Supreme Court to hear Chicago gun case

[leekohler]

The Supreme Court announced this morning it will hear a challenge to Chicago's gun restrictions that will determine if local handgun bans are legal.

Last year, the high court ruled the 2nd Amendment gave individuals the right to possess firearms and struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun bans.

Left open was the question of whether states and local governments are required to do the same.

But the court said today it will review a lower court ruling in the case of McDonald vs. City of Chicago that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. That action court potentially could set in motion a nationwide re-establishment of the right to bear arms. The case will be argued next year.
With the court's action today, Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said his organization has a good chance at reversing the city's ban. The rifle association is a party to the McDonald suit.

"All the ban does is prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves," Pearson said. "It has no affect on the criminals at all."

If anything, not allowing citizens to carry guns puts criminals at an advantage, Pearson said.

City officials were not immediately available for comment.

In the high court's decision in June of last year, it ruled 5-4 for the first time that the 2nd Amendment establishes the right to own a handgun for personal self-defense, not only as part of a state militia.

Mayor Richard Daley immediately condemned the court's decision and vowed to fight any attempt to invalidate the city's now 27-year-old gun ban.

Hours after the court's decision, the Illinois State Rifle Association sued Chicago and Daley in an attempt to overturn the ban.

One of the plaintiffs is Otis McDonald, an elderly man who last year lived in the Morgan Park area and told the Chicago Tribune he keeps a shotgun at home to protect himself from gangs that plagued his neighborhood.

After the court ruled in the Washington, D.C., case, Morton Grove, Wilmette, Evanston and Winnetka dropped their gun bans, in large measure to fend off costly lawsuits.

Let's hope the court brings down this silly gun ban.

Here's the Tribune poll results so far today. Chicago is a pretty liberal town, so this says a lot, IMO.

[yg17]

Here's the Tribune poll results so far today. Chicago is a pretty liberal town, so this says a lot, IMO.

I wouldn't read much into a web poll that anyone in the country can vote in. Freepers are known for jumping all over these polls and voting their way as much as they can. I'd be more interested in a phone poll done professionally and strictly of Chicago residents.

[leekohler]

I wouldn't read much into a web poll that anyone in the country can vote in. Freepers are known for jumping all over these polls and voting their way as much as they can. I'd be more interested in a phone poll done professionally and strictly of Chicago residents.

While that is true, this was breaking news at the time. Usually, these polls stay pretty local that early. I could see it getting skewed later in the day for sure. TBH, I only know a few people who support the ban, one being PlaceofDis.

[Zombie Acorn]

I was actually expecting you to be for this gun ban. :D

[leekohler]

I was actually expecting you to be for this gun ban. :D

Because you and others make assumptions about people's political leanings. I have said over and over that I am not the liberal people think I am. I look at situations and see what evidence shows works best. Gun bans do NOT work, just like making drugs illegal does not work. Education is the key to reducing the risks of both.

[barkomatic]

I can understand why a city like Chicago would want to ban guns. However, the constitution is clear on this issue--law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. I'm not sure why this keeps getting challenged in court.

Nevertheless, even if the ban is ended. Chicago is well within its right to make the process of obtaining a gun so cumbersome that practically no one will legally purchase a gun anyway.

[quagmire]

I can understand why a city like Chicago would want to ban guns. However, the constitution is clear on this issue--law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. I'm not sure why this keeps getting challenged in court.

Nevertheless, even if the ban is ended. Chicago is well within its right to make the process of obtaining a gun so cumbersome that practically no one will legally purchase a gun anyway.

You're the first person I have heard that said the 2nd amendment is clear.

I still think it isn't.

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.

In any case, I am not for a gun ban, but for gun control.

[yg17]

Because you and others make assumptions about people's political leanings. I have said over and over that I am not the liberal people think I am. I look at situations and see what evidence shows works best. Gun bans do NOT work, just like making drugs illegal does not work. Education is the key to reducing the risks of both.

Gun bans don't work, but neither does gun ownership. St. Louis is a fine example. Concealed carry is legal in MO, yet St. Louis has one of the highest crime rates in the city. Letting people walk around packing heat hasn't done a damn thing to reduce crime.

[leekohler]

Gun bans don't work, but neither does gun ownership. St. Louis is a fine example. Concealed carry is legal in MO, yet St. Louis has one of the highest crime rates in the city. Letting people walk around packing heat hasn't done a damn thing to reduce crime.

Then you guys have bigger problems than guns. Let me make this clear- I am not against regulating gun ownership, I am simply against bans. And I never said anything about conceal/carry.

[.Andy]

One of the plaintiffs is Otis McDonald, an elderly man who last year lived in the Morgan Park area and told the Chicago Tribune he keeps a shotgun at home to protect himself from gangs that plagued his neighborhood.
A great example of a non-solution to a perceived problem. Well done elderly Otis McDonald.

[yg17]

Then you guys have bigger problems than guns. Let me make this clear- I am not against regulating gun ownership, I am simply against bans. And I never said anything about conceal/carry.

Yes, there are bigger problems. The point I was trying to make about conceal/carry is that while gun bans may not do much to prevent violence, neither does putting more guns out there in the hands of people and letting them carry. We definitely need more gun control. I don't think handguns should be banned outright either (assault rifles are a different story) but tighter controls need to be in place.

[tofagerl]

Quick fact: the US is the only country in the world where guns are given higher importance than free speech.

Think about it! How many debates about free speech have you observed lately? Now how many debates about the legality of weapons?

Oh, and the founders of your lovely country weren't into guns, they were into staying free from the british. It's the hicks nowadays who are into guns, maybe cause there haven't been any invasion attempts for a few hundred years.

[leekohler]

Yes, there are bigger problems. The point I was trying to make about conceal/carry is that while gun bans may not do much to prevent violence, neither does putting more guns out there in the hands of people and letting them carry. We definitely need more gun control. I don't think handguns should be banned outright either (assault rifles are a different story) but tighter controls need to be in place.

I don't have a problem with what you're saying at all.

[callmemike20]

Personally, I think Daley's answer to every crime is "We must have tighter gun control." Yet, look at all innocent people, even students, getting shot in the bad areas of Chicago. He doesn't seem to be doing a good job keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals, so its actually having a reverse effect. After what happened the other day, maybe he should consider banning railroad ties.

Criminals are going to get weapons if they want them. Now, I am for conceal/carry, and I believe it will allow people to better defend themselves in many situations.

[yg17]

I don't have a problem with what you're saying at all.

Ah, okay. Guess I was confused for a minute :)

[leekohler]

Ah, okay. Guess I was confused for a minute :)

I just think bans are ridiculous in this case. If we want people to jump through lots of hoops to get a handgun, fine. I'm all for it.

[yg17]

Personally, I think Daley's answer to every crime is "We must have tighter gun control." Yet, look at all innocent people, even students, getting shot in the bad areas of Chicago. He doesn't seem to be doing a good job keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals, so its actually having a reverse effect. After what happened the other day, maybe he should consider banning railroad ties.

Criminals are going to get weapons if they want them. Now, I am for conceal/carry, and I believe it will allow people to better defend themselves in many situations.

I don't think you're going to stop gangs and other forms of organized crime from getting guns with tighter gun control. What you can stop though are things such as school and workplace shootings. Take Virginia Tech for example. The shooter legally bought his guns. He had mental issues and had spent time in a mental facility and a judge ruled that he was a danger to himself due to his mental condition. But the law had no restrictions on the ability of someone with his condition to buy firearms. If he was not legally allowed to purchase guns, the shooting probably would've never happened because I highly doubt someone like him has the connections to get guns on the black market.

[NT1440]

I just think bans are ridiculous in this case. If we want people to jump through lots of hoops to get a handgun, fine. I'm all for it.

Your arguments in other threads have actually swayed me Lee. I'm for gun regulation, as much as I hate guns, but not full out bans anymore.

[leekohler]

Your arguments in other threads have actually swayed me Lee. I'm for gun regulation, as much as I hate guns, but not full out bans anymore.

That's good to hear. :)

[bobber205]

That's good to hear. :)

I agree with you Lee however I would not mind seeing guns exterminated from our society, although I understand that is quite idealistic of me.

I do have a question for you: Japan has extremely strict gun laws and also has among the lowest homicide rate in the world. Does that make you reconsider your position at all? (I do realize there are pretty huge cultural differences that make a difference in this situation).

[leekohler]

I agree with you Lee however I would not mind seeing guns exterminated from our society, although I understand that is quite idealistic of me.

I do have a question for you: Japan has extremely strict gun laws and also has among the lowest homicide rate in the world. Does that make you reconsider your position at all? (I do realize there are pretty huge cultural differences that make a difference in this situation).

Not at all. We have serious cultural problems in this country that need to be addressed. But instead of dealing with the roots of our problems, we put bandaids on them with things like bans. Bans on things like guns and drugs do nothing to solve our problems, but it can make them worse.

[bobber205]

Not at all. We have serious cultural problems in this country that need to be addressed. But instead of dealing with the roots of our problems, we put bandaids on them with things like bans. Bans on things like guns and drugs do nothing to solve our problems, but it can make them worse.

It can indeed make it worse. I blame our violence in this country on the insular way our nation developed. It encouraged hatred towards other (and the way some organized religions behave(d) did nothing to help the situation).

[Zombie Acorn]

Yes, there are bigger problems. The point I was trying to make about conceal/carry is that while gun bans may not do much to prevent violence, neither does putting more guns out there in the hands of people and letting them carry. We definitely need more gun control. I don't think handguns should be banned outright either (assault rifles are a different story) but tighter controls need to be in place.

How many times are assault rifles used in crime vs. handguns? I imagine not much.

[Zombie Acorn]

I don't think you're going to stop gangs and other forms of organized crime from getting guns with tighter gun control. What you can stop though are things such as school and workplace shootings. Take Virginia Tech for example. The shooter legally bought his guns. He had mental issues and had spent time in a mental facility and a judge ruled that he was a danger to himself due to his mental condition. But the law had no restrictions on the ability of someone with his condition to buy firearms. If he was not legally allowed to purchase guns, the shooting probably would've never happened because I highly doubt someone like him has the connections to get guns on the black market.

Should mentally unstable people be allowed to vote?

[Desertrat]

From federal testimony before Congress during the runup to the Assault Weapons Ban in 1993, with my assumption that the demographics of violent crime involving firearms in New York state resembled that of the rest of the country:

New York is what, roughly 10% of the US population? The deaths,nationwide, via use of firearms in 1993 was roughly 13,000. So, roughly 1,300 in NY state, okay?

That year, per Justice Department numbers, three people were killed via "assault weapons", separate from handguns, shotguns or non-AW rifles. Some 2,400 were killed via fists, feet, clubs and knives.

Three.

Other contemporaneous testimony indicated that AWs were involved in roughly three percent of all shootings.

IOW, can we forget the foolishness about these so-called assault weapons? The term is strictly a media made-up, anyway. Only the military has assault rifles, which are capable of selective rates of fire. Civilians have semi-auto para-millitary lookalikes, a design which has been in fairly common use since around 1907. "Assault Weapon'" is almost as foolish as the non-existent "cop-killer bullet".

[bobber205]

How many times are assault rifles used in crime vs. handguns? I imagine not much.

Once is too many.

[Zombie Acorn]

Once is too many.

In that case we have a whole list of objects that we need to ban.

[callmemike20]

In that case we have a whole list of objects that we need to ban.

We all need to live in bubbles.

[bobber205]

In that case we have a whole list of objects that we need to ban.

What harm does banning assault weapons have?

[Prof.]

Call me a crazy liberal, but I don't see why anyone for any reason needs a gun. Of any sort. I can understand that you'd need one for hunting, but other than that, you don't need a gun.

[Zombie Acorn]

What harm does banning assault weapons have?

I don't get to go out and shoot buckets and such with it. If I need a long range weapon that is semi-auto anytime in the future I won't have it.

[bobber205]

I don't get to go out and shoot buckets and such with it. If I need a long range weapon that is semi-auto anytime in the future I won't have it.

And that worth's a life? :confused:

[Zombie Acorn]

Call me a crazy liberal, but I don't see why anyone for any reason needs a gun. Of any sort. I can understand that you'd need one for hunting, but other than that, you don't need a gun.

I think everyone should have at least 1 gun, around here every person has one (or 5). Break-ins are nearly non-existant. I don't even lock my doors.

[Zombie Acorn]

And that worth's a life? :confused:

I didn't kill anyone.

[bobber205]

I didn't kill anyone.

You didn't kill anyone but letting people have the extreme firepower of a assault rifle will kill someone.

Your rights to derive pleasure from whatever you want to do with that gun, non violent as it may be, does not justify allowing people to have those weapons.

Cops are dead scared of coming across them in the line of duty.

I suppose everyone should have armor piercing bullets as well in case you want to do something non violent with them as well?

[callmemike20]

You didn't kill anyone but letting people have the extreme firepower of a assault rifle will kill someone.

Your rights to derive pleasure from whatever you want to do with that gun, non violent as it may be, does not justify allowing people to have those weapons.

Cops are dead scared of coming across them in the line of duty.

I suppose everyone should have armor piercing bullets as well in case you want to do something non violent with them as well?

And I suppose that if I live in a city like Chicago and I get mugged, I should just accept it and give them what they want. In any big city, the police most likely won't go out and try to recover your stuff. Should I be at a loss there?

And suppose someone breaks into my home with a gun. What do I do? Listen to their commands? Give them what they want? If I even try to protect myself or my stuff, I will be killed. So in that case, a good life will be lost when, instead, a bad life could be lost. I don't care if he had a kid at home, if he tried to rob me and he was armed, I better be able to make him a dead mf'er.

With bans on guns (or any weapon), the criminals are always going to have the advantage on the rest of the population. They will get what they want. And in a big city, you need to be able to protect yourself.

[Zombie Acorn]

You didn't kill anyone but letting people have the extreme firepower of a assault rifle will kill someone.

Your rights to derive pleasure from whatever you want to do with that gun, non violent as it may be, does not justify allowing people to have those weapons.

Cops are dead scared of coming across them in the line of duty.

I suppose everyone should have armor piercing bullets as well in case you want to do something non violent with them as well?

With intent anything can be a deadly weapon and if a person can't get ahold of one they will most surely get ahold of another.

[Zombie Acorn]

And I suppose that if I live in a city like Chicago and I get mugged, I should just accept it and give them what they want. In any big city, the police most likely won't go out and try to recover your stuff. Should I be at a loss there?

And suppose someone breaks into my home with a gun. What do I do? Listen to their commands? Give them what they want? If I even try to protect myself or my stuff, I will be killed. So in that case, a good life will be lost when, instead, a bad life could be lost. I don't care if he had a kid at home, if he tried to rob me and he was armed, I better be able to make him a dead mf'er.

With bans on guns (or any weapon), the criminals are always going to have the advantage on the rest of the population. They will get what they want. And in a big city, you need to be able to protect yourself.

From the arguments I have had here you are supposed to lay down and hope the person doesn't shoot you, let your family get raped, and then make sure to give the criminal a mint before he leaves.

In my state it would be seen as cowardice, in other places it seems its common sense to let criminals walk all over you.

[.Andy]

From the arguments I have had here you are supposed to lay down and hope the person doesn't shoot you, let your family get raped, and then make sure to give the criminal a mint before he leaves.

In my state it would be seen as cowardice, in other places it seems its common sense to let criminals walk all over you.
Are you of the opinion that women who get raped and don't have a gun are partly responsible for their own rape because they were cowards for not carrying one?

[Zombie Acorn]

Are you of the opinion that women who get raped and don't have a gun are partly responsible for their own rape because they were cowards for not carrying one?

I can always count on you to draw the most screwed up conclusions out of my posts. :D

No I am not saying they are partly responsible for their own rape (wtf does that even mean?). The left is the one on the offensive trying to ban guns here, guns that could prevent your family from getting mauled/raped if you were allowed to keep them. You are supposed to lay back and take what the criminal decides is your fate. If you want to do that, then its fine, just don't infringe on my right to bust his ass when he busts through my door.

Apparently criminals don't follow the law. Its weird.

[.Andy]

No I am not saying they are partly responsible for their own rape (wtf does that even mean?).
Why not? They are cowardly for not protecting themselves in your state right? Which in turn is practically inviting rapists to attack them while they "lay back and take what the criminal decides is their fate".

You're not backpeddling as fast as you can from your hyperbole are you zombieacorn?

[Zombie Acorn]

Why not? They are cowardly for not protecting themselves in your state right? Which in turn is practically inviting rapists to attack them while they "lay back and take what the criminal decides is their fate".

You're not backpeddling as fast as you can from your hyperbole are you zombieacorn?

If you read the post I was replying to we were talking about a home break-in in which a person wished to keep a gun but was not allowed to. This is a family scenario in which a man is not allowed to keep a gun to protect his family because the left feels that we should just allow the criminal to do whatever he wants and let the police deal with it later.

I didn't call the victims cowards, I called the left (anyone who thinks we should allow criminals do as they will) cowards.

[.Andy]

If you read the post I was replying to we were talking about a home break-in in which a person wished to keep a gun but was not allowed to.
It doesn't make a lick of difference. The logic you apply should be universal. No matter how fast you try and backpedal you are caught in your own inane rhetoric.

This is a family scenario in which a man is not allowed to keep a gun to protect his family because the left feels that we should just allow the criminal to do whatever he wants and let the police deal with it later.
Inane hyperbole again and nothing but a strawman. There are many ways to protect yourself and your family that don't require a gun. If your thinking is limited to gun or nothing as you are presenting here, you really should be one of the people that gun restrictions are designed to keep a gun from. You're clearly unable to be objective.

I didn't call the victims cowards
You quite clearly did. People who don't own guns are considered cowards in your state for not taking the appropriate measures to protect themselves.

[Zombie Acorn]

It doesn't make a lick of difference. The logic you apply should be universal. No matter how fast you try and backpedal you are caught in your own inane rhetoric.


I don't backpedal, I still think my original post was fine, you twisted it into something that was not meant by saying that victims were the cowards. I spaced the first paragraph away from the second for a reason.



Inane hyperbole again and nothing but a strawman. There are many ways to protect yourself and your family that don't require a gun. If your thinking is limited to gun or nothing as you are presenting here, you really should be one of the people that gun restrictions are designed to keep a gun from. You're clearly unable to be objective.


I'll bang some pots and pans before I put 3 center mass, what are your suggestions? A drop net? A pot of tea in the kettle?


You quite clearly did. People who don't own guns are considered cowards in your state for not taking the appropriate measures to protect themselves.

The idea that criminals should be allowed to do as they will and that people shouldn't be allowed to confront them with firepower is cowardice. You can't change what I meant as hard as you try.

[.Andy]

I don't backpedal, I still think my original post was fine, you twisted it into something that was not meant by saying that victims were the cowards.
You're backpeddling because you can't defend your rhetoric when it's applied to any case other than your fear-inducing fantastic fiction about a criminal breaking in and raping one's family.

I'll bang some pots and pans before I put 3 center mass, what are your suggestions? A drop net? A pot of tea on the kettle?
Again your complete inability to think of any other way to ensure security without resorting to a gun shows a complete lack of objectivity.

The idea that criminals should be allowed to do as they will and that people shouldn't be allowed to confront them with firepower is cowardice.
And the Gun or nothing strawman again.

[Zombie Acorn]

You're backpeddling because you can't defend your rhetoric when it's applied to any case other than your fear-inducing fantastic fiction about a criminal breaking in and raping one's family.

You are the one who attributed the cowardice to the victim, not me, thus is seems like backpedaling to you but seems like you switched my intent to me. I think people who wouldn't allow someone to carry a gun in their purse if they wanted to protect themselves would be cowards too, so you see it works in all instances.


Again your complete inability to think of any other way to ensure security without resorting to a gun shows a complete lack of objectivity.


Man breaks into your house, you have no back door, you have 2 young kids and wife upstairs (our fear-inducing fantastic fiction that has actually happened in reality), what do you do?

[.Andy]

You are the one who attributed the cowardice to the victim, not me.
No it was you attributed cowardice to the person who doesn't have a gun. Right here;
From the arguments I have had here you are supposed to lay down and hope the person doesn't shoot you, let your family get raped, and then make sure to give the criminal a mint before he leaves.

In my state it would be seen as cowardice, in other places it seems its common sense to let criminals walk all over you.
And as I said you are trying your very best to backpedal and pretend that you meant that some amorphous "left" are the cowards you are referring to here. When that's clearly not the case. You are caught in your own inane rhetoric and are trying to twist your way out with dishonesty.

Man breaks into your house, you have no back door, you have 2 young kids and wife upstairs (our fear-inducing fantastic fiction that has actually happened in reality), what do you do?
If the best you can do is fantastic hypotheticals you've lost already. For every fictional scenario you come up with for guns there's one where guns get one's family in trouble. It's the most pathetic discussion to have.

[Zombie Acorn]

No it was you attributed cowardice to the person who doesn't have a gun. Right here;

And as I said you are trying your very best to backpedal and pretend that you meant that some amorphous "left" are the cowards you are referring to here. When that's clearly not the case. You are caught in your own inane rhetoric and are trying to twist your way out with dishonesty.


Like I said YOU are the one doing the twisting, let me break it down for you.

From the arguments I have had here you are supposed to lay down and hope the person doesn't shoot you, let your family get raped, and then make sure to give the criminal a mint before he leaves. -argument I have heard from the left previously on these boards.

In my state it -argument from the left(aka the idea that you should have to lay down and hope the person doesn't shoot you, let your family get raped, and then make sure to give the criminal a mint before he leaves.) would be seen as cowardice (and it would), in other places it seems its common sense to let criminals walk all over you (which would be the ideal of someone who proposes what the left has previously in threads like these).


If the best you can do is fantastic hypotheticals you've lost already. For every fictional scenario you come up with for guns there's one where guns get one's family in trouble.

A responsible gun owner never puts his family in trouble :)




So... Person who refuses to carry a gun gets raped, not a coward. Person who dictates that no one can carry a weapon to protect themselves and let the criminals do as they will, coward.

[.Andy]

-argument I have heard from the left previously on these boards.
And I'll call you out on this. You are being dishonest. You've never had this discussion with anyone at all on these boards. It's inane hyperbolic rhetoric and you've got yourself caught up by it. It's empty culture wars nonsense.

Not owning a firearm is not tantamount to lying down and letting a criminal walk all over you and rape your family. If you think it is you are completely lacking in objectivity.

[Zombie Acorn]

And I'll call you out on this. You are being dishonest. You've never had this discussion with anyone at all on these boards. It's inane hyperbolic rhetoric and you've got yourself caught up by it. It's empty culture wars nonsense.


Ive had the debate on why people should be allowed to fire on criminals who illegally enter their house countless times. I generalized (perhaps a pinch of sensationalism with the mint) the words, but the sentiment was very close.

The sentiment: You should not be allowed to protect your family with a firearm if someone breaks into your house.

I call anyone who believes that a coward without withdrawal.


Not owning a firearm is not tantamount to lying down and letting a criminal walk all over you and rape your family. If you think it is you are completely lacking in objectivity.

No, but not allowing someone else to carry a firearm when they want to protect their family is. I don't really care what you want to do for self defense, I only care what I want to do, thats why its called "self-defense".

[.Andy]

Ive had the debate on why people should be allowed to fire on criminals who illegally enter their house countless times. I generalized (perhaps a pinch of sensationalism with the mint) the words, but the sentiment was very close.
Rubbish. I very much doubt the anyone claimed that you should let people walk into your house and have free reign at raping your family. It's all inane culture wars nonsense. You've got yourself caught up in hyperbole. And your frantic backpeddling isn't working.

The sentiment: You should not be allowed to protect your family with a firearm if someone breaks into your house.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here with some quotes from "the left". It's more likely that the sentiment was far more sophisticated. Such as a firearm should be the very last course of action and there are plenty other ways to protect ones family from intruders. Coupled with the fact that there a plenty of circumstances where hastily pulling a gun is only going to inflame a situation or cause unnecessary casualties which might include one's own family. Likewise peeling off three rounds centre mass and killing someone who is stealing material objects from you is abhorrent. Again I'd wager the hyperbole that ended up reverberating in your head is far different from the reality of the past discussion.

[callmemike20]

Ive had the debate on why people should be allowed to fire on criminals who illegally enter their house countless times. I generalized (perhaps a pinch of sensationalism with the mint) the words, but the sentiment was very close.

The sentiment: You should not be allowed to protect your family with a firearm if someone breaks into your house.

I call anyone who believes that a coward without withdrawal.



No, but not allowing someone else to carry a firearm when they want to protect their family is. I don't really care what you want to do for self defense, I only care what I want to do, thats why its called "self-defense".

Now you probably understand why I don't take these forums even 1% seriously. It's full of liberals who accept Michael Moore as a credible source but not Sean Hannity. As long as the source caters to them, they are ok with it.

[nbs2]

Again your complete inability to think of any other way to ensure security without resorting to a gun shows a complete lack of objectivity.

Don't just attack, provide solutions. Or something like that.

Quick fact: the US is the only country in the world where guns are given higher importance than free speech.

Think about it! How many debates about free speech have you observed lately? Now how many debates about the legality of weapons?

Oh, and the founders of your lovely country weren't into guns, they were into staying free from the british. It's the hicks nowadays who are into guns, maybe cause there haven't been any invasion attempts for a few hundred years.

Not sure where your fact comes from, but let's go with it. Does it mean that guns are more important or that we have somewhat universally established and all agree rather broad restrictions on the restriction of speech, leading to fewer disputes. And wouldn't that mean that the rest of the world needs to get its priorities in order - first free speech and then guns?

PS - the hicks? really? you are going to use a term with derrrogatory connotations to describe an entire group of people? is that really something you expect to bolster your claims?

[LethalWolfe]

I don't think you're going to stop gangs and other forms of organized crime from getting guns with tighter gun control. What you can stop though are things such as school and workplace shootings. Take Virginia Tech for example. The shooter legally bought his guns. He had mental issues and had spent time in a mental facility and a judge ruled that he was a danger to himself due to his mental condition. But the law had no restrictions on the ability of someone with his condition to buy firearms. If he was not legally allowed to purchase guns, the shooting probably would've never happened because I highly doubt someone like him has the connections to get guns on the black market.

Cho fell through the cracks when he was able to legally purchase firearms. His situation was an anomaly. The 'crack' in VA law that kept him from being red-flagged by the Feds was fixed w/in days of the shooting after VA lawmakers realized what had happened.


Lethal

[Shivetya]

In any case, I am not for a gun ban, but for gun control.

because we all know criminals obey the law.


Gun Control just makes more victims, which is nice if you need victims.

[leekohler]

Now you probably understand why I don't take these forums even 1% seriously. It's full of liberals who accept Michael Moore as a credible source but not Sean Hannity. As long as the source caters to them, they are ok with it.

And you know why we can't take you 1% seriously? Because you say things like "Obama is not an American". When did anyone here ever use Moore as a credible source? He's criticized by everyone here.

When you guys start living in reality and want to have a serious discussion, let us know.

[Eraserhead]

When you guys start living in reality and want to have a serious discussion, let us know.

Yeah, but then they'd be forced to live in reality about issues like healthcare, where the current American system is so braindead its probably worse than the system in most 3rd world countries, let alone Europe.

They'd have to believe in climate change and evolution too, two really "controversial" scientific ideas.

Basically to live in reality, you're forced to be a "Democrat" on the US scale, which is different from Europe where you can support most mainstream parties and look at the world from a mostly logical perspective.

[Zombie Acorn]

Yeah, but then they'd be forced to live in reality about issues like healthcare, where the current American system is so braindead its probably worse than the system in most 3rd world countries, let alone Europe.

Bold statement, care to back it up with facts?

They'd have to believe in climate change and evolution too, two really "controversial" scientific ideas.


Ive been a critic of creationist theory for longer than most in my lifetime who grew up catholic (actually made one of my teachers cry). I concluded Santa was horse **** when I was 3 also. :D Climate change (aka massive human destructive capability on the climate) isn't a given for me, I will wait for more data in the future and I want more data further into the past.


Basically to live in reality, you're forced to be a "Democrat" on the US scale, which is different from Europe where you can support most mainstream parties and look at the world from a mostly logical perspective.

"In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported an estimated 2,154,126 burglary offenses-a 0.5-percent increase compared with 2004 data."

"Of all burglary offenses in 2005, 65.8 percent were of residential structures."

I am sure reality hasn't changed much since 2005.

[callmemike20]

And you know why we can't take you 1% seriously? Because you say things like "Obama is not an American". When did anyone here ever use Moore as a credible source? He's criticized by everyone here.

When you guys start living in reality and want to have a serious discussion, let us know.

First off,
If you would of read the "reason for edit" on that post, you would see that I believe he is a natural born citizen. I just think he has much hatred for America.

Also, I think liberals need to start living in reality. Not everyone can be as equal as they want them to be. Liberals seem to be against "for the few, at the expense of the many." But if 30 million people in America don't have insurance (many because of choice), then that is 10% of America (less if you exclude the people who can afford it and choose not to buy it). So, should the country help "the few, at the expense of the many." Oh yea, in this case it fully makes sense. You know why it makes sense? Because it's helping the poor minority, which is all the Dems seem to care about anymore.

[Eraserhead]

Bold statement, care to back it up with facts?

I mean it terms of value for money, not care - obviously on that the US is superior. Basically most third world countries spend a tiny amount of money on healthcare, yet they deliver a similar life expectancy to the West (and only a few years lower). Their healthcare systems are also not going to bankrupt their countries. I'm happy to retract the point until I can back it up with some numbers.

BIve been a critic of creationist theory for longer than most in my lifetime who grew up catholic (actually made one of my teachers cry). I concluded Santa was horse **** when I was 3 also. :D

Fair enough.

Climate change (aka massive human destructive capability on the climate) isn't a given for me, I will wait for more data in the future and I want more data further into the past.

The evidence is pretty strong on that, see this for example (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/09/current-emissions-may-mean-4c-temperature-hike-before-2100.ars).

"In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported an estimated 2,154,126 burglary offenses-a 0.5-percent increase compared with 2004 data."

"Of all burglary offenses in 2005, 65.8 percent were of residential structures."

I am sure reality hasn't changed much since 2005.

:confused: was this supposed to be aimed at someone else?

Overall I think that you have a point, I have to at least partially retract my overall statement about being a "Democrat" to be rational, you've shown you don't need to be one. The point would be better made that many "mainstream" right wing commentators (including Glen Beck, but also people like Sarah Palin) seem to be forced to essentially lie and bend the truth in half to make their points.

[Zombie Acorn]

:confused: was this supposed to be aimed at someone else?

Overall I think that you have a point, I have to at least partially retract my overall statement about being a "Democrat" to be rational, you've shown you don't need to be one. The point would be better made that many "mainstream" right wing commentators (including Glen Beck, but also people like Sarah Palin) seem to be forced to essentially lie and bend the truth in half to make their points.

I thought you were saying that being prepared for intruders into houses wasn't based in "reality".

I heard someone say that Glen Beck and Sarah Palin should run on a ticket together in 2012, I laughed so hard I about cried, and then I actually cried because they were serious. :p

[leekohler]

First off,
If you would of read the "reason for edit" on that post, you would see that I believe he is a natural born citizen. I just think he has much hatred for America.

I read your edit, in which you still claim Obama is not American and that he hates America, which is 100% BS.

Also, I think liberals need to start living in reality. Not everyone can be as equal as they want them to be. Liberals seem to be against "for the few, at the expense of the many." But if 30 million people in America don't have insurance (many because of choice), then that is 10% of America (less if you exclude the people who can afford it and choose not to buy it). So, should the country help "the few, at the expense of the many." Oh yea, in this case it fully makes sense. You know why it makes sense? Because it's helping the poor minority, which is all the Dems seem to care about anymore.

Here's where you are utterly and completely wrong. UHC benefits everyone in immense, immeasurable ways. It benefits business as well as individuals. We all pay for everyone else's health care now- in a very wasteful manner, and we get very little for it. I'm tired of throwing money down the toilet to insurance companies who many times won't even insure people who've been paying for decades when they really need it. THE REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS HOW TO DO IT BETTER. There is no argument there. Universal health care is the answer to the health care issue.

Now- kindly stop derailing my thread. Like I said, when you decide to look at things honestly, let us know.

And while I'm at it- the goal is to ensure equal opportunity for all, not make everyone the same. You guys love to twist that to suit your needs.

[Eraserhead]

I thought you were saying that being prepared for intruders into houses wasn't based in "reality".

Ah OK, I wasn't making that point.

Now- kindly stop derailing my thread. Like I said, when you decide to look at things honestly, let us know.

Sorry :o.

[leekohler]

Sorry :o.

I wasn't talking to you. ;) You guys are OT.

[rdowns]

I think all legal gun owners should head over to Congress and hold them up to legislature's heads. We'll see how quickly they stop listening to the insurance companies who own their asses. :rolleyes:

[.Andy]

Don't just attack, provide solutions. Or something like that.
You're kidding. You singled me out for for calling out Zombie Acorn's ridiculous fictional culture wars tirade claiming liberals think home owners should let criminals walk all over them and allow them and rape their families. You're showing your partisanship nbs2 and like zombie acorn a complete inability to be objective.

As far as guns go I think it's too late for america for any kind of ban. There's just too many guns and their ownership has been conflated with freedom since the get go. Your gun death statistics are abhorrent. Your crime rates are abhorrent. The way in which you are driven by fear and paranoia to arm yourself against your fellow man is callous and ends up a self-fulfilling cycle. Guns aren't the answer to any of societies ills. At best all they do is increase the perception of safety. Which is all they need to do to suck people's cash out of them. Investing in health and education are the very best ways in which you can decrease crime. Not sleeping with a loaded weapon.

I'll never own one again nor will I ever have to resort to emotive fiction about my family getting raped to justify or argue my position.

[Zombie Acorn]

You're kidding. You singled me out for for calling out Zombie Acorn's ridiculous fictional culture wars tirade claiming liberals think home owners should let criminals walk all over them and allow them and rape their families. You're showing your partisanship nbs2 and like zombie acorn a complete inability to be objective.

As far as guns go I think it's too late for america for any kind of ban. There's just too many guns and their ownership has been conflated with freedom since the get go. Your gun death statistics are abhorrent. Your crime rates are abhorrent. The way in which you are driven by fear and paranoia to arm yourself against your fellow man is callous and ends up a self-fulfilling cycle. Guns aren't the answer to any of societies ills. At best all they do is increase the perception of safety. Which is all they need to do to suck people's cash out of them. Investing in health and education are the very best ways in which you can decrease crime. Not sleeping with a loaded weapon.

I'll never own one again nor will I ever have to resort to emotive fiction about my family getting raped to justify or argue my position.

Freedom and guns go hand in hand. We have tons of guns here and little crime. Chicago has gun bans and tons of crime. I'll take my way.

[.Andy]

Freedom and guns go hand in hand.
No they don't. Guns aren't necessary for freedom whatsoever. Freedom does not own a firearm. It's just more empty emotive rhetoric.

We have tons of guns here and little crime. Chicago has gun bans and tons of crime. I'll take my way.
Which is of course an awful strawman argument again. If you're trying to attribute gun ownership to the respective crime rates you are absolutely 100% being dishonest. There isn't the data for that. Again if the best you can do is try an anecdotal pissing match you've lost already.


edit: still waiting for you to back up your claim that you've had liberals on here claiming that people should do nothing when someone breaks into their house and continue to do nothing whilst the perpetrator rapes their family.

[Zombie Acorn]

No they don't. Guns aren't necessary for freedom whatsoever. Freedom does not own a firearm. It's just more empty emotive rhetoric.

In America they are.


Which is of course an awful strawman argument again. If you're trying to attribute gun ownership to the respective crime rates you are absolutely 100% being dishonest. There isn't the data for that. Again if the best you can do is try an anecdotal pissing match you've lost already.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634/

Thats pretty much my town except for non-south and no weird talk/accents.


edit: still waiting for you to back up your claim that you've had liberals on here claiming that people should do nothing when someone breaks into their house and continue to do nothing whilst the perpetrator rapes their family.

I can only get halfway preoccupied with macrumors today, searching for threads is out of the question.

[.Andy]

In America they are.
Conflated yes.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634/
Thats pretty much my town except for non-south and no weird talk/accents.
That's not evidence that guns had anything to do with crime rates. Correlation and causation are a tricky business but one that should be easy to prove given the rates of gun ownership in the US. You're a university student - find me a peer-reviewed scholarly article that claims that gun ownership rates are a guaranteed way to reduce crime, and vise versa that gun restrictions or bans lead to an increase in crime.

edit: also I shouldn't have to point out that not only is the data you present here not supportive of your assertions, but that trying to extrapolate from a small city to one the size of chicago is absolutely ludicrous.

I can only get halfway preoccupied with macrumors today, searching for threads is out of the question.
Finding quotes attributable to your horrible culture wars claim is always going to be out of the question. You made it up and it was disgusting.

[Zombie Acorn]

That's not evidence that guns had anything to do with crime rates. Correlation and causation are a tricky business but one that should be easy to prove given the rates of gun ownership in the US. You're a university student - find me a peer-reviewed scholarly article that claims that gun ownership rates are a guaranteed way to reduce crime, and vise versa that gun restrictions or bans lead to an increase in crime.

I'll do my best. It seems that you've asserted that guns lead to crime (and if thats not what you believe then why would it matter if we had them?), the idea should be scalable. There are more guns in rural areas per capita so we should have more crimes if the presence of guns is positively correlated with "bad things" happening.


Finding quotes attributable to your horrible culture wars claim is always going to be out of the question. You made it up and it was disgusting.

Ill have more time this weekend to weed through threads.

[.Andy]

It seems that you've asserted that guns lead to crime
Not at all in any way, sense or form.

I have no idea what guns do to crime overall. There just isn't the data from what I've seen. I don't doubt that in some circumstances having a gun is a good means of self-defense. Nor do I doubt that in other's it's a horrible thing to pull out that only escalates a situation and ends up with people dead who need not be. Nor do I doubt that in some towns perhaps gun ownership might have a small affect on crime (either positive or negative). But guns most certainly are only a reaction to crime. Owning guns by no means addresses the root cause of crime. Which is where effort should be concentrated. But that's all too hard financially and ideologically for many. Buying a weapon is much easier.

(and if thats not what you believe then why would it matter if we had them?)
Personally I don't care if you have them. What I do care about is ridiculous fictional assertions to support the ownership of them. You like them and it makes you feel safe is about the only thing you can honestly say. To say that it will statistically make your family safer than someone else who doesn't own a gun is complete fiction and not backed up be research.

There are more guns in rural areas per capita so we should have more crimes if the presence of guns is positively correlated with "bad things" happening.
I didn't make this claim so it's a strawman again. But again you're incorrect if you think that the major influences on crime in major cities versus rural areas are the same.

Ill have more time this weekend to weed through threads.
You're not telling me that a mroogle search of "let rape family" "guns" and "liberal" is coming back empty are you?

[yg17]

In America they are.


I live in America, don't have guns and don't want guns. Now you're telling me I'm not free? That's news to me :rolleyes:

[callmemike20]

Well, the right to bear arms isn't just there to protect us from criminals. It's also there to protect us from our own government. First thing Hitler did was remove them because he knew that, with them, the people could oust him. If people have no way of fighting back against their government in extreme measures, then their representation will slowly diminish and they will be controlled by a small elite.

Take Chicago, since thats the topic here....Mayor Daley is nuts and everyone knows it. It's the most corrupt in the nation. Now, what's going on now isn't a reason to raid the government, but lets say Chicago politics stopped listening to the people and simply listened to one man. The people of the city would have no way to rise up and defeat them.

[Eraserhead]

Well, the right to bear arms isn't just there to protect us from criminals. It's also there to protect us from our own government.

So how come with all this power the citizens have the US government seems to be one of most corrupt in the developed world?

[callmemike20]

So how come with all this power the citizens have the US government seems to be one of most corrupt in the developed world?

Extremely good question. And I think a good chunk of that answer was just discussed in another thread. Lobbyists giving money to politicians to get what they want.

[.Andy]

Extremely good question. And I think a good chunk of that answer was just discussed in another thread. Lobbyists giving money to politicians to get what they want.
So guns have been completely ineffectual at accomplishing such a goal.

[callmemike20]

So guns have been completely ineffectual at accomplishing such a goal.

It hasn't become so extreme that we are looking like 1984. Really, you aren't going to start raiding the government until things really heat up...and I mean really heat up. Stuff that makes a state possibly want to break away from the US and be their own country (which there have been thoughts, but no full force movement). The stuff that's going on now can be fixed by a few simple laws. We just have to elect the right people to make them.

[.Andy]

It hasn't become so extreme that we are looking like 1984.
A Hitler reference and a 1984 reference within three posts.

Just looking at this another way, the biggest winner in the "right to bear arms" is arguably the weapon manufacturers, who themselves are extremely powerful lobbyists of congress for their own means.

[yg17]

Well, the right to bear arms isn't just there to protect us from criminals. It's also there to protect us from our own government. First thing Hitler did was remove them because he knew that, with them, the people could oust him. If people have no way of fighting back against their government in extreme measures, then their representation will slowly diminish and they will be controlled by a small elite.


But I thought even with strict gun control and gun bans, people who want guns can still get guns, right? That's the argument all you conservatives make. Out of one side of the mouth, you claim gun control doesn't work because people can still get guns, but then on the other side you claim that the 2nd amendment is necessary because the government can take away all our guns and stop us from getting them, so which is it? Please, make up your mind.

It wasn't lack of guns that stopped anyone from taking out Hitler, it was that people were scared for their lives and what would happen to them and their family if found to be making a plot to take him out. And it wasn't worth it because even if you did kill Hitler, he would have a successor in place to continue the same style of government. Killing him doesn't make all the Nazis magically go away. Anyone who might've had a gun and wanted to kill him probably knew it wouldn't change a damn thing and it wasn't worth the risk.

It hasn't become so extreme that we are looking like 1984. Really, you aren't going to start raiding the government until things really heat up...and I mean really heat up. Stuff that makes a state possibly want to break away from the US and be their own country (which there have been thoughts, but no full force movement). The stuff that's going on now can be fixed by a few simple laws. We just have to elect the right people to make them.

I don't think you could consider the insane ramblings of a few inbred treasonous teabagging Texan rednecks a thought. At least not a rational one.

[barkomatic]

So how come with all this power the citizens have the US government seems to be one of most corrupt in the developed world?

The U.S. government is not one of the most corrupt in the developed world. It's probably one of the most scrutinized and is in the news very often--that's probably why you're getting that mistaken impression.

[callmemike20]

But I thought even with strict gun control and gun bans, people who want guns can still get guns, right? That's the argument all you conservatives make. Out of one side of the mouth, you claim gun control doesn't work because people can still get guns, but then on the other side you claim that the 2nd amendment is necessary because the government can take away all our guns and stop us from getting them, so which is it? Please, make up your mind.

It wasn't lack of guns that stopped anyone from taking out Hitler, it was that people were scared for their lives and what would happen to them and their family if found to be making a plot to take him out. And it wasn't worth it because even if you did kill Hitler, he would have a successor in place to continue the same style of government. Killing him doesn't make all the Nazis magically go away. Anyone who might've had a gun and wanted to kill him probably knew it wouldn't change a damn thing and it wasn't worth the risk.

Well, if the government took full military control over its own people, it would be nearly impossible to get guns. Allow us to carry them sets a ground where they can't attempt to not let us have them. It's a way of showing that people control the government, not the other way around. (Which ideally, is how it should be).

I don't think you could consider the insane ramblings of a few inbred treasonous teabagging Texan rednecks a thought. At least not a rational one.

Stereotyping, are we? Well, I think that all the Flaming rainbow flag wavers in San Francisco are no reason to legalize gay marriage. Those Texans are Americans and deserve their representation in our government. And the tea parties are a great way to tell the government how much you don't like their excessive spending.

[Desertrat]

yg17, are you aware that the Bill of Rights lists rights which exist whether or not there is any government at all? That the writers intended them as a package? That the purpose is expressed in writing in the Preamble? Those rights are not given by government. As a package, they are restraints on government, and this is explicitly stated:

"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public cfconfidence in the overnment, will best insure the beneficient ends of its institution."

My italics; their thoughts.

"Heller" has added the idea of personal self-defense to the Second Amendment. Insofar as self-defense, for all that the Second Amendment makes no mention of it, some see it as available under the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Makes sense; since the courts have held that the cops have no duty to protect individuals, that duty then falls upon the individual person himself.

[Eraserhead]

The U.S. government is not one of the most corrupt in the developed world.

For starters how come they are the only one who can't get a decent healthcare bill passed? And how come they fall far behind the EU with regards to environmental legislation? And how come their copyright laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_copyright_law) are the strictest in the world?

FWIW I agree that Italy is probably more corrupt than the US.

[Zombie Acorn]

I live in America, don't have guns and don't want guns. Now you're telling me I'm not free? That's news to me :rolleyes:

Have you ever shot a bucket from 700 yds out? I felt the freedom in the recoil of the gun.

[bobber205]

And I suppose that if I live in a city like Chicago and I get mugged, I should just accept it and give them what they want. In any big city, the police most likely won't go out and try to recover your stuff. Should I be at a loss there?

And suppose someone breaks into my home with a gun. What do I do? Listen to their commands? Give them what they want? If I even try to protect myself or my stuff, I will be killed. So in that case, a good life will be lost when, instead, a bad life could be lost. I don't care if he had a kid at home, if he tried to rob me and he was armed, I better be able to make him a dead mf'er.

With bans on guns (or any weapon), the criminals are always going to have the advantage on the rest of the population. They will get what they want. And in a big city, you need to be able to protect yourself.

What does this have to do with assault rifles being banned. It puts police is great danger and is never necessary to protect yourself. If a criminal has a assault rifle (illegally hopefully) there's nothing you can do to protect yourself.

This whole "those who carry guns protect themselves better against crime" thing is a myth. In fact I've read studies that found those who have guns on them and aren't properly trained are in more danger than those without.

[Zombie Acorn]

What does this have to do with assault rifles being banned. It puts police is great danger and is never necessary to protect yourself. If a criminal has a assault rifle (illegally hopefully) there's nothing you can do to protect yourself.

This whole "those who carry guns protect themselves better against crime" thing is a myth. In fact I've read studies that found those who have guns on them and aren't properly trained are in more danger than those without.

assault rifles don't put police in danger. People with malicious intent do. I can buy a bolt action rifle that is more accurate and more powerful.

[bobber205]

assault rifles don't put police in danger. People with malicious intent do. I can buy a bolt action rifle that is more accurate and more powerful.

We need to do all we can to prevent those malicious people from getting those weapons to begin with, not have them available just so some people can use them non-violently.

[yg17]

Have you ever shot a bucket from 700 yds out? I felt the freedom in the recoil of the gun.

No I haven't. I've never shot anything more than a Super Soaker. Am I still not free?

[bobber205]

No I haven't. I've never shot anything more than a Super Soaker. Am I still not free?

I've heard that people who insist on big cars and bigger guns have smaller something else. ;)

[LethalWolfe]

What does this have to do with assault rifles being banned. It puts police is great danger and is never necessary to protect yourself. If a criminal has a assault rifle (illegally hopefully) there's nothing you can do to protect yourself.
I don't think an assault rifle, as defined by law in the US, is what you think it is. All the brouhaha over assault rifles is largely FUD. "Assault rifle" sounds scary so politicians latched onto it and were able to pass a do-nothing, worthless piece of windowing dressing legislation (the Assault Weapon Ban) that scored points w/their supports but didn't really do anything to save lives or prevent/lessen gun violence. Prior to the AWB assault rifles were used in 1-2% of gun crime in the US. While the AWB was in affect assault rifles were used in about 1-2% of the crime in the US. Even if the AWB worked perfectly it still ignores 98% of the problem. Completely waste of time and money? IMO, yes.

If you want to reduce gun crime in the US you have to look at the big picture. You have to go after the suppliers, not the end users. You have to treat the cause, not the symptom.


Lethal

[bobber205]

I don't think an assault rifle, as defined by law in the US, is what you think it is. All the brouhaha over assault rifles is largely FUD. "Assault rifle" sounds scary so politicians latched onto it and were able to pass a do-nothing, worthless piece of windowing dressing legislation (the Assault Weapon Ban) that scored points w/their supports but didn't really do anything to save lives or prevent/lessen gun violence. Prior to the AWB assault rifles were used in 1-2% of gun crime in the US. While the AWB was in affect assault rifles were used in about 1-2% of the crime in the US. Even if the AWB worked perfectly it still ignores 98% of the problem. Completely waste of time and money? IMO, yes.

If you want to reduce gun crime in the US you have to look at the big picture. You have to go after the suppliers, not the end users. You have to treat the cause, not the symptom.


Lethal

I was not aware of this and was caught in the FUD. Thanks for the info!

Are there any realistic ideas out there to cut down on gun violence?

[PcBgone]

I don't think you could consider the insane ramblings of a few inbred treasonous teabagging Texan rednecks a thought. At least not a rational one.

First of all, Texas joined the US under its own choice. It was not Purchased, War spoils, declared apart of the US. We simply applied for Statehood under our own Free Will, after our inability to defend our borders appropriately, among other reasons. Therefore, its not treason if we CHOOSE to leave. No where in the Constitution does it say once you become part of the US you can never leave.

And I will tell you this, This "treasonous teabagging Texan redneck" would certainly support secession IF it comes to that. Im proud of Gov Perry for sticking up to Obama and telling him we STILL have this option. I will support TEXAS till my Dying Breath. I love America, but I love Texas First. And when America no longer supports the ideals and values of Texas, then its time to leave and support ourselves once again.

[Badandy]

No I haven't. I've never shot anything more than a Super Soaker. Am I still not free?

You're missing the point.

The point is that you can shoot a gun if you want. Actually, that's the point of freedom; it's not that you should do nearly everything, it's that you should be able to do nearly everything if you desire.

[Badandy]

Sorry for the double post.

First of all, Texas joined the US under its own choice. It was not Purchased, War spoils, declared apart of the US. We simply applied for Statehood under our own Free Will, after our inability to defend our borders appropriately, among other reasons. Therefore, its not treason if we CHOOSE to leave. No where in the Constitution does it say once you become part of the US you can never leave.

It's not legal to secede. You know what happens when you do? Civil war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

And I will tell you this, This "treasonous teabagging Texan redneck" would certainly support secession IF it comes to that.

Let's at least be honest here. Your views you've expressed on this board are so laughably unrealistic and sickeningly nationalistic that no one really cares about your faux allegiance to a state.

[leekohler]

First of all, Texas joined the US under its own choice. It was not Purchased, War spoils, declared apart of the US. We simply applied for Statehood under our own Free Will, after our inability to defend our borders appropriately, among other reasons. Therefore, its not treason if we CHOOSE to leave. No where in the Constitution does it say once you become part of the US you can never leave.

And I will tell you this, This "treasonous teabagging Texan redneck" would certainly support secession IF it comes to that. Im proud of Gov Perry for sticking up to Obama and telling him we STILL have this option. I will support TEXAS till my Dying Breath. I love America, but I love Texas First. And when America no longer supports the ideals and values of Texas, then its time to leave and support ourselves once again.

Please secede. You do so with my full blessing. We'll be building a wall between you and us as well.

[PcBgone]

Please secede. You do so with my full blessing. We'll be building a wall between you and us as well.

If it were up to me, I certainly would have a long time ago, when you left wingers decided to allow abortion, kick God out of Schools, and now want homosexual marriage. I think the Values of Texas and the Values of America have been different for a very long time.

[Eraserhead]

kick God out of Schools,

When was god ever "in schools"? The US always had separation between church and state...

[yg17]

If it were up to me, I certainly would have a long time ago, when you left wingers decided to allow abortion, kick God out of Schools, and now want homosexual marriage. I think the Values of Texas and the Values of America have been different for a very long time.

If you don't like America, then get the **** out. That's what all these conservative nutjobs told us when Bush was president. What's good for the goose is good for the gander

[fivepoint]

When was god ever "in schools"? The US always had separation between church and state...

Perhaps living on the other side of the ocean, you don't have the best knowledge on this issue. Activists have been preventing coaches from having prayers in team huddles, preventing children and teachers from praying before meals. This is more than the separation of church and state was intended to be... read what the founders actually wrote instead of just the soundbite groups like to spread around today.

August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.[29]

If anything, the government telling us that we can't pray in school (as one example) is the exact definition of breaking church and state separation i.e. freedom of religious exercise.


Please secede. You do so with my full blessing. We'll be building a wall between you and us as well.

I wouldn't support the secession of Texas any more than I would of NY, IA, or even CA. Our differences make us stronger. Anyone who doesn't think that Texas is one of the greatest states in the union, a state that would would be sorely missed if anything such as this happened, is a few bricks short of a load. By the way, did you know that Texas created more jobs last year than the entire rest of the United States put together? Guess how many California made.

[Peterkro]

If it were up to me, I certainly would have a long time ago, when you left wingers decided to allow abortion, kick God out of Schools, and now want homosexual marriage. I think the Values of Texas and the Values of America have been different for a very long time.

Weird scenes inside the gold mine.

[DiamondMac]

Activists have been preventing coaches from having prayers in team huddles, preventing children and teachers from praying before meals. This is more than the separation of church and state was intended to be... read what the founders actually wrote instead of just the soundbite groups like to spread around today.

Go into detail about what the founders wrote....I always am interested in those discussing the founding fathers as it seems 95% of those quoting them haven't actually read what most of them had to say.

If anything, the government telling us that we can't pray in school (as one example) is the exact definition of breaking church and state separation i.e. freedom of religious exercise.
Very broad example with MANY instances of teachers trying to force down religion on students who don't want it.

It goes both ways.

Anyone who doesn't think that Texas is one of the greatest states in the union, a state that would would be sorely missed if anything such as this happened, is a few bricks short of a load.

Texas would become a 3rd world country without the US supporting it.

[yg17]

Texas would become a 3rd world country without the US supporting it.

And if they secede, just wait until another hurricane hits the Galveston area, they'll come crying back to the US for help.

I just hope we'll have armed minutemen on the border, patrolling it to stop all of those illegal Texans from coming to the US.

[fivepoint]

Go into detail about what the founders wrote....I always am interested in those discussing the founding fathers as it seems 95% of those quoting them haven't actually read what most of them had to say.


I guess I'm in the 5% then. Your point?



Very broad example with MANY instances of teachers trying to force down religion on students who don't want it.

It goes both ways.


Your point? Enough with the scarecrow arguments. No one is disagreeing with the fact that teachers (representatives of the state) shouldn't be allowed to FORCE their religion on anyone. Eraserhead though was trying to say that there was never any religion in school. I was clearing up the facts and showing exactly what kinds of things lunatic activists are doing to completely remove any sort of religion from government and visa-versa, even though that's clearly not what the founders' intended (aka, should require an amendment if that's how we want it done)




Texas would become a 3rd world country without the US supporting it.

BS. But, like I said... our differences make us stronger as a whole. Texas, for one, makes us much stronger (i.e. added more jobs to our economy than the entire rest of the country combined in 2009)

[yg17]

If you want religion in schools, that's what private schools are for. Public schools should either remain 100% secular or lose every dime of taxpayer money they receive.

[DiamondMac]

I guess I'm in the 5% then. Your point?

I thought the point was quite clear in asking you to actually divulge into what you claimed was the Founding Fathers intent. Go into detail. Be specific.

Broad, sweeping statements about them come off as lazy

Imagine that, no proof or evidence.

No, just common sense

[LethalWolfe]

I was not aware of this and was caught in the FUD. Thanks for the info!

Are there any realistic ideas out there to cut down on gun violence?
Short term, change the focus of the BATF from going after end users and small time dealers to going after after the bigger fish in the US that allow the vast majority of firearms to enter the black market in the US. Most of this can be accomplished by just giving the BATF the money and man power to properly enforce the laws on the books as well as passing regulation to make the paper trail between authorized gun dealers and gun manufacturers more robust and transparent.

Long term, address the socio-economic problems that are largely the root cause of crime in general (not just gun crime).


Lethal

[fivepoint]

I thought the point was quite clear in asking you to actually divulge into what you claimed was the Founding Fathers intent. Go into detail. Be specific.

Broad, sweeping statements about them come off as lazy



No, just common sense


Ummm... I hate to be the picky one... but I friggin directly quoted James Madison. Would you like me to get more direct quotes from the men who wrote the document? Very sad attempt at distorting what I said even though the truth is a couple flicks of the roller bar up the page. ;)

[fivepoint]

If you want religion in schools, that's what private schools are for. Public schools should either remain 100% secular or lose every dime of taxpayer money they receive.

Are you one of the extremists that thinks that students shouldn't be allowed to pray in school, that teachers should be allowed to pray before lunch, or that no historical information regarding religion should be taught in school whatsoever?

[yg17]

Are you one of the extremists that thinks that students shouldn't be allowed to pray in school, that teachers should be allowed to pray before lunch, or that no historical information regarding religion should be taught in school whatsoever?

Students should be allowed to pray on their own, or with other students. Teachers should also be allowed to pray on their own. That is fine with me. What is not OK is group prayer led by teachers or coaches, or a student chosen by a staff member, because then you have what is essentially a government employee promoting one religion over another, and that is a violation of the first amendment.

I also have no problem with teaching historical information about religion. Maybe if people learn about all of the war, death and persecution that has occured in the name of religion we can stop it from happening again.

[leekohler]

Are you one of the extremists that thinks that students shouldn't be allowed to pray in school, that teachers should be allowed to pray before lunch, or that no historical information regarding religion should be taught in school whatsoever?

Probably not- but I'm sure you wish he were. The world never works for you guys unless it's black and white, does it?

Now, can we please get back OT?

[fivepoint]

Students should be allowed to pray on their own, or with other students. Teachers should also be allowed to pray on their own. That is fine with me. What is not OK is group prayer led by teachers or coaches, or a student chosen by a staff member, because then you have what is essentially a government employee promoting one religion over another, and that is a violation of the first amendment.

I also have no problem with teaching historical information about religion.


I generally agree, although there are certainly gray areas.




Maybe if people learn about all of the war, death and persecution that has occured in the name of religion we can stop it from happening again.

FYI-Much more death and destruction has been carried forth in the modern world by God-less tyrants. Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin were all vehemently against religion when they were actually doing their horrific damage.

[fivepoint]

Probably not- but I'm sure you wish he were. The world never works for you guys unless it's black and white, does it?

Now, can we please get back OT?

Um... no, I never wish for someone to have those kinds of ridiculous views and warped representations of the constitution and intentions of the founders. Unfortunately, many do... including some at the ACLU, etc. Thanks for misrepresenting my views though. Your ability for comprehension is second to none.

However, I do agree... this argument is off topic.

[DiamondMac]

Ummm... I hate to be the picky one... but I friggin directly quoted James Madison. Would you like me to get more direct quotes from the men who wrote the document?

Ah, I see...so you make a broad and incorrect generalization....back it up by copying/pasting a quote from another web-site....can't really go into any detail about the quote other then stating it must mean whatever it says....

Brilliant

The world of Internet arguments these days....bring up a subject....go to Google....copy/paste....demand it is right.

[DiamondMac]

Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin were all vehemently against religion when they were actually doing their horrific damage.

Want to take a guess who said this?

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Interesting as someone who was "vehemtly against religion"

http://books.google.com/books?id=nKl2Vv8HoDwC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=%22Hence+today+I+believe+that+I+am+acting+in+accordance+with+the+will+of+the+Almighty+Creator:+by +defending+myself+against+the+Jew,+I+am+fighting+for+the+work+of+the+Lord.%22&source=bl&ots=KpyQemsqvV&sig=UVn7RMbx0rvweus2rkftxHNyrcc&hl=en&ei=ZRvGStvBGpGf8Abwo5w3&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=%22Hence%20today%20I%20believe%20that%20I%20am%20acting%20in%20accordance%20with%20the%20will%20of %20the%20Almighty%20Creator%3A%20by%20defending%20myself%20against%20the%20Jew%2C%20I%20am%20fightin g%20for%20the%20work%20of%20the%20Lord.%22&f=false

[leekohler]

Um... no, I never wish for someone to have those kinds of ridiculous views and warped representations of the constitution and intentions of the founders. Unfortunately, many do... including some at the ACLU, etc. Thanks for misrepresenting my views though. Your ability for comprehension is second to none.


And your capability to hijack a thread and use hyperbole is second to none. Please provide proof that people at the ACLU are trying to prevent students from praying on their own, not as a group or led by a teacher. PROVE IT, or admit you're wrong. I'm sick of you misrepresenting the views of others.

[yg17]

I generally agree, although there are certainly gray areas.

Then what the hell are you arguing about if you agree with me? You said a few posts earlier "Activists have been preventing coaches from having prayers in team huddles...This is more than the separation of church and state was intended to be" You had a problem with activists preventing coaches from praying with players yesterday, and now you agree with me when I say I'm against it? Make up your mind and take a position on something and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.


FYI-Much more death and destruction has been carried forth in the modern world by God-less tyrants. Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin were all vehemently against religion when they were actually doing their horrific damage.
So? That doesn't excuse what religion has done, especially in the middle ages. Those people you listed are all terrible people and may have done more destruction than religion, but religion has done plenty on its own and persecution by religion still continues in the world, just look at the middle east.

Students learn about Mao, Hitler, etc, and hopefully since they learned that history it won't be repeated. We have to make sure they learn what religion has done so that doesn't get repeated either, because as the old saying goes, those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.

[fivepoint]

Ah, I see...so you make a broad and incorrect generalization....back it up by copying/pasting a quote from another web-site....can't really go into any detail about the quote other then stating it must mean whatever it says....

Brilliant

The world of Internet arguments these days....bring up a subject....go to Google....copy/paste....demand it is right.

Where exactly do you think I copy-pasted from? Hahaha, this is good... lets see the link. I'm interested in how much I 'copied'. :)





Want to take a guess who said this?



Interesting as someone who was "vehemtly against religion"

http://books.google.com/books?id=nKl2Vv8HoDwC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=%22Hence+today+I+believe+that+I+am+acting+in+accordance+with+the+will+of+the+Almighty+Creator:+by +defending+myself+against+the+Jew,+I+am+fighting+for+the+work+of+the+Lord.%22&source=bl&ots=KpyQemsqvV&sig=UVn7RMbx0rvweus2rkftxHNyrcc&hl=en&ei=ZRvGStvBGpGf8Abwo5w3&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=%22Hence%20today%20I%20believe%20that%20I%20am%20acting%20in%20accordance%20with%20the%20will%20of %20the%20Almighty%20Creator%3A%20by%20defending%20myself%20against%20the%20Jew%2C%20I%20am%20fightin g%20for%20the%20work%20of%20the%20Lord.%22&f=false

Well, my guess would be Hitler... but your point is irrelevant. Like I said before... "Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin were all vehemently against religion when they were actually doing their horrific damage." Everyone knows that Hitler started as a Christian only to be replaced by his complete hatred of any religion whatsoever and some say placing himself at the position of deity in his own f'd up world.

Here are a few more quotes from Hitler if you're interested:

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

There are many more of them if you just take the time to look and quite listening to the BS you get from anti-religion zealots.

I also noticed you didn't say anything about Mao, Pol Pot, or Stalin. Hmmm, I wonder why.

[fivepoint]

Then what the hell are you arguing about if you agree with me? You said a few posts earlier "Activists have been preventing coaches from having prayers in team huddles...This is more than the separation of church and state was intended to be" You had a problem with activists preventing coaches from praying with players yesterday, and now you agree with me when I say I'm against it? Make up your mind and take a position on something and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

Hence the 'gray area'. For example, with the coaches huddle... I agree, if not all kids are ok with the prayer, they should certainly not be FORCED to be involved in the huddle. However, I don't think that any huddle is ever like this. If someone in the huddle doesn't believe in Christianity, they're welcome not to participate. The state is not pushing them to accept any religion they don't want to. However, eliminating all prayers in all huddles limits a religious individual's right to pray when/where and for whatever reason they want to. It's a limitation of the freedom of religion.

If a group of kids in a Christian town, who all are christians, and there's no one complaining about the prayer, they should certainly be allowed to hold the prayer. Especially if it is led by the students themselves which it is in most cases in my experience.

Like I said... Gray areas.



So? That doesn't excuse what religion has done, especially in the middle ages. Those people you listed are all terrible people and may have done more destruction than religion, but religion has done plenty on its own and persecution by religion still continues in the world, just look at the middle east.

Students learn about Mao, Hitler, etc, and hopefully since they learned that history it won't be repeated. We have to make sure they learn what religion has done so that doesn't get repeated either, because as the old saying goes, those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.

No one is trying to 'excuse' anything. You indicated that students learning more about religion would make them less likely to follow one. I simply supplied a counter argument. Perhaps they'll be more likely to want inclusion in a religion when they learn that most of the mass-political-murders in the past 400 years have been done at the whim of God-less dictators. Maybe not, just saying...

I completely agree that religion and it's effect on humanity, politics, etc. should be an important part of history classes in school.

[yg17]

Hence the 'gray area'. For example, with the coaches huddle... I agree, if not all kids are ok with the prayer, they should certainly not be FORCED to be involved in the huddle. However, I don't think that any huddle is ever like this. If someone in the huddle doesn't believe in Christianity, they're welcome not to participate. The state is not pushing them to accept any religion they don't want to. However, eliminating all prayers in all huddles limits a religious individual's right to pray when/where and for whatever reason they want to. It's a limitation of the freedom of religion.

If a group of kids in a Christian town, who all are christians, and there's no one complaining about the prayer, they should certainly be allowed to hold the prayer. Especially if it is led by the students themselves which it is in most cases in my experience.

Like I said... Gray areas.


And if students want to do it, fine. No government employee, which is basically what teachers and coaches are, should be doing it. Period.

[PcBgone]

And if students want to do it, fine. No government employee, which is basically what teachers and coaches are, should be doing it. Period.

So your ok restricting the rights of the people based on who their employer is?

[DiamondMac]

Where exactly do you think I copy-pasted from? Hahaha,

How old are you? I get the feeling I am arguing with a 14-year-old

[DiamondMac]

However, eliminating all prayers in all huddles limits a religious individual's right to pray when/where and for whatever reason they want to.

And you can....outside the classroom.

It just boils down to Christians wanting the ability to pray wherever and whenever they want hence all the justifications

I do find it hilarious to think of all these Christians if their son or daughter was in a classroom with a majority Muslim students and the teacher said they were going to pray to Allah and anyone who doesn't want to should leave.

I know, I know....here come the "I wouldn't have a problem" responses except we all know how they would actually react

OUTRAGE! DISGUST!

[leekohler]

So your ok restricting the rights of the people based on who their employer is?

Yes- if it's the government and we're all paying their salaries. It's in the constitution. Go look it up.

[yg17]

So your ok restricting the rights of the people based on who their employer is?

No, I'm OK with making sure the government and it's employees don't violate the Constitution.

[fivepoint]

How old are you? I get the feeling I am arguing with a 14-year-old

Intriguing, no link now... trying to gloss over the fact that you complete made your attack up? Trying to gloss over the fact that I just posted evidence of Hitler's hatred of Christianity and desire for a 100% secular Germany? I feel like I'M arguing with a 14 year old. Slightly entertaining though, so thanks for that. :cool:

[leekohler]

Intriguing, no link now... trying to gloss over the fact that you complete made your attack up? Trying to gloss over the fact that I just posted evidence of Hitler's hatred of Christianity and desire for a 100% secular Germany? I feel like I'M arguing with a 14 year old. Slightly entertaining though, so thanks for that. :cool:

Why should he give you a link? You still haven't given me one to prove your silly assertion.

Get back OT, or I'm requesting this thread be closed.

[DiamondMac]

Why should he give you a link? You still haven't given me one to prove your silly assertion.

Get back OT, or I'm requesting this thread be closed.

Right. How hard is that to understand?

[Zombie Acorn]

Someone from the right dig up some pro gun articles for me to get this thread back on track, I have customers to deal with. :(

[Wotan31]

It just boils down to Christians wanting the ability to pray wherever and whenever they want hence all the justifications
No "justifications" are needed. It's protected. See the 1st amendment if you have any questions. Kthx.


I do find it hilarious to think of all these Christians if their son or daughter was in a classroom with a majority Muslim students and the teacher said they were going to pray to Allah and anyone who doesn't want to should leave.

I know, I know....here come the "I wouldn't have a problem" responses except we all know how they would actually react

OUTRAGE! DISGUST!
What's even more hilarious is that this is how most nations under Sharia Law actually work. Only instead of being "invited to leave the classroom" for not praying to Allah, they are arrested and taken to jail for years, since it's illegal to be an atheist or to practice religions other than Islam. And do we even need to bring up gays, who under Sharia Law are very regularly arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. Simply for the "crime" of being gay?

It really makes me ROFLMAO when people accuse Christians of intolerance! Double LMAO for using Islam in your hypothetical comparison.

[Eraserhead]

What's even more hilarious is that this is how most nations under Sharia Law actually work. Only instead of being "invited to leave the classroom" for not praying to Allah, they are arrested and taken to jail for years, since it's illegal to be an atheist or to practice religions other than Islam.

What about Malaysia or Indonesia?

And do we even need to bring up gays, who under Sharia Law are very regularly arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. Simply for the "crime" of being gay?

What about Indonesia?

[leekohler]

OK- I'm requesting this thread be shut down due to people's inability to stay on topic.

[PcBgone]

Yes- if it's the government and we're all paying their salaries. It's in the constitution. Go look it up.


Can you tell me the amendment that states an employee of the government isnt allowed to pray?
The Constitution states that the government shall not ESTABLISH a religion as a state religion.

A few Christian government employees praying does not constitute the establishment of a state run religion.

Its quite amusing this arguement you have decided to take. You dont want government to interfere with your choices in the bedroom, but your ok with it interfering with peoples choices of faith.

[leekohler]

Can you tell me the amendment that states an employee of the government isnt allowed to pray?


Of course they can pray. They just can't lead an entire class in a prayer- that goes against the establishment clause in the constitution. What do you guys not understand? I know you're smarter than this.

Mods- please close this thread.

[yg17]

Can you tell me the amendment that states an employee of the government isnt allowed to pray?
The Constitution states that the government shall not ESTABLISH a religion as a state religion.

A few Christian government employees praying does not constitute the establishment of a state run religion.

Its quite amusing this arguement you have decided to take. You dont want government to interfere with your choices in the bedroom, but your ok with it interfering with peoples choices of faith.

If a teacher wants to pray by themselves silently, or quietly with another teacher in the teachers lounge, I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem when a teacher decides to lead his or her class in prayer.

[kainjow]

Closed per request.