Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:38am PT
|
Your precious 2nd Amendment relies on a "well regulated militia, being necessary to secure a free state" which we have already established is irrelevant since you don't stand a chance against the US Military, regardless of how many assault rifles and 30 round clips you have.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:46am PT
|
Weschrist writes:
"Your precious 2nd Amendment relies on a "well regulated militia, being necessary to secure a free state" which we have already established is irrelevant since you don't stand a chance against the US Military, regardless of how many assault rifles and 30 round clips you have."
So because the government has grown to be that large, we should just roll over and surrender rights that were won via supreme sacrifice?
You may think so, but the rest of us don't.
|
|
tooth
Trad climber
B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:02am PT
|
Chaz,
that amendment was written to be effective only as long as the government was small. Now that the government is large, it was designed to be discarded.It says so on these twelve links!.....
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:40am PT
|
That doesn't require executive oirder. Biden must be talking about more severe measures.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:46am PT
|
"...there's executive action that can be taken."
Like what? Be specific.
Make sure to list things that actually require executive order to accomplish, mot that *shore up the data base* crap jghedge suggests ( because that is something that doesn;t require executive order )
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 02:00am PT
|
What the executive branch is authorized to do is to enforce laws created by Congress. In fact that's it's main job; execute laws - hence the "executive" designation.
If laws need executive "shoring up", it's only because these laws have been poorly executed.
Obama needs some sort of *executive order* just to do his job?
If there is some Federal Law, that if it were only *shored up* would have prevented school kids from being murdered, then Obama is to blame for ignoring it for four years. Should'a shored it up as Job One, four years ago.
I believe Biden and Obama want to do more than just to *shore up* existing laws.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 02:12am PT
|
So what exactly does the Justice Department need an executive order to do, that it can't do right now without executive order?
Was executive order required to let assault weapons "walk" into Mexico as part of the "Fast And Furious" actions? If "Fast And Furious" was done on executive order, then Obama has some explaining to do. If "Fast And Furious" required no executive order, then what exactly does Obama plan on doing now that does require executive order?
Are you trying to say that you don't know what Obama is planning, but you support it anyway? You CAN'T be that naive, can you?
I know kids who are wiser than that!
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 10:01am PT
|
Great debate here with the issues explained well from the 2nd amendment supporter IMO. The interviewer is going all Jhedge.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
tooth
Trad climber
B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 10:19am PT
|
Good points Paul. That's what I can't figure out. Everyone wants to be like the UK with one point, so they are willing to 'legistlate' your society to be like that while burying their head in the sand to the reality of overall violence and what will happen to the US if this happens.
They think they can trade mass murders for an increase in violence, when in reality both will increase.
And yet countries which have rules almost exactly like what these guys have proposed have mass shootings of which the US has not yet seen.
Their problem is that they think they can cherry pick example countries who they think they can emulate while ignoring many more who have the same rate of gun ownership and much higher gun violence rates. That's the definition of a pipe dream and jhedge and others are chain smokers.
Why don't they quote any other countries with tight gun laws like, Honduras, El Salvador, Jamaca, Venezuela, Belize, Guatemala, Zambia, Uganda, Malawi, South Africa, Columbia, Tobago, Ukrane, PI, Haiti.... it's because they found the one with one low gun kill number. But they had to ignore all the other numbers and 30 other countries to make their point.
The fatal flaw in their argument to become Britian is that they forget that they aren't starting a new country from scratch. They forget the reality of where they already are. Hundreds of thousands or millions of defensive gun uses per year.
Unlike these guys, the average American is actually quite intelligent, and the first question they ask themselves will be, if we restrict guns from the only half of that equation that laws could, what would happen 2 million more times in this country? You got it. Violence would soar to UK levels.
So the vote would be down to, do we attempt to curb mass shootings of 20 people at once while risking even greater numbers of mass shootings and guaranteeing a higher overall violent crime rate?
Executive order or congressional decision, the question still remains the same.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 11:58am PT
|
actually Mr. Chaz, the "executive order" that is being talked about, at least where I read, is one that prioritizes enforcement of the current laws, such as prosecuting people for providing false information on their gun permit forms... an act which is supported by the NRA by the way... as the chief executive, the President is within his powers to direct the administration of the laws.
your paranoia seems to be a bit over the top.... but you are apparently in good company as gun sales and the popularity of "patriot organizations" seem to surge when Democratic administrations are voted into office by the majority of the populace, which is how a democracy works. It is the role of the judicial branch to guarantee that the rights of the minorities are not trampled in that process.
I do not miss the 1960s which seemed to be a decade of political assassinations in which individuals used fire arms to express their dissatisfaction with popular political figures. Perhaps that is the price of liberty which you seem to tell us we should be happy to pay for the "right to bare arms."
You might gather that I do not think that that price is worth it.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
|
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:02pm PT
|
Good points tooth....
There are two issues here but few people will actually read this since they can go on posting internet links to this and that.
1) Mass random killings - not reflected well in statistics
2) Targeted criminal violence - reflected in statistics
The root of each problem is different. The possible solutions therefore to each issue are likely different. But most people can't seem to keep the two apart, especially when scary
black firearms are used.
Let me try to elucidate:
#1 involves the will of an individual(or more than 1) to kill as many random people as possible. They generally seem to kill themselves or have little regard for their own well being.
Any "Legislation" to prevent this is problematic as there is no shortage of ways to kill unarmed civilians en masse with a little creativity. Likewise "stiff penalty" laws are equally useless. So getting to the ROOT of this will is the only way to prevent such atrocities.
#2 involves the will of an individual (or many) to commit typical crimes for personal gain. Most of these murders revolve around money and/or drugs at some point in the chain. The
perps generally care about their well being and may fear punishment. We already have laws disigned to prevent this sort of thing but there is room for improvement. We already
have penalties designed to prevent this sort of thing but there is room for improvement.
So to talk about laws limiting or banning this or that to prevent or mitigate #1 is absurd. Banning "AR-style rifles" or limiting magazine size is simply placating the general grass chewing public. If your psychotic intent is to kill MANY RANDOM people, a firearm is pretty far down on the list as a means of doing that. Horrifying yes, efficient no. If you could magically change access to firearms, the means would simply shift. This is not difficult logic to follow.
To address the bulk of crimes in #2, which has nothing to do with #1, you first look to the root causes (i.e. inner city violence, illegal drugs, gangs, poverty, education). This is the most bang for the buck and where the biggest improvements will happen. Secondly we could shore up access to firearms with background checks and evaluations. As I believe the 2nd does convey a 'right', such licensing needs to be relatively inexpensive for the applicant and contain a much more cohesive set of regulations state-to-state than we have now. If I'm licensed to carry in CT, I should be able to do so in New Mexico. Like driving licenses. I also think real training should be mandatory for carrying open or concealed outside of one's home. This training should also be cheap, and encouraged. I also agree that sales of centerfire firearms should be processed, at a minmal fee, by an FFL so that the appropriate checks can be performed. To help prevent straw-man type purchases, have laws with real teeth, like a 25 year mandatory sentence. Of course that means Eric Holder and Co. should go straight to jail.
Firearm legislation is not going to change the root causes of violence even in #2. It may help mitigate it somewhat as most criminals do not want to spend more time in prison than they already do. To make any real meaningful improvements in #2 violence requires a lot more work than simply passing legislation.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
|
So because the government has grown to be that large, we should just roll over and surrender rights that were won via supreme sacrifice?
No, I think you should just roll over... pull your head out of your ass... and REALIZE those rights were granted when it was IMPOSSIBLE TO EVEN CONCEIVE of a mentally ill person easily acquiring an awesome killing machine and wasting dozens of people in MINUTES.
As pointed out earlier... the first amendment does not give you the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater or tell bomb jokes in an airport. DEAL WITH IT. The rest of us do because it makes this country a better place.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
|
Then why do gun nuts keep bringing up the UK to PROVE their higher rate of violent crime is because they don't own guns?
(You know the reality of the situation, crimpie pointed it out long ago, they have a higher rate of violent crime because they have a higher population density and it has NOTHING to do with gun ownership.)
UK: 3.5 times higher rate of violent crime, 1/3 the number of homicides... the latter is a DIRECT result of gun ownership.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
|
Ron asks:
How many of the USA gun deaths are attributed to gangs and illegals?
well, I suppose I could look it up in a minute or so
but since you asked the question I assume you already know the answer
go ahead Ron, tell us both the actual number and also the percentage compared to the overall number of gun death (caused by gangs and illegals)
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:42pm PT
|
Rong, you claimed half the gun deaths in the US are caused by gang shootings. Against my better judgement, and because I'm busy today, I will take your word for it.
On the other hand, OVER 60% of the gun deaths in the UK are caused by gang shootings.
I assume you know how percentages work... but just to be clear, if the UK has 1/3 the number of gun deaths as the US does, and a higher percentage of those gun deaths in the UK are due to gangs, it means your line of reasoning makes the US non-gang gun deaths EVEN WORSE.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:55pm PT
|
... the first amendment does not give you the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater or tell bomb jokes in an airport.
Saying either of those things quietly and in private is not really illegal. Yelling fire in a theater where there is a fire is perfectly legal so the details are important when it comes to free speech.
As for the bomb jokes, I cannot find anything that shows that a bomb joke is illegal. If it is phrased as a threat and someone hears it then that's a threat, real or not, and the arrest is based on a THREAT.
There is that guy in the UK that got arrested for a twitter joke but it looked like a threat. It's not like he said "a horse, a Rabbi, and a bomb, all walk into the bar and the bartender says..."
If comparing gun control and free speech, at least try to be as technically correct as possible. It might be a good comparison but limiting free speech is never taken lightly as is implied by the comments about it. In other words, you can say anything you want if your in the right crowd of people. You will not get arrested just based on the content of your speech but rather on the repercussions of it.
Just like a person should get arrested because of the repercussions of their having a gun, not for having one?
Dave
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:58pm PT
|
Saying either of those things quietly and in private is not really illegal. Yelling fire in a theater where there is a fire is perfectly legal so the details are important when it comes to free speech.
I think the statement relating Free Speech to yelling fire in a movie theatre rightfully assumes the theatre had people in it watching the movie
It also assumes the yes there is a actual fire
so yes, yelling fire in a theatre with people in it when there is no fire is indeed illegal
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!