quite the chuckle from that cretin's father, and his showboating histrionics, trying to blame guns and the NRA for what his lunatic kid did.

As far as I'm concerned, he should look for a mirror and point to the idiot bonehead looking back at him who raised such a whiny, self-pitying loser for a son.


CaptGene: Posted: May 26, 2014 1:38 p.m.

BB, the father you are referring to was of one of the victims, I don't believe the nutburger's dad has spoken yet (except for the statement his attorney read). I didn't agree with the victim's dads point of view, but I try not to judge the actions of a grieving parent.

As for the kneejerk attack on the 2nd Amendment, the simpletons ignore the fact that the first three victims were stabbed to death. --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 1:52 p.m.

CG, I appreciate what you said, but I stand by what I said:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/drive-killer-stabbed-three-gun-spree-030719063.html#ItDkNGH

"Elliot Rodger Shooting: Family 'In Shock'

"The sister of Hunger Games assistant director Peter Rodger told Sky News his family are 'in total shock' and called for changes to US gun laws in the wake of the atrocity in California."


Now, maybe I misread that, and the sister was speaking for herself, though it sounds to me like she's speaking for the family.

In which case, if I was wrong, then she doesn't even have to bother to find a mirror. She can just look at her brother directly.

But you were right that I incorrectly thought that crying guy was the nutjob's father. HIS grief is completely understandable. Hell, in his position I have no idea what would pop out of my own mouth. Agree with you there.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 1:58 p.m.

Actually, as I think about, I'm pretty sure I'd say something along these lines:

"The gun laws in California need to be changed! If my little girl had been able to legally carry a gun, she'd have popped this loser before he could have hurt her."


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 2:11 p.m.

"I'm just find the logic necessary to avoid the "well-regulated militia" clause tortured at best and outright phony at worst. "

Assuming a collective right in the context of enumerated individual rights is deserving of the attributes you listed, Steve.

Far from doing nothing, as a society we should be examining how an individual with an apparent diagnosis of Aspergers, who engaged with therapists and had a request for law enforcement intervention by his parents was able to operate unmonitored in open society with lethal results.

In the context of this recent tragedy, my prior suggestions regarding root causes were prescient.

Critical thinking is required. Leave the understandable emotion to the victims and their families.


hopeful: Posted: May 26, 2014 2:59 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Far from doing nothing, as a society we should be examining how an individual with an apparent diagnosis of Aspergers, who engaged with therapists and had a request for law enforcement intervention by his parents was able to operate unmonitored in open society with lethal results."

I agree with you 100%, but I would go a step further. In my opinion, there are quite a few things we could do to try to prevent some of these mass murders. First, it appears that many of these murderers are mentally ill, and were being treated by therapists BEFORE they went on their killing sprees. I would like to see our laws changed so it is easier for a family member, therapist, medical doctor, or law enforcement officer, to have an adult committed to a mental hospital for longer than 72 hours (typically the most amount of time an adult could be committed against their will). Second, we need to significantly increase mental hospital beds and facilities, so there will be space to treat these committed individuals. Third, we need to provide education and resources to parents, who have mentally ill kids.

I know first hand how difficult it is for parents, whose adult children are mentally ill. My oldest brother was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was in his early 20s, and it was so incredibly difficult for my parents to get help for my brother back then in the 1970s, and it is only gotten more difficult! My parents had to call the PET team (Psychiatric Evaluation Team) multiple times, who would come to our house, take him to a psychiatric hospital, only to have my brother released after the 72 hour hold was up. I lived in fear throughout my high school years to the point I slept with a knife next to my bed, waiting for the day that my brother would explode and kill my parents or siblings.

I know a lot of people are blaming the UCSB murderers parents, or guns, or the NRA, but in my mind, the main problem and where the blame should be placed is 1st on the murderer, but then 2nd on our lack of mental health laws and facilities that prevent these psychotic murderers from going on their rampages.


CaptGene: Posted: May 26, 2014 3:41 p.m.

Had not heard that the aunt spoke out. I don't care what she has to say. Stricter gun laws would not have changed the outcome for at least three of his victims. Ironically, looser CCW laws could have saved some of those lives.

Anyone that believes you need a gun to kill a lot of people needs only to look up "Happy Land Fire" or "The Bath School Disaster" or, of course, "The OKC Bombing" to see the folly of their position. --edited.


Indy: Posted: May 26, 2014 4:45 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Wrong-O, Indy. That's a perfectly apt analogy.

Indy: Sorry pal, but no dice . . .

BrianBaker wrote: You're making the argument that the Second Amendment, having been written in the 18th Century, doesn't apply to modern weapons. To wit: "Indy: Again, the 2nd Amendment was written when Americans had ‘single shot flintlocks’ is a bit different than an individual today with a semiautomatic military style assault weapon..."

Indy: Today, in the ‘modern world’ is something that the Founding Fathers ‘anticipated’ by allowing the Constitution to be ‘amended’.

For example, black Americans are no longer considered ‘3/5s’ of a person . . .

And hold on to your chair, ‘women can now vote’ per the 19th Amendment.

In any event, perhaps the Constitution does need amending to bring the 2nd Amendment ‘up to speed’ if you will and not permit just any Americans to possess ‘military style’ weapons like grenades, mortars, tanks, the list just goes on and on . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Therefore, the First Amendment, having been written at the same time, and using your own "logic", doesn't apply to any technology subsequent to its passage, either.

Indy: No, I didn’t say that . . . but indeed ‘communication’ has changed but the intent of same is a bit different than ‘modern weapons’ that go far beyond what the Founding Fathers could have imagined.

Do you think they ‘pondered’ a young man going into a school with a ‘military style assault weapon’ and ‘execute’ ‘child after child’, ‘teacher after teacher’?

I don’t think so . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Not TV, nor the internet, nor radio, nor modern printing presses, nor movies... nada.

Indy: In any event, your rebuttal failed.


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 4:49 p.m.

Thanks for sharing your experience, hopeful. I have a history of suicide on the maternal side (grandfather, uncle & mother) but can't imagine what it would be like to live daily with the existential threat that you did.

I share your opinion the our public mental heath system overreacted to past abuses and we need to reexamine it humanely. Externalizing it to objects rather than root causes only delays reform. It's an obvious public safety issue.


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 4:54 p.m.

Indy: Today, in the ‘modern world’ is something that the Founding Fathers ‘anticipated’ by allowing the Constitution to be ‘amended’.

You're not proposing an amendment, Indy. The debate has moved beyond your simplistic ideology.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 5:01 p.m.

LOL, Indy!


Yeah, my rebuttal failed, alright.

It was based on logic, something you know nothing about.


Indy: Posted: May 26, 2014 5:03 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: The Second says "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Indy: Notice how the poster ‘deceptively’ leaves out the first part of the 2nd Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . ( the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)”

This appears to be the basic intent of strong willed nationalistic conservatives that simply ‘ignore’ the parts in the Constitution which doesn’t meet their ideology needs.

Further, they like to ‘expand’ the Constitution using the ‘Federalist Papers’ which aren’t referenced in the Constitution. In other words, the Founding Fathers created the document ‘as is’ . . . allows, however, to ‘amendment’ it . . . but that’s it.


Indy: Posted: May 26, 2014 5:05 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Today, in the ‘modern world’ is something that the Founding Fathers ‘anticipated’ by allowing the Constitution to be ‘amended’.

You're not proposing an amendment, Indy. The debate has moved beyond your simplistic ideology.

Indy: Yes, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution so Americans could ‘read it’ . . . ‘simplistic’ if you will.

Your incorrect dismissal of same tends to your ‘anti-government’ based libertarianism that ignores the basic intent of the Founding Fathers.

That’s something you’ve got to get a grip on . . .


Indy: Posted: May 26, 2014 5:07 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: LOL, Indy!
Yeah, my rebuttal failed, alright.

Indy: Yes, we now agree . . .

BrianBaker wrote: It was based on logic, something you know nothing about.

Indy: Not ‘logic’ but conservative ideology principles that go against the very foundation of the Constitution . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 5:09 p.m.

Indy: "Indy: Notice how the poster ‘deceptively’ leaves out the first part of the 2nd Amendment..."


Notice how Indy posts his nonsense without bothering to read all that I wrote.

As usual, a completely inane comment devoid of meaning, simply there to make noise.

And again flouting your utter ignorance of the Federalist Papers.


Really... I can't waste any more time on you. Your ignorance knows no bounds.



BTW, why don't you take up your argument with SCOTUS, the Ninth Circuit, and Sanford Levinson?

They all agree with me, and I'm sure you can set them straight, with your boundless wisdom, amazing logic, and world-class legal education.

Clueless.


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 6:33 p.m.

"Your incorrect dismissal of same tends to your ‘anti-government’ based libertarianism that ignores the basic intent of the Founding Fathers. " - Indy

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Plain enough. The SCOTUS agrees with me rather than your distortion. It's you that needs a grip on reality.

My point stands, i.e. you're not proposing a Constitutional amendment to modify the 2nd Amendment. Deny or confirm.


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 6:46 p.m.

Indy calls to mind the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Brian. A complete lack of situational awareness and inability to adapt to reality.

Time to cross the bridge and move on. Leave him muttering to himself.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 7:42 p.m.

What's funny, tech, is that Indy talks about the Founders' original intent, all while disavowing any knowledge of the Federalist Papers.

The guy's hilarious.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 26, 2014 7:44 p.m.

"Time to cross the bridge and move on. Leave him muttering to himself."


Hahahahahaha!


Correctamundo.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 26, 2014 7:47 p.m.

Hopeful, there is something like that now...Laura's Law, but it's only in Orange and LA Counties right now. That enables a conservator to be appointed right away and to be able to force meds and treatment on an adult.


hopeful: Posted: May 26, 2014 8:06 p.m.

chefgirl - Unfortunately, that law wasn't in place while my brother was alive, but honestly, I don't know how much it would help some mentally ill adults today. From what I read, Laura's Law "allows for court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment or forced anti-psychotics," but in many cases patients NEED in-patient care, not simply out-patient medications. Granted, Laura's Law is better than nothing, but I believe more could be done.

I just wish that politicians would focus on mental health INSTEAD of gun control because gun control WON'T stop someone intent on killing!


stevehw: Posted: May 26, 2014 8:29 p.m.

Everybody likes court decisions that agree with their point of view, and then denigrates the courts when they decide a case in opposition. The Supreme Court is the wisest of courts, and makes truly Constitutional decisions that are clearly the only correct course...when you're a conservative and it decides Heller.

The Supreme Court is foolish, political, cowardly and clearly anti-Constitutional when it decides Roe v Wade and you're a conservative.

And the exact opposite if you're pro-gun-control or pro-choice.

Point is...it does little to advance an argument to just say "the Supreme Court said X, so you can't argue that!"

As for mental health laws and so forth...I don't recall seeing anything in the 2nd Amendment that says "shall not be abridged unless a doctor says you're sick in the head and shouldn't have a gun". I'll pull out the right-wing browbeating attack and apply it here:

SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED! That means I have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN, and who are you or some quack shrink to tell me I can't? Hell, half of you believe the shrinks are full of s**t most of the time anyway (see, e.g., the APA position on sexual identity), and now you want to flip-flop and let them decide who can and can't have a gun???


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 8:42 p.m.

That's quite a rant and misrepresentation of positions, Steve.

I'm more optimistic about the long term rationality of our society.

Carry on. I know I will.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 10:03 p.m.

"The Supreme Court is foolish, political, cowardly and clearly anti-Constitutional when it decides Roe v Wade and you're a conservative."


Maybe so, but we don't challenge the validity of the decision, nor its force of law.


"Point is...it does little to advance an argument to just say 'the Supreme Court said X, so you can't argue that!'"


Which is the typical LEFTIST response under the same circumstances.

So many of you guys simply want to ignore it. Maybe we should defer to your and Indy's superior legal acumen.

Whaddaya think?


stevehw: Posted: May 27, 2014 9:02 a.m.

I think that's a bunch of BS. The right wing doesn't challenge the validity of a decision with which they disagree? Riiiiiiight. Roe v Wade comes to mind, but the continuing fight over same-sex marriage and attacks on "activist judges" or asserting that the judge made his/her decision because he/she is gay comes to mind, too.

And how many times have we heard "Heller" "HELLER" "HELLER!" from the right wing whenever gun control discussions come up? Oh, yeah...every time. including this one. As far as playing the "the Supreme Court said X, so you can't argue with that!" game...you blame the LEFT? YOU JUST DID IT!

"BTW, why don't you take up your argument with SCOTUS"

Tell us, who said that, Baker? A "leftist"? Nope. YOU DID.

Hypocrite.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 27, 2014 11:00 a.m.

Hopeful, yes agreed on all accounts.


CaptGene: Posted: May 27, 2014 11:25 a.m.

Tech's comparison was spot on. So accurate in fact I believe we now know the identity of Indy Nile. Observe:

"Black Knight: None shall pass.
Arthur: What?
Black Knight: None shall pass.
Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight: Then you shall die.
Arthur: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside!
Black Knight: I move for no man.
Arthur: So be it!

Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's left arm.

Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.
Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't.
Arthur: Well, what's that then?
Black Knight: I've had worse.
Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on you pansy!

Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's right arm.

Arthur: Victory is mine! We thank thee Lord, that in thy mercy...
Black Knight: Come on then.
Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you!
Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
Arthur: Look!
Black Knight: Just a flesh wound.
Arthur: Look, stop that.
Black Knight: Chicken! Chicken!
Arthur: Look, I'll have your leg. Right!

Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's leg.

Black Knight: Right, I'll do you for that!
Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come 'ere!
Arthur: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
Arthur: You're a loony.
Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.

Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's other leg.

Black Knight: All right; we'll call it a draw.
Arthur: Come, Patsy.
Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastard! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!"

Sure sounds like Indy Nile to me.


17trillion: Posted: May 27, 2014 11:56 a.m.

That's it! Indy is the Black Knight. Am I allowed to say "Black Knight" without being branded as...well...you know!

Indy: Tis but a flesh wound!


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 3:20 p.m.

For those who prefer a video rendition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 2:11 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Indy: "Indy: Notice how the poster ‘deceptively’ leaves out the first part of the 2nd Amendment..."

Notice how Indy posts his nonsense without bothering to read all that I wrote. As usual, a completely inane comment devoid of meaning, simply there to make noise. And again flouting your utter ignorance of the Federalist Papers.

Indy: Here again, the poster continues to ‘IGNORE” what he doesn’t like in the Constitution, asserts the Founding Fathers really should have put more into same that support ‘conservative ideology’, and simply dismisses those that observe such ‘ignoring’ . . . priceless.

BrianBaker wrote: Really... I can't waste any more time on you. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Indy: This translates to: I’m throwing in the towel realizing my arguments are failing . . .

BrianBaker wrote: BTW, why don't you take up your argument with SCOTUS, the Ninth Circuit, and Sanford Levinson? They all agree with me, and I'm sure you can set them straight, with your boundless wisdom, amazing logic, and world-class legal education.

Indy: It’s not surprising that someone advocating conservative positions would cite those that support same . . . but supporting positions that are failing is something you don’t really want to expose . . .

The Founding Fathers were ‘clear’ in writing the Constitution . . . including the Bill of Rights amended to same. If they wanted to include other writings, they would have referenced same.

Same for religion . . . they mentioned it twice, ‘separating church and state’ from government not allowing a ‘religious test’ to hold public office.

BrianBaker wrote: Clueless.

Indy: I guess I should commend the poster for commenting on his own post . . .


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 2:19 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Your incorrect dismissal of same tends to your ‘anti-government’ based libertarianism that ignores the basic intent of the Founding Fathers. " - Indy

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Plain enough. The SCOTUS agrees with me rather than your distortion. It's you that needs a grip on reality.

Indy: This may come as a major shock to you . . . but the SCOTUS members, past and present, didn’t write the Constitution.

And the ‘dismissal’ by them of the entire verbiage of the 2nd Amendment is akin to the SCOTUS constant practice of ‘looking away’ from the 1st Amendment separating ‘church and state’.

And we see of late the disastrous decision by the SCOTUS on the empowerment of ‘wealth’ in our politics with ‘Citizens United’ . . .

The public will have to be alerted to these failings and have our congress override them as necessary.

Tech wrote:My point stands, i.e. you're not proposing a Constitutional amendment to modify the 2nd Amendment. Deny or confirm.

Indy: I stand by the Founding Fathers ‘originalist’ view of the Constitution but likewise being aware that these folks knew time will go forward and allowed the document to be amended including the ‘equal protection’ clause as well as allowing ‘women to vote’.

So here, let’s just realize the ‘original intent’ that militias should be ‘well regulated’ versus small group of Americans running around with military style assault weapons.


tech: Posted: May 29, 2014 9:46 a.m.

"So here, let’s just realize the ‘original intent’ that militias should be ‘well regulated’ versus small group of Americans running around with military style assault weapons." - Indy

Nay, Black Knight. You didn't read the case cites. As previously noted, well regulated = well trained rather than gun control. Despite your assertions, your interpretation isn't originalist and you provide no other supporting argument other than repetition.

Do you propose to amend the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution? Yes/No


CaptGene: Posted: May 29, 2014 11:52 a.m.

I have to hand it to you tech, you nailed it with the Black Knight comparison. "Indy Nile" was a play on words that was apt, and I'm proud of it, but the visual of the bleeding, defeated Knight insisting against all evidence that he has won really tells the tale.

Bravo Sir, bravo!


17trillion: Posted: May 29, 2014 12:46 p.m.

Yes, bravo Sir Brave Arthur!

Sir Lancelot: [Sir Galahad the Chaste is being seduced by an entire castle full of young women] We were in the nick of time. You were in great peril.

Sir Galahad: I don't think I was.

Sir Lancelot: Yes, you were. You were in terrible peril.

Sir Galahad: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.

Sir Lancelot: No, it's too perilous.

Sir Galahad: Look, it's my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can.

Sir Lancelot: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on.

Sir Galahad: Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?

Sir Lancelot: No. It's unhealthy.

Sir Galahad: I bet you're gay.

Sir Lancelot: Am not.


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 29, 2014 1:39 p.m.

Brave, brave, Sir Robin! Sir Robin brave indeed!
(cue the coconut horse sound effect)


17trillion: Posted: May 30, 2014 8:38 a.m.

Now go away or I will fart in your general direction.....

(cue the laughing Frenchmen on top of the castle)


Indy: Posted: May 30, 2014 2:19 p.m.

Tech wrote: "So here, let’s just realize the ‘original intent’ that militias should be ‘well regulated’ versus small group of Americans running around with military style assault weapons." - Indy

Nay, Black Knight. You didn't read the case cites. As previously noted, well regulated = well trained rather than gun control. Despite your assertions, your interpretation isn't originalist and you provide no other supporting argument other than repetition.

Indy: Yes, I always find your way of sneaking out the issue of ‘well regulated’ with cute notations . . . and simply ‘dismissing’ the arguments that address your ideology failures . . . but hey, free speech, no?

Tech wrote: Do you propose to amend the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution? Yes/No

Indy: Again, if you share your educational background the answers you seek it will be easier for me to give you in that I’ll prepare them so you can comprehend them . . .

I can see that you don’ grasp the nature of why the US doesn’t need ‘militias’ with the most powerful military in the world.

We also don’t need militarized assault weapons . . . unless you subscribe to the militant white supremacist militias that keep asserting they need to overthrow the US government! ( witness the anarchist pointing their weapons at US Federal Marshalls who were trying to collect ‘back taxes’ from Clive “Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy . . . )

It’s important the public understand the conservative ideology motivations that allow for the deaths of 30,000 plus Americans each year from gun violence . . . and the price you have these dead Americans pay for your views . . .


tech: Posted: May 31, 2014 9:28 p.m.

Do you propose to amend the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution? Yes/No, Black Knight?

Your arguments have been proven invalid rather decisively by myself and others in this thread. Despite your pontifications, you've demonstrated no legal, historical, statistical or weapons expertise. Time for intellectual honesty. Your diversions amount to nothing more than throwing dust in the air. The tendentious repetition only undermines your position.


Indy: Posted: May 31, 2014 8:07 p.m.

tech wrote: Your arguments have been proven invalid rather decisively by myself and others in this thread.

Indy. No they haven’t . . . but indeed they don’t agree with your conservative ideology positions . . . that is true.

tech wrote: Despite your pontifications, you've demonstrated no legal, historical, statistical or weapons expertise. Time for intellectual honesty. Your diversions amount to nothing more than throwing dust in the air. The tendentious repetition only undermines your position.

Indy: How clever! When somebody disagrees with you, they are ‘intellectually dishonest’ . . . I get it now . . .

In any event, the guest readers can decide if your arguments hold any water . . . I know they don’t . . . but her, there are more people thus just us two . . .

In any event, you want answers yet you refuse to disclose your eduation. Why?


CaptGene: Posted: June 1, 2014 9:53 p.m.

Indy Nile: "...but her, there are more people thus just us two . . . In any event, you want answers yet you refuse to disclose your eduation"

You can't make this stuff up.


tech: Posted: June 1, 2014 10:14 p.m.

No, you can't, CG. The tortured performance art is quite entertaining, is it not? Or perhaps it's drunk/stoned posting?



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...