overtone Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 [ It's the whole, "we can disagree without being disagreeable" thing. Can you, in fact, do that? My guess? Not a chance. it would require that you disagree with something I've posted. And recalling the Tea Party et al that's where the issue sits, in the US - it's one of the few matters of public discourse, possibly the only major one, in which "both sides" are "polarizing" debate in equivalent cluelessness, irrational flailing, and rhetoric in bad faith. One lesson for the bystander is that pretention to scientific oulook and the like is not a guarantee, not a magic vaccine against the Murdoch state of mind. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 16, 2014 Author Share Posted April 16, 2014 The article below offers a decent summary of one of the arguments I've made in this thread and in others... That the modern reading of the 2nd amendment is a recent phenomenon and one that differs from the interpretation offered by the SCOTUS itself for 200 years. Adding some weight to this view is the fact that the article was not written by some agenda-driven advocate, blogger, or columnist, but instead by a former SCOTUS Justice... Justice Stevens who sat on the bench for 35 years until very recently (2010): http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that 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. For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia. When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything. Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The article goes on to discuss how this ideological shift became further entrenched by the Heller and McDonald decisions and also suggests a minor edit to the amendment's text that would help us address these national tragedies that have become so common, but the point I'm making is much simpler... Until only very recently, the text of the 2nd amendment didn't mean what many people now seem to think it means. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Bravo for Bloomberg and the moms in this effort. Jolly well time as well for dads to insist we stop shooting our children to death in such numbers and with so little regard for them as well as so little regard for what the whole of the Constitution stands for. Bloomberg Seeks To Alter Gun Debate With $50 Million, And Moms Billionaire Michael Bloomberg's plan to invest $50 million in what he describes as a mom-driven grass-roots effort to support pro-gun-safety candidates grabbed headlines Wednesday, and energized gun control activists. The commitment, the former New York City mayor says, aims to beat back the profound political influence of the National Rifle Association in 15 targeted states to "make them afraid of us," he told NBC's Today show. ... The grass-roots appeal to women remains a powerful tool, though, political scientist Spitzer says. The focus on women and mothers in particular makes demographic sense, he says. Gun control is one of those gender gap issues: Not only do a higher percentage of women support expanding gun safety laws but women also are more likely to believe that gun crime is worse than statistics show. ... Full article @NPR >> http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/04/16/303772324/bloomberg-seeks-to-alter-gun-debate-with-50-million-and-moms?ft=1&f= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Why does Bloomberg feel the need to make the NRA afraid of him and his organization? When are we going to take the fear mongering out of the discussion, and sit down like a group of rational adults to have a serious discussion on what is necessary? As far as I'm concerned, Bloomberg is as much a part of the problem as the NRA. Stop using fear and sensationalism, and start using facts and logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/school-shootings-since-newtown-_n_5480811.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Laws are written by humans. They do not fall from the sky on stone tablets. Regardless of an individual's interpretation of the 2nd amendment we humans have the power to change law. The constitution initially made slaves 3/5 a person and only allowed land owners to vote. It is not a perfect set of rules meant to govern for all time. We need to stop treating the constitution like the bible and feel free to admend it as neccessary. Everyone in this country on both sides of the debate agree "bad people", people intent on using guns for crime, shouldn't have guns. I think there is a lot of confusion about where "bad people" get guns. The argument often goes that if we don't allow "good people" to have guns legally than only "bad people" will have guns because they don't buy guns legally anyway. So where do bad people get there guns? "WASHINGTON – About 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This number represents an estimated average of 232,400 firearms stolen each year— about 172,000 stolen during burglaries and 60,300 stolen during other property crimes." http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm There is not some secret underground black market where "bad people" have guns shipped in from Russia. Our streets are flooded with guns because of all the scared "good people" buying guns. I am not advocated that guns be banned but I think there should be laws in place about how they are stored. Gun locks, gun safes, LoJack devices, etc should all be part of the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 Other advanced civilizations don't face the same levels of gun violence we do. Conclusion: There are good solutions out there available that have worked elsewhere and they could work here if we gather the political will to implement them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence just doesn't happen in other countries... And at some point it's going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Is there a general culture of fear in the US, on both the part of ordinary civilians and the police? Why are do many 'normal' Americans have access to guns? What are they scared of and is this fear rational or not? Is the US really a dangerous place and all citizens should be on guard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) Is there a general culture of fear in the US, on both the part of ordinary civilians and the police? Why are do many 'normal' Americans have access to guns? What are they scared of and is this fear rational or not? Is the US really a dangerous place and all citizens should be on guard? Fear of Crime - and its seeming lack of correlation to actual crime - is one of the most debated and contentious issues in the socio-legal arena. There is a disconnect between what actually happens in our community and our emotional responses and fears concerning it. In this area, in which many people believe what they see on Television in preference to the evidence of their own eyes and ears, reality is less important than the narrative. Doc Swanson's maxim - the plural of anecdote isn't evidence - no longer applies; rumour, tittle-tattle, and internet-meme become the foundation for life-choices and the cause of legislation. Sorry - this post looks as if I am down-playing the argument of the OP and terrible facts of child gun-death in the United States; this is not the intention. It should be seen as a response to AJB's question on the culture of fear; you can have misplaced fear co-existent with terrible crimes. In fact the truly heart-rending, high-publicity crimes are a major factor in the (mis) belief of a increased level of personal risk of violent crime Edited June 21, 2015 by imatfaal clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Fear of Crime - and its seeming lack of correlation to actual crime - is one of the most debated and contentious issues in the socio-legal arena. There is a disconnect between what actually happens in our community and our emotional responses and fears concerning it. I agree. The whole Western world suffers from this. Sorry - this post looks as if I am down-playing the argument of the OP and terrible facts of child gun-death in the United States; this is not the intention. Not at all. My questions/comments were also not intended in that way. The point is the US must ask itself why guns are so easily available and if they really do want that to remain the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 ...The point is the US must ask itself why guns are so easily available and if they really do want that to remain the case. "If you take them away from the good people, the bad people will still have them, therefore, the problem is still there.". I've just seen this argument used, in a guitar forum, in relation to possible restrictions on possessing ivory products in NYC.to try and stem the flow of elephant and rhino killings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Squared Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) They also actually have regulations. According to the Constution, its what we now call the 'National Guard'. A reserve component of a standing Army, something the Founding Father's had mixed feelings about, at best. But you guys should read "On Killing", by Col. Grossman. When I was a boy things like this did not happen. We had toy guns galore, too, Lone Ranger, all that stuff, but there was a clear line between play and reality. And reality was scary. Manson Family, Zodiac Killer. The news was full of bizarre crap from California and Viet Nam. Thank God there are no weird cults out there anymore and our government has quit trying to get people to love America by bombing the crap out of them. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/school-shootings-since-newtown-_n_5480811.html Cases of copycat crime? Should the media be taken to task for publicizing such tragic events? By whom? How much? And by what means? To belabor an obvious point, these shootings have not been around as long as firearms have. As to "arms" generally, not even the most rabid gun nut wants to stockpile mortars or antiaircraft missiles, at least in public. I have a theory that a sort of arms race is going on in American society, between well armed organized criminal enterprises and the people who rightly feel threatened by well armed and lawless individuals. This dates back to Prohibition and continues under the War on Drugs. If memory serves, in Mexico gun laws are stricter than in the USA but gun violence is worse, again, drug related. Indeed this is not an uncommon pattern in many parts of IberoAmerica. Your thoughts? Edited June 22, 2015 by Harold Squared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-accused-charleston-shooter-should-not-have-been-able-to-buy-gun/2015/07/10/0d09fda0-271f-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html Well that above article proves it. Gun control doesn't work. Better confiscate all the guns. /sarc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 Wow. Talk about missing the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Is there a general culture of fear in the US, on both the part of ordinary civilians and the police? Why are do many 'normal' Americans have access to guns? What are they scared of and is this fear rational or not? Is the US really a dangerous place and all citizens should be on guard? I am middle to upper middle class and live in a suburb of St. Louis, which has a pretty high murder rate compared to most cities in the US. I own about a dozen guns, both handguns and long guns. I also have a license to carry concealed weapons. I am not the least bit afraid either in my home or when moving about the metropolitan area, but the lack of fear has nothing to do with my guns. I never carry them, and while having a gun in the house fits with my "be prepared" type of personality, I'd feel perfectly at ease not having any guns in the house. I also don't know anyone who is generally afraid, although I imagine there are plenty of people who live in 'bad' neighborhoods who may feel differently. My experience has been that most violent crime is committed by bad people against other bad people, and as long as I'm not doing things like dealing drugs I imagine that my lifelong streak of never being burgled, assaulted, or robbed will continue. I believe most people who have guns generally own them because they are something that is available to them, and are a form of recreation, either hunting or target shooting. Not much different than owning skis or a gaming system or a meat smoker. Most people are not criminals or 'preppers' preparing for the zombie apocalypse. I know there are plenty of people who are fearful and are at risk of assault and don't want to minimize that, but I don't find a general fear permeating the population at all. I also believe the people who are at most risk tend to be poor. I would be no more fearful traveling in New York City than I would traveling in London or Amsterdam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I am not the least bit afraid either in my home or when moving about the metropolitan area, but the lack of fear has nothing to do with my guns. I never carry them, and while having a gun in the house fits with my "be prepared" type of personality, I'd feel perfectly at ease not having any guns in the house. I also don't know anyone who is generally afraid, although I imagine there are plenty of people who live in 'bad' neighborhoods who may feel differently. This was my original thought and is backed up by others. If you are white, middle class, employed, educated etc. then guns in society are not really much of an issue. People are not shooting at you. For other sectors of your society is seems different. There must be some culture of fear in the US given the number of people the police shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 The culture of fear point is not entirely without merit, IMO, especially when considered in context of our 24/7 action-alerting anxiety-stoking click-baiting reptilian-brain-reminding media channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I believe most people who have guns generally own them because they are something that is available to them, and are a form of recreation, either hunting or target shooting. Not much different than owning skis or a gaming system or a meat smoker. Not much different- until someone gets into an argument and uses one as a weapon- or until the kids get hold of it and shoot themselves or someone loses the plot and decides to go on a killing spree. At that point, the difference between a gun and a gaming system becomes rather significant. As far as I can tell, that difference is the basis of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Not much different- until someone gets into an argument and uses one as a weapon- or until the kids get hold of it and shoot themselves or someone loses the plot and decides to go on a killing spree. At that point, the difference between a gun and a gaming system becomes rather significant. As far as I can tell, that difference is the basis of this thread. You seem to be dismissive of my point, which makes me think you missed it. Obviously those bad things happen with guns; I read the papers too. But for MOST people, their guns are not used to kill people. And I believe that has a lot to do with why there is no 'culture of fear' in the US. As far as I can tell, that difference went to the heart of ajb's question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Whether or not there is a culture of fear the point remains that, there are people who are dead who would be alive if someone had chosen to buy a gaming system or a set of skis rather than a gun. They died because someone chose to get hold of a thing that is designed to kill. That's a strange choice with a very bad outcome. Obviously it doesn't happen all the time but that's not the point. Every time someone buys skis instead of a gun they don't lead to someone getting shot. So, perhaps they don't care about someone getting killed (I guess you would agree that someone who thinks that way shouldn't have a gun). Or perhaps they thought" it won't happen to me"; but everyone whose kid gets shot in an accident or who tshoots their spouse dead a slanging match had bought the gun thinking "it won't happen to me" - but it did. The way to avoid shootings is not to have guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Whether or not there is a culture of fear the point remains that, there are people who are dead who would be alive if someone had chosen to buy a gaming system or a set of skis rather than a gun.Yes. Everyone knows that. No one is arguing against that. You are arguing against no one, and I am unsure why you keep repeating it. Every time someone buys skis instead of a gun they don't lead to someone getting shot. So, perhaps they don't care about someone getting killed (I guess you would agree that someone who thinks that way shouldn't have a gun). Or perhaps they thought" it won't happen to me"; but everyone whose kid gets shot in an accident or who tshoots their spouse dead a slanging match had bought the gun thinking "it won't happen to me" - but it did. The way to avoid shootings is not to have guns. Every time someone buys a bowling ball instead of skis they don't lead to someone dying in a ski accident. Or perhaps they thought "it won't happen to me"; but everyone whose kid dies in a ski accident bought the skis thinking "it won't happen to me" - but it did. The way to avoid ski accidents is to not have skis. Edited July 11, 2015 by zapatos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Yes. Everyone knows that. No one is arguing against that. You are arguing against no one, and I am unsure why you keep repeating it. Every time someone buys a bowling ball instead of skis they don't lead to someone dying in a ski accident. Or perhaps they thought "it won't happen to me"; but everyone whose kid dies in a ski accident bought the skis thinking "it won't happen to me" - but it did. The way to avoid ski accidents is to not have skis. And, if skis had no other valid purpose, and skierskilled other people, rather than themselves, that would be a good point. Edited July 11, 2015 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 And, if skis had no other valid purpose, and skierskilled other people, rather than themselves, that would be a good point. John, if you don't have a gun and someone breaks into your home what would prevent them from doing you bodily hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 And, if skis had no other valid purpose, and skierskilled other people, rather than themselves, that would be a good point. "Purpose" is irrelevant and a red herring. It is risk that matters. And for the record, skiers DO kill other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now