 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 28 Apr 09 - 10:44 PM Bill D., No, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate nor trolling. I didn't start this thread, nor have I dominated it (10 posts out of 149). I've been a member of Mudcat since November, 2003, and, in that time, have made only 285 posts, about half of which have been "above the line" in the music section. That is not the behavior of a troll. I see no need to try quoting statistics to you about the effectiveness, or the lack thereof, of various gun control measures, nor to argue with you about how the murder rate in Wales compares to that in Texas or Afghanistan. The reasons are simple: 1. There never has been, and likely never will be, a randomized trial of gun control. Therefore, when we consider West Virginia (for example) which has a low crime rate and lots of guns, you may say that, if West Virginia had fewer guns, its crime rate would be even lower. And in that you may well be right. And you may well be wrong. And there is no way to know without a randomized trial. 2. Until the Second Amendment is repealed, any substantial shift from the status quo is unconstitutional, both according to a natural language reading the Bill of Rights, and according to the U.S. Supreme Court throughout history. Even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, there would still be the 9th and 10th Amendments standing in the way of substantial changes to U.S. gun policy. I am of the opinion that trying to subvert ANY part of the Constitution (rather than amend it) is bad public policy. I think it sets a deadly precedent. Even if gun control were KNOWN to be completely effective, the only legitimate way to implement it is by constitutional amendment. What happens today to the Second Amendment can happen tomorrow to the First. 3. I think the basic premise behind gun control is wrong. I think the regulatory approach to problems is generally bad public policy, likely to be ineffective, dangerous to liberty, and to be avoided if at all possible. Some regulations are a necessary evil but they should be minimal. Since emotions run so high about guns, I tried a "lighter" approach with parody. I'll try again to make the point. If you want to reduce libel, you don't outlaw tabloids. If you want to reduce speeding, you don't outlaw Porsches. If you want to reduce car theft, you don't outlaw coathangers. If you want to reduce arson... well you know that one. If you want to reduce a crime, any crime, put more policeman on the streets, increase their training, improve the crime labs, and tighten sentencing, probation, and parole rules. More consistency in enforcing the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS for lesser offenses will also likely reduce the incidence of more serious crimes. For example, consistent enforcement of existing law against a wife-beater will likely reduce the chance that he will become a wife-killer. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: TIA Date: 28 Apr 09 - 11:39 PM Okay, so please be explicit..."if you want to reduce gun violence, you____________________" Thanks, TIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 29 Apr 09 - 12:17 AM TIA, The point is to reduce violent crime. I don't care what kind of tool is used. If one of my children were stabbed, blown up, poisoned, choked, or beaten to death with a tire iron, I wouldn't say, "Oh well, at least she wasn't shot". The tool used to commit the crime is irrelevant. The problem is the crime itself. As for being explicit, how's this: "If you want to reduce a crime, any crime, put more policeman on the streets, increase their training, improve the crime labs, and tighten sentencing, probation, and parole rules. More consistency in enforcing the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS for lesser offenses will also likely reduce the incidence of more serious crimes. For example, consistent enforcement of existing law against a wife-beater will likely reduce the chance that he will become a wife-killer." Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: TIA Date: 29 Apr 09 - 12:20 AM "If you want to reduce a crime, any crime, put more policeman on the streets, increase their training, improve the crime labs..." I agree. Are you willing to pay higher taxes to accomplish this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 29 Apr 09 - 12:30 AM Of course. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Apr 09 - 01:43 AM Actually, if you want to reduce violent crime (and that IS the sane and sensible objective), there are a number of things needed to be done: - more efficient and better policing - less poverty! - a radically different approach to legalizing, regulating, and dealing with certain presently illegal drugs - fewer broken homes - improvement of inner city neighborhoods - better (and more!) at home parenting of children, rather than abandoning them to the TV and the videogame consoles. - a far better educational system - a far more responsible entertainment media that does not routinely glorify violence just to sell more tickets - a far higher set of social ideals to pass on to our children - a far better example set to children by adults and by society in general And probably some other stuff too that I didn't think of at the moment. The point is, it's a very complex situation (as usual) and it isn't just about guns, it's about our society in a larger sense. People don't want to address that because it's way too complicated, so it's easier for them to just bellyache about guns. I think that might be what is concerning Kent. If so, I understand where he's coming from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Apr 09 - 02:02 AM Here's another thing that is desperately needed in the USA: A national health care plan that provides equal and free medical care for every USA citizen so that ordinary people's lives are not constantly threatened by ridiculously high medical expenses that they cannot possibly afford. We have that in Canada. Can you imagine the amount of stress that is taken off people when they know that they have such coverage? We pay for it through our taxes, naturally, and that's fine with me (although I have personally barely cost the Medicare program anything over the years). I don't mind paying taxes for that, because it's there if I need it, and that's good to know. Every other western democracy has a publicly financed national health plan in place. Only the USA lacks one at this point...yet the USA spends far more per capita on health from the GDP than Canada does! About 10% of the Canadian annual budget goes to health expenses, while 17% of the USA annual budget goes to the same! ***** What I am suggesting, in a nutshell, is this: Find out what is causing maximum stress to many people in your society, and deal with it effectively and creatively, and reduce those stresses on your citizenry, stresses which are usually financial, situational, familial, and psychological. If you reduce the most common types of stress on your citizens through various forms of responsible and progressive social policy, you WILL see a commensurate drop in the frequency of violent crimes. I guarantee it. A society is only as mentally healthy as the average mental health of its government and citizenry, after all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 29 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM Ok, Kent... now we are getting somewhere. You have stated a position, an explication of its premises and a set of suggestions. I see the logic of certain of them and disagree with 'part' of that logic. I see the value of others, but disagree with their completeness. (The necessary but not sufficient argument) I have tasks to do today, but I will try to fill in details during breaks. (I'm sorry that your 'lighter' approach went over my head, but as you say, you hadn't posted enough for me to 'feel' what your tone was. This medium can be pretty unforgiving about subtle references) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 29 Apr 09 - 06:41 PM Well, the problem, as I see it, is that we've tried deregulation and it has been a complete and utter failure... Some of the variables that LH has mentioned play into the mix but on the whole, it has failed... The problem is that money, not social interests, are driving this debate or, more accurately, this non-debate... The NRA gets billions a year from gun shop owners and rednecks too stupid to think for themselves and wioth those billions they have intact the most efficeient lobby in the country... The NRA lobby is the lobby of all lobbies... But let's get real, it comes down to a combination of money and ignorance... Wonderfull mix... "A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one..." The aerguments for the anti-gun-contolists have been carefully crafted by ad-man who have used control groups to hone the arguments where anyone with an IQ above 75 can parrot them... Dismissing the ***vague language*** in the 2nd ammendment is at the heart of their propaganda... They ignore the context... They just slam down the throats of anyone willing to listen that the 2nd ammendment is plain and clear... It isn't at all... If it were 2 sentences it might be but it isn't... The right to own guns is tied to a militia... That is the crux of the argument... Once we get folks de-porgrammed from the carefully crafted propaganda on this one issue then the real discussion can begin... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Apr 09 - 09:02 PM The problem is, Bobert, that money is driving everything. If people eventually wipe themselves out on this planet, the tombstone for the entire human race could read: "They died for the Money they made." And who gets to call the shots behind every major decision? Those with the most money...because money is power. That's how it works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: TIA Date: 29 Apr 09 - 10:03 PM Kent, Your straightforward responses are refreshing and convincing. Thank you. Now (and I ask this with no gotcha in mind) is there any merit to making it more difficult to kill for those who are crazy enough to kill? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 29 Apr 09 - 10:40 PM Kent... to try to address the basics of your points: 1. ..."There never has been, and likely never will be, a randomized trial of gun control." Indeed... it is hard to do a double-blind test of many issues like this. You cannot have everyone turn in their guns for 3 years and 'see' what happens to the violent crime rate....then give them back if we don't see progress. (I happen to think there WOULD be progress, but it is obviously an unworkable idea, as the criminals, the paranoid and the unstable would simply not cooperate.) All we can/could possibly do is to reduce future expansion of the number of illegal guns, WHILE expanding the categories of what is illegal.,,,(including types of ammunition). 2......."both according to a natural language reading the Bill of Rights, and according to the U.S. Supreme Court throughout history". Well, here I obviously disagree with the 1st part, as I still think that changes in society show that the language of the 2nd amendment has de facto become ambiguous as the concept of 'militia' had changed. The founders simply had no way of knowing what would be invented. But the 2nd part...sure..the courts have continued to 'interpret' the 2nd amendment as if there was no ambiguity, So? It seems to me this is about 87.4569% a political stance. Judges get appointed & confirmed based on their commitment to certain aspects of the status quo.. This bothers me on several issues, not just gun control.....but it is a fact, and I am trying to make my suggestions with that situation in mind. "What happens today to the Second Amendment can happen tomorrow to the First" I simply reject that as a way of deciding what is right to do! With a little bit of Gerrymandered thinking, that notion can be used to reject ANY law that seems to limit anyone's freedom to do ANYTHING. (As I said above, it is an example of the "slippery slope" fallacy of reasoning.) Each amendment must be treated on its own merits, and there is little about the 1st amendment that either represents a danger, or that any sizable portion of the public disagrees with. You 'might' someday, if the winds blow differently, get 2/3 of the states to ratify a change in the 2nd amendment, but hardly the 1st. (no, I won't hold my breath) 3.......... "If you want to reduce a crime, any crime, put more policeman on the streets, increase their training, improve the crime labs, and tighten sentencing, probation, and parole rules. More consistency in enforcing the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS for lesser offenses will also likely reduce the incidence of more serious crimes. For example, consistent enforcement of existing law against a wife-beater will likely reduce the chance that he will become a wife-killer." Sure...nice principles..... Ask the policemen already on the streets how many more they need. How many more do YOU think we need?...and where will you find decent, qualified police? Volume does little good if you can't trust them. And if you hypothesize that it is possible, how will you pay them? And IF you get that far, and they (and the courts) do a good job of enforcement, where will you put those convicted? I read about terrible overcrowding of prisons now! Gun violators will be competing for space with drug dealers, gang members and all those wife beaters..(yes, I know they are often the same, but it is STILL a serious increase in the need for jails & prisons, and the trend is away from the death penalty.) I'm sorry, but my claim is - that the existing laws are poorly designed, largely because the NRA spends millions to keep them watered down, and just a few individual states, (like Virginia, mentioned above), can make efforts in other states almost useless. That, coupled with all the existing weapons hidden away, both 'legally' and illegally, make the very idea of "enforcing the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS" a frustration to those overworked police, and a **JOKE** to both criminals and just macho fools who think they can 'settle their own scores'...thereby becoming criminals. What *I* assert is needed are changes that will 1) Stop the proliferation of NEW guns into an already saturated market. 2) Gradually reduce the totals of guns that the police...(both the overworked one we have, and the ones YOU are gonna hire & train).. agree are totally inappropriate for "Mr. Average Citizen" 3) Restrict the sale of 'heavy duty' ammunition...seriously! 4) Do ALL the education, social engineering, counseling that we as a society can manage to keep people from the IDEA of violence as a solution and 5)...oh, yeah...TRY to enforce the laws ON the books better while we are trying to GET the money for more police and write some laws they can use...(that are not being made irrelevant by the state just across the river.) I live in the Maryland suburbs of Wash. DC....I see all these conflicts and their outcomes on my newscasts every day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 29 Apr 09 - 11:41 PM Here's a thought experiment to determine whether or not the 2nd Amendment is clear and unambiguous. Imagine a constitutional amendment of the following form: Only if there is X, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed. X = a social institution Z = a tool necessary for the operation of the institution For example, Only if there are wagon trains, the right of the people to keep and train oxen shall not be infringed. If there are no wagon trains, is the right to keep and train oxen retained? No. Now imagine a constitutional amendment of the following form: A well regulated X, being necessary to Y, the right of the people to Z, shall not be infringed. X = a social institution Y = a desired result of that institution Z = a tool necessary for the operation of the institution For example: A well regulated wagon train, being necessary to the migration of settlers, the right of the people to keep and train oxen shall not be infringed. In this case, if there are no wagon trains, is the right to keep and train oxen retained? Yes. Stating one reason for a practice does not mean that the practice depends solely on that one reason. For another example: A well regulated monastary being necessary to the copying of scrolls, the right of the people to practice celibacy shall not be infringed. In this case, if there are no scroll-copying monastaries, is the right to practice celibacy retained? Yes. Stating one reason for a practice does not mean that the practice depends solely on that one reason. For a third example: 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 this case, if there is no militia, is the right to keep and bear arms retained? Yes. Stating one reason for a practice does not mean that the practice depends solely on that one reason. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 30 Apr 09 - 08:35 AM That's all and well but we're still back to the aspect of a militia... Isn't that our armed services??? If not, then what constitutes a militia??? Survivalist groups??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 10:50 AM Kent... I have 130+ hours of college Philosophy, including logic. I see your point, but it is, once more, a metaphor that does not directly apply, and has flaws in the basic assumptions of its premises.. You have seemingly 'demonstrated' that the conclusion follows from the premises, but the ambiguity is in the very definitions OF the terms. One cannot simply plug in a different set of terms in a syllogism and get anything but 'internal' consistency. If I demanded you agree that "A well-groomed leader being necessary for the enchantment of the populace, the right of the people to own hair-dryers shall not be infringed", you would be asking me how I know this, and how I determine what means 'well-groomed' is decided - and what 'enchantment' consists of - and even who comprises the 'populace'. And NONE of this addresses hair-dryers with asbestos in them! This sort of debate pattern arises over & over with various supporters of 'gun owners rights'. I make a series of what I claim are practical ideas, and I get back some sort of circular argument of the form: "It makes no difference what you say, the 2nd amendment is still there, and it means what we say it means, and until it is changed, we have the 'same' rights we have always had...and by the way, we will fight tooth & nail to keep it FROM being changed or clarified." Did you ever read "Alice in Wonderland", where Humpty Dumpty eexplains it to Alice? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- You see, there are two questions: 1)whether the 2nd amendment is or is not clear & unambiguous, and 2) whether it is still applicable in its current form to today's concerns. The problem is that too many people are letting |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:13 AM Kent, I understand the point you are making with this analogy... "A well regulated wagon train, being necessary to the migration of settlers, the right of the people to keep and train oxen shall not be infringed. In this case, if there are no wagon trains, is the right to keep and train oxen retained? Yes. Stating one reason for a practice does not mean that the practice depends solely on that one reason." However, the initial clause in the wording of the second amendment is there as a justification for something that many would consider a bad idea. That is, according to my reading of the 2nd amendment, I could reword it to say... "Look, we know that having guns in the hands of the populace could lead to all sorts of mayhem, but we need a well-regulated militia to protect this new country against_____________" Now, take away the well-regulated milita, and all you have is a bad idea that could lead to all sorts of mayhem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:34 AM TIA... regarding: "Stating one reason for a practice does not mean that the practice depends solely on that one reason." I have already agreed that there are various reasons to allow 'some' guns to 'some' people in 'some' circumstances, but that is not what the NRA and its defenders want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Apr 09 - 01:46 PM Bill D - I agree. That line is from Kent's quotation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 03:43 PM ahh..Ok.. sometimes I lose track in all the quotes and replies. *wry smile* thanks... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Apr 09 - 04:37 PM BillD - "Kent... I have 130+ hours of college Philosophy, including logic." Sure, Bill, sure... Whoop-te-doo! But tell me this... Do you have a dachshund who can howl the entire theme music to "Rawhide" and "Hawaii Five-O" while I play them for him on the harmonica? Hmmmm??? You don't, do you? Ha! Didn't think so. So there! Now just crawl off into your little corner and suck your thumb, buster. (grin) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 06:42 PM No...and I can't stand on my head and stack greased BBs with a rubber teaspoon either... but I can identify BS from 500 ft. up, using only a dowsing rod and a copy of Copi. (my thumb is busy at my nose, making a comment...roughly in your direction) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:26 PM By the way, we are going 'off to the woods' for 2½ days of folk music tomorrow, so if I don't answer anyone, I'm not ignoring them. I'll check to see if anyone has anything (relevant)more to say when I get back, but I won't resurrect this thread if everyone is finished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Bobert, wishin' he was in the woods.... Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:59 PM I'll try to keep an eye on this fir ya, Bill... I'm stuck in a hot-shot hotel in NoVa fir the next 4 days being a good little henpecked husband by attending the annual convention of the American Azalea Society... I know... Wuss... Yeah... But they have compuders... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 30 Apr 09 - 08:14 PM Bill D., Bless your well-educated soul but, friend, I never asked you to AGREE with the 2nd Amendment. I pointed out that its meaning is clear. Your own example, "A well-groomed leader being necessary for the enchantment of the populace, the right of the people to own hair-dryers shall not be infringed" makes this clear. If well-groomed leaders became obsolete, what would happen to the right to own hair-dryers. Nothing, of course. The definition of "well-groomed leader" is irrelevant. You could define them as any way you please and the right to hair-dryers would still remain intact. Plug in any ridiculous definition you wish and it changes the force of the independent clause not a whit. In a sentence of this form, the validity of the independent clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") does not depend on the validity of the dependent clause ("A well-regulated militia...") Again, one could argue that the amendment should be repealed, just as Prohibition was repealed. But it hasn't been. TIA, You make a good argument that the 2nd Amendment should have been worded differently. But it wasn't. Bobert, I think you'll find that there is no debate about what the word "militia" means in the context of the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't mean either "our armed forces" nor "survivalist groups". Here's the definition from Webster's dictionary (1828): MILI'TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations. As I pointed out, that concept is, like wagon-trains and scroll-copying monastaries, basically obsolete*. However, as I also pointed out, the right to keep and bear arms is retained. The amendment doesn't say, "If and only if there is a militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall be retained". Again, you could argue that it SHOULD have said that. But it doesn't. Kent * Theoretically, the militia could still be called up, just as theoretically we could start crossing the Plains in wagon trains but, in practical terms, the militia is a dead institution, replaced by the National Guard, the various police forces, and the Reserves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 09 - 09:05 PM (still here) Ok, Kent, I see your tightly defined little point. You are asserting that EVEN IF we have no body that functions like a militia anymore, the 'people's right', etc., still obtains. well...hmmm... I think I would claim that the 'right' is directly connected to 'militiahood', if I may coin a word, and that logically, 'no need for militia, no need for the 'right' for everyone to 'bear arms'. No doubt a good attorney for either side could argue either way in the Court. Constitutional experts disagree on the interpretation...your assertion here is not exactly "revealed truth". It is an opinion, as mine is....that is why it needs to be clarified instead of just 'clutched'. It is fascinating to watch that circular reasoning..."I BELIEVE the 2nd amendment still applies, but I don't want any discussion about whether my belief is relevant and supported by many others...so I will just assert that is IS, and and dare you to get it discussed beyond silly threads on Internet forums". In any case, whether YOU are for or against guns, it is still the case that many "I assert that *I* can be trusted with guns, and no matter what is happening, *I* want mine, 'just in case'." phooey |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Apr 09 - 09:22 PM I think the intent of the drafters of the 2nd amendment is far more important than the specific (and we all agree antiquated?) wording. If only the precise wording mattered, we would need only a Supreme Dictionary, and not a Supreme Court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:02 PM The question I addressed was this: Does the fact that the militia is an obsolete concept negate the right to keep and bear arms defined in the 2nd Amendment. Grammatically speaking, it isn't a difficult question. If the sentence were about anything other than guns, no one would find it hard to understand. In any case, the 9th and 10th amendments still apply. Where is the federal authority for the changes you propose? If it is in the Constitution, please point it out, for I have missed it. Again let me say that I am discussing what the Bill of Rights says, not what it should have said. If you want to amend it, go for it. Propose an amendment and we can support it or oppose it as the case may be. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Bobert still in the city... Date: 01 May 09 - 08:40 AM Well, Kent... The problem I have with yer definition of militia is that given the context of our current society you have perfectly descibed the Timothy McVeys of the world... Or the survivalist fring groups... I mean, we do have to keep things in some perspective as to the reality on the gorund... Tell ya' what, go to yer local gun shop and tell 'um you need to purchase a few AK-47s 'cause you are organizing a "militia"... See just how long it take the ATF guys to surround yer house... Thomas Jefferson's thoughts were that the Constitution would have to be flexible enough to deal with changes that would occur as our country grew... The problem is not one of the original Bill of Rights ammendments has ever been changed... The second problem is that (and here's where we disagree completely) is that the language in the 2nd ammendment is not modern enough for today's world... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 01 May 09 - 09:29 AM (packing as I type) Kent... you barely address my post of 9:05PM, except to restate your understanding of the 'grammar' of it. I claim that its grammar AND relevance are both subject to doubt. Those who use your stance to keep anything from BEING changed, are, as I say engaging in some complex circular reasoning that stalls even serious discussion. If you have no other point to make beyond asserting that "the meaning is clear, and that if I want changes, I'd better get the amendment revised", there's little more I can say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Bobert, growing tired of city life... Date: 01 May 09 - 01:34 PM Yeah, what BillD has said.... And this from a gun owner and former NRA member... Seems that the NRA ad-men have crafted all of these circular arguments for consumption by people who really don't wnat to have the converstaions... Purdy normal for the NRA... No back to city life... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 09 - 03:39 PM Never mind about guns, man...you want security? Get a dachshund! That's the part that the NRA has never grasped, bless their pointed little heads... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 01 May 09 - 08:56 PM Bobert, It wasn't my definition. As the post says, it was Noah Webster's, from his 1828 dictionary. I'm more than a little puzzled as to how Mr. Webster's definition relates to Timothy McVeigh. Care to explain? Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Bobert Date: 01 May 09 - 09:33 PM Okay, Kent.... Then exactly what is your definition of a "militia"???? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 09 - 10:19 PM Bobert, he has already agreed that, in his own words, "the militia is an obsolete concept". I think you're talking about different things here in regards to the 2nd Amendment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Bobert, 3rd day in purgatory Date: 02 May 09 - 07:41 AM We obviously are talking about different things here, LH... That is the problem... The NRA has framed it's arguments that does not allow for any deviation toward discussion... They have long held that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the formation of a "militia" because it is not convenient... That's where those of us who believe that the because of the wording of the 2nd ammendement that our current society has some wiggle room for reinterpretation... The NRA doesn't want any re-interpretation... They are strict constructionist on the 2nd ammmendment... The funny thing is that most of those who I know who still are NRAers aren't strict constructionists when it comes to other issues, especially when it comes to 14th ammendment social issues??? But I'll be the first to admit that all groups tend to be both strick and loose constructionists depending on the issue at hand... But with that said, hey, where's the harm in a conversation??? BillD has put forth some pratical ideas that both respects the rights of resonsible gun owers and the rights of those who are now being gunned down by those gun owners who are not resonsible... Face it, we do have gun control... We don't put loaded guns in the baby's crib to play with... That ***is*** gun control... All we are talking about here is gun safety, not "taking away your guns", unless, of course, you are some sicko who is planning on shooting up the local high school or McDonalds... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 02 May 09 - 07:50 AM While the gun lobby continue to insist on the constitutional right to have the means to commit murder, and while arms manufacturers continue to make profit from providing the means to do this then what do you expect to happen????? Either change your laws or stop complianing about loss of life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 02 May 09 - 08:07 AM Re population argument UK population approx 60 million, USA has about 5 times this. In my living memory (say 40 year, I don't remember much news before I was 10) 2 mass shootings. therefore has USA had on average, one mass shooting every 4 years? is so the pro rata population holds up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 02 May 09 - 08:12 AM 2006/7 57 gun related homicides in UK. So in USA if this is pro rata, then their were 285 inthe same year, or more? How many more? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 02 May 09 - 08:16 AM if people kill people, and not guns, please provide statistics for (1) Number of murder by bare-hands (2) Number of mass murders by bare-hand |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST Date: 02 May 09 - 05:36 PM Change laws... Exactly what many of us are trying to do, SPB... Thanks for your supportive stats... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 02 May 09 - 08:10 PM Mr. Bobert, Sir, This is now the fifth post in which I have AGREED WITH YOU that we no longer have a functioning militia and have also AGREED WITH YOU that, therefore, the militia is now NOT a good argument in favor of gun-ownership rights. (see my posts of April 26, 29, and two on the 30th). As I AGREED WITH YOU on this aspect of the issue, you have responded to the other points I have made by talking about "rednecks too stupid to think for themselves" who use arguments that "anyone with an IQ above 75 can parrot" (April 29). You have asked me (with a nasty implication) "what constitutes a militia??? Survivalist groups???" (April 30) and accused me of "perfectly" descibing the "Timothy McVeys of the world... Or the survivalist fring groups..." (May 1) in what you apparently thought was my definition of the word "militia". (It was Noah Webster's definition.) You suggested that I "go to [my] local gun shop and tell 'um [I] need to purchase a few AK-47s 'cause [I am] organizing a 'militia'... See just how long it take the ATF guys to surround [my] house..." (May 1). It is interesting, considering your responses to my attempts to discuss gun control with you, that you have repeatedly made the accusation that it is the NRA which "does not allow for any deviation toward discussion". Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 21 May 09 - 12:36 AM There are consequences when the government moves from a focus on punishing actual crime to a focus on the regulating tools. On May 6, here in Washington County, Ohio, 18-year-old John Kuhn went to school. He had not killed or injured anyone, but he was arrested. He had made no threats, but sheriff's deputies took him from school and confined him in the county jail. He had damaged no property, but he was denied bail initially. He had not disturbed the peace, but he was charged with a felony. He had not outraged public morals nor interfered with the operation of justice but, with just a few days of school left, he was suspended for 10 days. He was cooperative with school authorities, but they are recommending his permanent expulsion from school. He did nothing immoral. He did nothing dangerous. He did not run through the halls brandishing a loaded gun. He did not sneak a weapon into a classroom. He placed no one at risk. He freely admitted what he had done: after practicing marksmanship, he left his unloaded gun in his car. His last days of school are ruined. He can look forward to a lifetime of explaining to prospective employers that he is a felon who never finished school. http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/content.detail/id/512642.html Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 21 May 09 - 11:18 AM well, yes.... that does seem like silly over-reaction. Any opinion, Kent, on the attempt in Texas to allow loaded, concealed handguns to be carried on college campuses? Or the law just passed as rider to the Credit Card bill, which allows guns to be taken into National Parks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 21 May 09 - 09:44 PM Good question, Bill D. I really don't have an opinion on the Texas proposal because I don't know enough about Texas law. I do know that, in many states, and PERHAPS in all, it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit and that permit-holders are, as a group, exceptionally well-trained and law-abiding citizens. IF that is the case in Texas, then the Texas law should reduce crime on campus. I would guess that the Texas law applies only to state schools. I would oppose a law forcing private schools to toe that line, as that would be a violation of their property rights. I don't see a problem with allowing guns in the National Parks. Guns are allowed in National Forests, of course, and if that has been problematic, I've certainly never heard about it, although we live near Wayne National Forest and my parents live near Jefferson National Forest. If my daughters and I were hiking a remote section of the Apppalachian Trail down in the Smokies, I would like to have a weapon of some sort. I don't own a pistol nor do I know how to shoot one, but if I did, and if it were legal, I would prefer a pistol to a pocket knife. Wouldn't you? Kent Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 21 May 09 - 11:10 PM "..., I would prefer a pistol to a pocket knife. Wouldn't you?" Not necessarily.... as in any other situation, having a pistol as an item designed to offer me protection would depend on me being well-trained and practiced in its use, and having it available at a moment's notice. It has always seemed to me that a private citizen, engaged in regular daily activities, (even hiking or camping) is unlikely to be able to access a handgun easily if confronted by a problem. There are studies showing that having a loaded handgun readily accessible creates more problems than it solves. I 'suspect' that it is the IDEA of being safer and having a possible defense that leads most folks to acquire them. Unless one is really, really mentally prepared to use a gun and practices the relevant techniques, it is as likely that an assailant will get your money..etc..AND your gun (if they realize you have one.) Yes, I know these are partially speculations, but as I say, there are more stories of folks being injured trying to be a hero than there are of those who managed to BE a hero. (guess which one makes better news and gets reported on most?) When I was a part-time liquor store clerk many years ago, I was told: "If there is a holdup...give them the money! Don't try anything!" I think that is usually the best advice, unless you are regularly in situations where you might expect trouble and are on constant alert... such as moving money about and/or working in dangerous jobs. It's not easy to decide, but the decision, to me, is not between a pistol OR a pocket knife, but between resistance or semi-calm behavior designed to avoid violence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 23 May 09 - 01:17 AM I'm all for calm behavior to avoid violence. Since I don't even own a handgun, I would also join you, and indeed have also joined you, in not bearing arms. I respect your choice, and not just because I happen to have made the same choice. If I had a handgun, and if I had practiced enough with it, I would make a different choice. Writing about the Appalachian Trail got me to thinking about the case of Randall Lee Smith. In May, 1981, he killed Susan Ramsey and Robert Mountford, Jr. Ms. Ramsey and Mr. Mountford had been hiking the Appalachian trail in Southwest Virginia. Smith was caught, pled guilty, and was imprisoned. Last May, he tried to kill Sean Farmer and Scott Johnston along the same section of the trail. They were badly hurt but, blessedly, both men survived. I was especially interested in the case since Scott Johnston is an acquaintance of my wife's family, and since my older daughter, my father-in-law, and I had hiked that same section of trail a few years back. Let's consider what could be done to prevent crimes such as Smith's. One could regulate guns. Would Smith, who refused to obey the law against murder, have been willing to obey gun regulations? Even if guns had been completely outlawed, and even if the prohibition were actually effective (unlike, say, the prohibition against marijuana), would that have stopped him from killing? That is doubtful. He stabbed Ms. Ramsey to death. Could anything have been done to prevent the second set of attacks? Since he was a convicted felon, he was not allowed to have a gun. He had one anyway. Could nothing have prevented the second set of attacks? This man had been convicted of two murders. How was able to be back on the Appalachian Trail? Had he escaped from prison? No, he was LET out of prison in '96. By the time of the second set of attacks, he wasn't even on probation. Do you see a problem there? I do, and it is not a lack of gun regulations. For more information, see http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/161124 and http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/161156 . Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: katlaughing Date: 24 May 09 - 01:30 AM This seems a good place post a great new song I just found: Less Guns, More Butter by Hot Buttered Rum! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 24 May 09 - 10:51 AM Yes...I remember the tragedy with the hikers....and the fact that this guy should not have been able to try it again. In trying to work out in my own head how it should have been handled, I sometimes compare it to autos & drunk/impaired driving. Some people should not be allowed to drive, even when NOT impaired....when they ARE drunk, it is much worse. But unless they are in prison, it is hard to keep them totally away from cars. Everyday we go onto the roads knowing that someone dangerous might be on the same roads. We take our chances....and most of us just drive normally and take reasonable care. We don't armor our cars like 'some' need to. We don't equip them with James Bond defensive devices....etc. We instead hope that the 'system' has kept a large % of dangerous folks OUT of our concerns: knowing that it is always possible we will be a sad statistic. It is not reasonable to ban vehicles...or even limit driving to some tiny % who 'need' cars.....but we can & do limit certain types of vehicles and restrict where they can be driven and are beginning to provide codes and other safeguards to make it harder for unauthorized persons to even start a vehicle. What I do not see is much in the way of similar attempts to control firearms, which are not needed be nearly as many folks as need cars. So, unless *I* am willing and able to take special training in firearms, I will continue to not add to the list of those who have guns and limited ability to use them, and just 'take my chances' that I will NOT encounter an idiot with a gun....as I have for over 50 years as an adult so far. I seriously FEAR a law like Texas is proposing, for all those who might carry a gun on campus will, no doubt, carry it off-campus also, and just increase the number of guns in the population and the odds that a few of them will misuse the privilege or 'carry while impaired'...etc. I still have not read why someone lobbied to be allowed to bring loaded guns into National Parks, and what they think it gains. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Kent Davis Date: 25 May 09 - 04:52 PM I agree that there are parallels between guns and cars. Though we do disagree on several matters, perhaps we can agree on these seven points: 1. That guns and cars are tools, used for innocent purposes most of the time. 2. That criminals use cars and guns for criminal purposes. 3. That the problem therefore is not the tools, but the criminals. 4. That the government's basic presumption should be for liberty. 5. That we are nevertheless willing to accept some restrictions on the tools. 6. That these restrictions include the following: a. certain types of tools (Formula One race cars and fully automatic rifles, for example) are disallowed for general use. b. those who use cars or guns to commit crimes may lose the right to those tools. c. driving or shooting while drunk or high can be punished as reckless endangerment. d. some areas may be generally off-limits (wilderness areas to cars, courtrooms to guns, for example) and that accidental or incidental trespasses should be treated as misdemeanors, not felonies. 7. That, contra the esteemed Mr. Bobert, those who favor the status quo are not necessarily "rednecks too stupid to think for themselves" who use arguments that "anyone with an IQ above 75 can parrot", nor are those whose understanding of constitutional law matches that of the U.S. Supreme Court necessarily in the same league as the "Timothy McVeys of the world... Or the survivalist fring groups..."(sic). What do you think? Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 May 09 - 07:33 PM You missed out the requirement that in order to be able to legally drive a car, people have to pass a driving test, intended to insure that they are competent and safe. Does the same apply for guns across the USA? |
