news article compairing us to jihadist fundamentalists


PDA






dark.zero.x
January 3, 2013, 06:51 PM
I was surfing the googl news app when I came across this wonderfully insulting and mind boggling ignorant piece of journalism.

http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-forward/2013/01/03/gun-jihadists-or-armed-defenders/?cxntfid=blogs_atlanta_forward

This is a two part article and it shows the polarity of the views from strong anti to srong pro.

If you enjoyed reading about "news article compairing us to jihadist fundamentalists" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Grassman
January 3, 2013, 06:54 PM
I've just about had it with these media types.

JustinJ
January 3, 2013, 06:58 PM
Ya'll do realize that blogs and editorials are not journalism?

dark.zero.x
January 3, 2013, 07:00 PM
Well pardon my dumb then, its getting so hard to tell these days. I would think if google news puts this on its front page that it would be from an accredited source seems thats not the case.

Hapworth
January 3, 2013, 07:08 PM
Read it. Don't mind serious discussion about gun control when all parties are informed and discerning.

This author is neither. In opening with comparing gun enthusiasts to jihadi fundamentalists as one-to-one analogues, the author betrays his own fundamentalist leanings in refusing to acknowledge the nuances of the gun control issue and the many shades and stripes of people who support gun ownership.

Some thinkers on both sides of the divide are worth reading, but not this one.

JustinJ
January 3, 2013, 07:08 PM
Well pardon my dumb then, its getting so hard to tell these days. I would think if google news puts this on its front page that it would be from an accredited source seems thats not the case.

You do make a valid point. Unfortunately the line between journalism and commentary has become harder and harder to see. This is unfortunately a trend that has exploded as demonstrated by the number of cable tv shows like those of Bill Oreily, Rachel Maddow, Hannity and in addition to am radio programming. None of these are actually news and are far more interested in catering reinforcing the world views of their audience for the sake of ratings.

dark.zero.x
January 3, 2013, 07:15 PM
Upon further digging this is the blog The Atlanta journal-constitution and that is a real news source from what I can tell. The blog in question is their version of the opinion column.

M-Cameron
January 3, 2013, 07:15 PM
hrmm.....i wonder if i should write an article comparing anti-gun advocates to the KKK....because they are trying to remove rights and discriminate against a specific group of otherwise law abiding people....

i wonder how much theyd like to see an article comparing Feinstein to Bin Laden for using the deaths of children to their political advantage......

or maybe i could just publish the locations of homes that do not have guns.....



"What could be simpler? It doesn’t need research, experts, data or studies to see a simple truth that guns will kill far more in an uncontrolled environment than in a well-regulated one"

i love that, essentially what they are saying is "the current data doesnt reflect my views, and i dont want to admit im wrong"......

Carl N. Brown
January 3, 2013, 07:18 PM
New version of Godwin's Law:
You know a side in a debate has lost it when they start making comparisons to jihadist fundamentalists.

berettaprofessor
January 3, 2013, 07:28 PM
Ya'll do realize that blogs and editorials are not journalism?

Yes, and I also realize that blogs and editorials are blatent attempts to communicate bias to the readership.

JustinJ
January 3, 2013, 07:30 PM
Yes, and I also realize that blogs and editorials are blatent attempts to communicate bias to the readership.

Well of course they are. That's their whole point. The real problem is when the line between becomes harder and harder to see and that people today so commonly rely on bloggers and pundits for their news.

berettaprofessor
January 3, 2013, 07:33 PM
Follow the anti-gun author's links; he/she writes for Khabar, which turns out to be a magazine for the Indian-American community. Does anyone want to bet that Parthiv Parehk is as foreign as Piers Morgan? I'm not saying foreign-born individuals are all bad, but it would be helpful that if they don't like the culture here, they'd return to the one they like. I don't plan to move to England/India/wherever and start complaining that they are all backward because they don't have American Football.

d2wing
January 3, 2013, 07:34 PM
Common left propaganda. They demonize all conservatives by name calling and making false comparisons. They have been allowed to,define arguments such as calling moral people, haters, defenders of freedom as fanatics
They are modern brown shirts. They have become mainstream. How crazy this world has become, that the crazies are now normal and normal is evil.

JustinJ
January 3, 2013, 07:40 PM
Common left propaganda. They demonize all conservatives by name calling and making false comparisons. They have been allowed to,define arguments such as calling moral people, haters, defenders of freedom as fanatics

Riiiiight. Because those on the right never engage in such activities. Uh huh.

Follow the anti-gun author's links; he/she writes for Khabar, which turns out to be a magazine for the Indian-American community. Does anyone want to bet that Parthiv Parehk is as foreign as Piers Morgan?

So what? There are plenty of Pro-gun immigrants as well. I hate to dissapoint you but the 1st amendment does not only apply to natural born americans.

1911 guy
January 3, 2013, 07:49 PM
While the established media won't write these "hit pieces" on their own time, they are more than willing to publish them when written by someone they can disavow as not being on payroll. So while they maintain the illusion of parity in reporting, they also achieve their goal of influencing their readership with an extreme leftist agenda.

When we stop crying about "fairness" in journalism (there never has been such a thing) and just start selecting reporting that either comes from a worldview similar to ours or select a cross section of views and sort the wheat from the chaffe while being aware of and discarding the view in favor of gleaning facts from the fluff, we'll all be better off.

In other words, listen to both CNN and Alex Jones. The truth will lie somewhere in the middle.

Hapworth
January 3, 2013, 08:14 PM
Follow the anti-gun author's links; he/she writes for Khabar, which turns out to be a magazine for the Indian-American community. Does anyone want to bet that Parthiv Parehk is as foreign as Piers Morgan? I'm not saying foreign-born individuals are all bad, but it would be helpful that if they don't like the culture here, they'd return to the one they like. I don't plan to move to England/India/wherever and start complaining that they are all backward because they don't have American Football.There's no single-point, monolithic American culture to like or dislike -- it's many-headed and many-hued, and whether you and I agree with it or not, Parehk's opinion does reflect the attitude of many of our fellow Americans.

That's what the whole point of the melting pot is.

Wishing a foreigner away just because they don't agree with your view of things is really un-American.

RX-178
January 3, 2013, 09:07 PM
Those that have no respect for, and seek to actively undermine the Constitution are not just 'disagreeing with our viewpoints'.

1911 guy
January 3, 2013, 09:38 PM
Don't complain that America is different that the hole you or your parents left. Matters of opinion are open for debate. Saying you want to dismantle our Constitution is, regardless of how un-PC is sounds, an act of war.

I'd opt for deportation, but maybe the author would prefer we did things like they do in India. Whippings and hangings used to be popular here, too.

Hapworth
January 3, 2013, 10:17 PM
Those that have no respect for, and seek to actively undermine the Constitution are not just 'disagreeing with our viewpoints'.

Don't complain that America is different that the hole you or your parents left. Matters of opinion are open for debate. Saying you want to dismantle our Constitution is, regardless of how un-PC is sounds, an act of war.Listen, I think Parehk's a schmuck, but not because he wants to increase gun control, though I happen to disagree with him -- Parehk's a schmuck because his logical and rhetorical skills are so inept he can't even follow his own line of reasoning, much less the larger issues.

But let's not get breathless here. Arguing for gun control doesn't automatically equate to having no respect for, actively seeking to undermine, or dismantling the Constitution.

You, me, and everyone here who isn't an anarchist or a fool believes in gun control -- it's just a matter of where the lines get drawn. That isn't unconstitutional.

And it's cheap to turn to anti-foreigner talk, not to mention playing right into the most negative stereotypes they have for gun ownership supporters at a time when we have to maintain a more principled higher ground.

Cesiumsponge
January 3, 2013, 10:23 PM
So instead of attacking poorly-argued ideas listed by a misguided or bigoted author, we resort to lumping everyone that opposes our idea into one stereotypical political ideology, xenophobia, and "git out of 'Merica" rhetoric?

We don't need liberals to make up stereotypes when we have plenty of folks are willing to volunteer playing that stereotype. This is THR, not call-in talk radio.

1911 guy
January 3, 2013, 10:32 PM
Quote:
You, me, and everyone here who isn't an anarchist or a fool believes in gun control -- it's just a matter of where the lines get drawn. That isn't unconstitutional.

You make false assumptions. And just so you know, it IS unconstitutional. The framers, men smarter by far than you or me, wrote pretty plainly what they intended.

As far as being "anti-foreigner", that depends. Sometimes I'm also very much "anti-born here but pretty damn blockheaded". Issues and values are what make decisions, not emotional crap like what color, religion or nationality you happen to be. When the assumed to speak against the Constitution of the very republic they sought refuge in, that's called biting the hand that feeds you.

We here in the U.S. are a very tolerant bunch. I like it this way. But look into it for yourself and see how long a dissident, even one relatively harmless and confined to an opinion column, would last in the other eighty percent (non-western) of the world. But they are more than willing to come here and poke their finger in our eye, rather than stand up and make a difference in their own countries.

Yes, I was being sarcastic about whippings and hangings. The point being that some (most of them born and raised right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.) are cowardly enough to hide behind what parts of the Constitution and liberties they choose while demonizing and decrying those parts they find not in keeping with their own philosophy.

1911 guy
January 3, 2013, 10:39 PM
And yes, there is a touch of "git out of 'merica" (as you so eloquently stated it) in my thinking. I'll explain that in lthree sentences.

If you're coming here, America is better than where you're at now.

Once you're here, you find it different than where you came from and are not happy about it.

Rather than adapting like generations before, you strive to make it more like the place you just left.


People have been coming here for four centuries now, from all over the planet, and have built one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen with regard to liberty, personal rights and democratic process. Why have non-players and homeland nationalists become the accepted class? What about the generations that came before and built the very fabric their own descendants are tearing apart?

Hapworth
January 3, 2013, 10:45 PM
You make false assumptions.I see what that implies, but don't be coy -- do tell.

Cesiumsponge
January 3, 2013, 10:48 PM
I admit, it sucks seeing people in politics and in the media pushing their agenda. In fact, it's downright criminal at times. People can't seem to be happy with, "I have all these rights, so I'll just exercise the ones I want and let others exercise the ones I don't care for." It's got to fit their worldview. And that's idiotic.

But if we could simply flip a switch and deport anyone that thought differently, we'd "clean up the mess" according to our idealistic standards, but at the same time create a country that is frightening on it's own account. I don't want to live in a country where we can boot folks out for thinking differently.

There isn't really a reasonable solution though, is there? Maybe we need giant robotic overlords to enforce the Constitution instead of fickle humans who insist on fixing, tinkering, revising and, "living documenting" a pretty basic fundamental document.

1911 guy
January 3, 2013, 10:54 PM
All right, I'll be blunt. Claiming that everyone here, you and I, as well as the other ten thousand or so members here, believe in some form of gun control and only differ in to what extent is a false assumption.

The framers and authors of our Constitution wrote exactly what they intended, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Preceding this, they made the case for what reason the people were to retain arms. Security of a free state. Coupled with the Declaration of Independence which states an obligation of the people to replace oppresive government, the intent was clear. The founding fathers wanted parity between the standing army and the militia, which was comprised of the whole of the population, to again go back to the framers.

In short, any gun control beyond "do you want it and can you afford it" is unconstitutional. Period, full stop. The fact that we've accepted it because the encroachment began before we were born doesn't make it any less an infringement.

So you have made a false assumption that I believe in some form of gun control. Go read some of the debates and discussions on the Legal forum and you'll find that I am neither alone in this nor the most outspoken.

RX-178
January 3, 2013, 10:56 PM
Apparently I have been accused of supporting gun control, at least on some 'minor level'. I would like to set the record straight, that these accusations are false, and I do not in fact support any form of gun control.

I believe the 2nd Amendment is all the gun control this nation needs, has ever needed, and ever will need in the future.

Hapworth
January 3, 2013, 11:04 PM
All right, I'll be blunt...
Well said and we agree on much.

But do you believe that violent, multi-offendor felons released from prison should be able to legally own and carry arms?

Do you feel that individuals clinically diagnosed with, say, paranoid schizophrenia, unresponsive to treatment, should be able to legally own and carry arms?

Should a 12 year old be able to purchase arms for himself and carry them at school?

If you say "yes" to all this and more, then you are indeed a man of your convictions.

If you disagree with any part of any of them, you believe in gun control -- and a limited interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Hapworth
January 3, 2013, 11:06 PM
Apparently I have been accused of supporting gun control, at least on some 'minor level'. I would like to set the record straight, that these accusations are false, and I do not in fact support any form of gun control.

I believe the 2nd Amendment is all the gun control this nation needs, has ever needed, and ever will need in the future.
Noted and understood. Please see above. Honest questions.

1911 guy
January 3, 2013, 11:16 PM
You're not going to like my response. I'll preface it by saying that it's probably a good thing I'm not King of the World or even a dog catcher. My family and friends describe my political leanings as a bit to the right of Vlad the Impaler.

Felons? If they are out, restore rights. If they are not rehabilitated to the point of restoring their rights we have no business letting them loose upon the population.

The paranoid, delusional and schizophrenic didn't always wander out streets and occupy our cities and towns. There were places they were sent to get treatment. Yes, there were horror stories of misuse and abuse. But a lot of people did find help and left the mental health institutions to go on with productive lives afterward. In short, if they are a danger to society or, to a lesser extent, themselves, they need to be segregated from society until their illness can be effectively managed.

Children are wards of their parents or guardians. It is my responsibility to limit acess to anything dangerous, including firearms, for my kids until they have reached sufficient maturity to not be a danger to themselves or others. For the same reason, I do not leave power tools laying around with young children in the house. With my freedom comes a responsibility to neither misuse it or to allow carelessness in exercising it harm another. Just as an example, target shooting is good. Target shooting with a highway as a backstop is not so good.

Coop45
January 3, 2013, 11:16 PM
If guns kill people, why do we have all those soldiers in Afghanistan? Couldn't we just send a couple of Glocks to deal with the bad guys?

blkbrd666
January 3, 2013, 11:21 PM
But do you believe that violent, multi-offendor felons released from prison should be able to legally own and carry arms?

Do you feel that individuals clinically diagnosed with, say, paranoid schizophrenia, unresponsive to treatment, should be able to legally own and carry arms?

Should a 12 year old be able to purchase arms for himself and carry them at school?

If you say "yes" to all this and more, then you are indeed a man of your convictions.

If you disagree with any part of any of them, you believe in gun control -- and a limited interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Some might say though, that if every single US citizen owned and carried at least one gun, many of of the "questionables" or "problems" you list might not be such an issue.

BlueBronco
January 3, 2013, 11:22 PM
The real jihadists will be broadcasting on Al Bores flopped channel, Aljazeera USA. They just bought it.

Hapworth
January 3, 2013, 11:41 PM
You're not going to like my response.What was it you mentioned about false assumptions? ;)

Felons? If they are out, restore rights. If they are not rehabilitated to the point of restoring their rights we have no business letting them loose upon the population.Agreed, yet that's utopian and doesn't reflect the current reality or any anticipated one.

Metrics for rehabilitation, especially while still incarcerated, are nearly impossible to adequately establish. Add to that, rehabilitation isn't grounds for release in any meaningful way -- only time served and the absence of any glaring indicators for recidivism. There are and will be those not rehabilitated nonetheless released; it's simply a fact of the judicial system. They should still be armed?

Same argument applies below:

The paranoid, delusional and schizophrenic didn't always wander out streets and occupy our cities and towns. There were places they were sent to get treatment. Yes, there were horror stories of misuse and abuse. But a lot of people did find help and left the mental health institutions to go on with productive lives afterward. In short, if they are a danger to society or, to a lesser extent, themselves, they need to be segregated from society until their illness can be effectively managed.

Children are wards of their parents or guardians. It is my responsibility to limit acess to anything dangerous, including firearms, for my kids until they have reached sufficient maturity to not be a danger to themselves or others. For the same reason, I do not leave power tools laying around with young children in the house. With my freedom comes a responsibility to neither misuse it or to allow carelessness in exercising it harm another. Just as an example, target shooting is good. Target shooting with a highway as a backstop is not so good.The Second Amendment does not stipulate age, nor in an absolute interpretation of it would it be circumvented by later, lesser law regarding legal stewardship of children.

In fact, the Second Amendment doesn't stipulate any of these limiting factors.

So without the hedges that don't exist in society as we know it -- i.e., perfect rehabilitation or continued confinement -- you'd still see felons and the mentally ill as honored under the Second Amendment?

And despite the Second Amendment not limiting its rights based on age, you do, and still feel that's an unrestricted interpretation of it?

Hapworth
January 3, 2013, 11:42 PM
Some might say though, that if every single US citizen owned and carried at least one gun, many of of the "questionables" or "problems" you list might not be such an issue.
That is a position to take. Unfortunately bullets travel both ways.

Trent
January 3, 2013, 11:44 PM
I'm getting so sick of people like that. I mean, I try to keep my chin up, I try to walk the higher ground, I try to stay along lines of reason and logic.

But man, I tell you.. I just really want to smack some people.

Compare me to a Jihadist?

Ok. Sure. I have a machete and a mask. Coming over for dinner?

[facepalm]

Idiots .. if they watched ONE execution video from the middle east or Mexico (and there are TONS in circulation), they'd understand EXACTLY why we need firearms. There are evil people in this world that'll cut your head off with a dull knife or a chainsaw, video tape it, and send it out on the Internet as a warning to the other side.

1911 guy
January 3, 2013, 11:55 PM
Hapworth, now we're getting into a debate of principle versus the crappy state of affairs that exists now.

Frankly, I need to get my butt off the computer and do something productive with the rest of my night, but it comes down to a chicken and egg argument. Do we allow the criminal and mentally ill determine the way in which we exercise our rights and freedoms or do we solve the problem of those unfit for society?

blkbrd666
January 3, 2013, 11:55 PM
Unfortunately bullets travel both ways.

Not so much "unfortunate", it's kinda part of the point. If there were always a bullet waiting, there would likely be less people making that first decision to become criminal.

RX-178
January 3, 2013, 11:57 PM
But do you believe that violent, multi-offendor felons released from prison should be able to legally own and carry arms?

Yes. Unless their punishment for their crimes includes the forfeiture of rights, consistent with their sentencing. This is not a limit to the 2nd Amendment.


Do you feel that individuals clinically diagnosed with, say, paranoid schizophrenia, unresponsive to treatment, should be able to legally own and carry arms?

Yes. Unless the person is determined to be mentally incompetent, to where someone else must take responsibility for their personal affairs. At that point, it's up to that person.

Should a 12 year old be able to purchase arms for himself and carry them at school?

Yes. Unless the parents say otherwise. The parents are the ones responsible, it should be their choice.


None of this is a limited interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. This is the 2nd Amendment as a basic right.

ToraBoraBlues
January 3, 2013, 11:58 PM
Guys, don't give these people web hits. They get money from their advertisers the more people hit their page.

Hapworth
January 4, 2013, 12:53 AM
Hapworth, now we're getting into a debate of principle versus the crappy state of affairs that exists now.

Frankly, I need to get my butt off the computer and do something productive with the rest of my night, but it comes down to a chicken and egg argument. Do we allow the criminal and mentally ill determine the way in which we exercise our rights and freedoms or do we solve the problem of those unfit for society?It's a complicated, time consuming discussion, indeed -- especially typed rather than talked. ;)

Pleasure posting with you...

Hapworth
January 4, 2013, 01:00 AM
Not so much "unfortunate", it's kinda part of the point. If there were always a bullet waiting, there would likely be less people making that first decision to become criminal.I get the point, and largely agree with it -- just acknowledging its inevitable downside, too.

Hapworth
January 4, 2013, 01:08 AM
Yes. Unless their punishment for their crimes includes the forfeiture of rights, consistent with their sentencing. This is not a limit to the 2nd Amendment.

Yes. Unless the person is determined to be mentally incompetent, to where someone else must take responsibility for their personal affairs. At that point, it's up to that person.

Yes. Unless the parents say otherwise. The parents are the ones responsible, it should be their choice.

None of this is a limited interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. This is the 2nd Amendment as a basic right.I see your position and I appreciate the replies.

hso
January 4, 2013, 01:09 AM
My comment to the paper -

"The failure to see the connection between easy access to guns, including assault rifles, and the prolific number of gun fatalities is a blind spot that only fanaticism can allow."

This sort demonization is a common trait of those who don't want to engage in a logical debate. The facts available to anyone here who knows how to make an internet search are available in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. This official document from the FBI shows dropping violent crime rates over the last five years. This while the number of carry permit holders has increased, the rate of sales of AR type semiauto rifles has increased, the number of "Shall Issue" states for carry permits has grown, and the number of NICS background checks have grown. The report shows on table 8 the murders in the U.S. over the same 5 years by means of the murder. Those details show a decline in murder over the period, but more telling the show that the rifles that Mr. Parekh tells us are the root of evil were used in less than 350 of the 12,000 murders in the U.S. Hands and feet were used more than 4 times as often as the means to commit murder. Knives and bladed instruments were used twice as often. It seems that victims were more likely to be beaten to death or stabbed to death by a far greater extent than having any rifle, not the rifles Mr. Parekh is so afraid of, used. And 2011 isn't an isolated year for rifles to be used in such a small percent of murders. This is the FACT year after year even as the overall number of murders has dropped. So, it appears that Mr. Parekh would rather demonize gunowners than bother to actually look at the facts provided by the government that show the rifles he hates so much and the Americans who own them represent a tiny risk to the 300 Million plus citizens of this country. Here's the link for those too lazy to look up the facts like Mr. Parekh http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder

Bhi curamach
January 4, 2013, 01:41 AM
I admit, it sucks seeing people in politics and in the media pushing their agenda. In fact, it's downright criminal at times. People can't seem to be happy with, "I have all these rights, so I'll just exercise the ones I want and let others exercise the ones I don't care for." It's got to fit their worldview. And that's idiotic.

But if we could simply flip a switch and deport anyone that thought differently, we'd "clean up the mess" according to our idealistic standards, but at the same time create a country that is frightening on it's own account. I don't want to live in a country where we can boot folks out for thinking differently.

There isn't really a reasonable solution though, is there? Maybe we need giant robotic overlords to enforce the Constitution instead of fickle humans who insist on fixing, tinkering, revising and, "living documenting" a pretty basic fundamental document.
Yes!
I would vote for that, but only if said robots had laser beam shooting eyeballs. And maybe build them into Tyrannnasaurous Rex shape because that is something everyone could respect.
Laser eye shooting trex robots enforcing constitutional law...
Il take two please.
Sorry, I get your actual point but seriously side tracked by robotic dinosaurs. With freaking 'lasers!

psyopspec
January 4, 2013, 02:02 AM
I would think if google news puts this on its front page that it would be from an accredited source seems thats not the case.

This has turned into an awesome thread, but I wanted to point out that a large part of the google results algorithm is based on your own internet history, open tabs, cookies, etc. There is no "the front page" on google news, just a front page based on all of the above. Point being the article may not be as prolific as you think.

thump_rrr
January 4, 2013, 05:42 AM
And yes, there is a touch of "git out of 'merica" (as you so eloquently stated it) in my thinking. I'll explain that in lthree sentences.

If you're coming here, America is better than where you're at now.

Once you're here, you find it different than where you came from and are not happy about it.

Rather than adapting like generations before, you strive to make it more like the place you just left.


People have been coming here for four centuries now, from all over the planet, and have built one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen with regard to liberty, personal rights and democratic process. Why have non-players and homeland nationalists become the accepted class? What about the generations that came before and built the very fabric their own descendants are tearing apart?
I hate to tell you but you couldn't be more wrong about the last of your 3 points.

For 400 years people have been coming to America and bringing their traditions, customs, and culture along with them.

What most people are trying to leave behind is tyranny, discrimination of all types and the lack of freedom.

Most everyone who comes to america has brought something with them regardless of how far you go back in history.

You have the Cajuns who emigrated to Louisiana in the mid 1700's,
The Chineese who emigrated to San Francisco in the mid 1800's, the Italians who emigrated to the northeast in the late 1800's and let's not forget the Cubans who have changed the face of Florida since the 1960's.

The beauty of America is that it allows you the freedom to be whoever you want to be as long as you respect the rights and liberties of all others

1911 guy
January 4, 2013, 09:12 AM
Quote:
The beauty of America is that it allows you the freedom to be whoever you want to be as long as you respect the rights and liberties of all others

You just agreed with me and don't even know it. Read my post again, then read your reply post. They agree with one another. What you are missing is the current trend of coming to this country, bringing your traditions and values with you but rather than respecting the rights and liberites of all, to use your own words, demanding that everyone else conform to your own vision of what YOU think society should be.

Going back to the OP and the blog post, the author is not content to make a personal decision to own or not own arms. They, in keeping with our trend of "have it your way" (sorry, burger king) wish to force everyone to their own model of thinking and further blatantly state an abolition of the second amendment, quite likely the whole of the Constitution, preferable to allowing others to exercise rights they themselves are uncomfortable with.

JustinJ
January 4, 2013, 10:40 AM
The framers and authors of our Constitution wrote exactly what they intended, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Preceding this, they made the case for what reason the people were to retain arms. Security of a free state. Coupled with the Declaration of Independence which states an obligation of the people to replace oppresive government, the intent was clear. The founding fathers wanted parity between the standing army and the militia, which was comprised of the whole of the population, to again go back to the framers.

In short, any gun control beyond "do you want it and can you afford it" is unconstitutional. Period, full stop. The fact that we've accepted it because the encroachment began before we were born doesn't make it any less an infringement.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to advocate. That the author should be deported, arrested, what?

What you seem to be forgetting is that the founders also created a freedom of speech. There was no caveat limiting speech against the bill of rights. Not to mention, the founders also created a method in which the constitution can be amended, even the 2nd amendment. So it would be irrational for one to think the founders would leave an avenue of change available but prevent the discussion of it.

RX-178
January 4, 2013, 10:49 AM
I can't speak for others but I will clarify that I'm not supporting a deportation, arrest, or any similar treatment to these individuals.

I just stand by my position that in the case of things regarding the Constitution, which defines us as a people, and our nation as a result, it is not so simple a 'disagreeing viewpoint' as say, chocolate chip vs oreo.

silicosys4
January 4, 2013, 02:27 PM
1911 - I believe you are out of line, in calling out someone for assuming your opinion, while you in turn assume all others blindly share your "there are no lines to be drawn".

So you think convicted violent felons should be allowed to get out of prison on parole, and purchase any ordnance they can afford? After spending 30 years or so in gladiator school, a guy should have enough money saved from his $.05/hr job doing laundry or making license plates to pick up a nice piece.

The fact that we can argue that the felons like the guy who just shot up all those firefighters, convicted gangbangers, etc...shouldn't have had those firearms in the first place is one of the best arguments that laws don't prevent criminals from having firearms.

but that doesn't mean that I'm not for having a mechanism to do what we can to prevent a person from ever legally or easily purchasing a gun again if say, he was convicted in a court of law of beating his grandmother to death with a hammer.

1911 guy
January 4, 2013, 03:10 PM
And that's fine for us to disagree. Notice there's no call from either of us to limit the first amendment freedoms of the other.

Where I think a large portion of our disagreement comes from is the fact that the cretin who killed both his own grandmother and then several firefighters was even out of prison. I said that a felons rights should be restoed if he were deemed rehabilitated enough to rejoin society. Unfortunately, we have a system now that merely decides how many years or months someone does inside then turns them loose upon society again. Rather than focusing on the intent of incarceration, punishment and rehabilitation, we merely house them. In those conditions, it has become what you describe as 'gladiator school".

So, to return once again to the original post, how do you suggest dealing with those who hide behind the protections of the Constitution they deem "appropriate" while using the same freedom of speech to call for limitation of certain right of others they deem not appropriate?

d2wing
January 4, 2013, 03:29 PM
On Fox News they are interviewing a Law professor from Goergetown U. That wants to scrap the constitution. Justice Ginsberg as also said the same. Yesterday Obama said when signing the defense bill that extends legal protection for Army chaplains that believe the Bible is wrong and he opposes it. He thinks they should be forced to marry gays. So much for the first amendment. He also stated he is not bound by the law. We see the crossing of the Rubicon..
I don't think we need to worry so much about the foreigners or fringe writers. We need to be concerned about mainstream America and our voted leaders sworn to uphold the constitution and trying to destroy it.

Dr.Rob
January 4, 2013, 04:27 PM
Did any one of you read the SECOND half of that?

hso
January 4, 2013, 04:37 PM
Do we really want to debate the precise number of rounds per magazine that we feel is appropriate to shoot at elementary school children? Those who propose new gun restrictions apparently want to do just that.

Nice line from the second Op/Ed piece.

Trisha
January 4, 2013, 04:43 PM
Political tactics straight out of the Chicago Machine.

1911 guy
January 4, 2013, 04:51 PM
I, for one, did read the second "half". A completely seperate article, chosen to contrast the two views. Well written and thoughtful. Unfortunately, we have become so divided amongst ourselves that defending school kids has been put on the back burner of community discussion. There are even some on this board who advocate no more guns in schools. Thankfully, there are communities and states who have responded in a mature manner and begun programs to educate, train and arm willing participants to keep our kids safer.

Hapworth
January 4, 2013, 04:58 PM
Did any one of you read the SECOND half of that?Yes. Twice. Could you elaborate?

JustinJ
January 4, 2013, 05:07 PM
So, to return once again to the original post, how do you suggest dealing with those who hide behind the protections of the Constitution they deem "appropriate" while using the same freedom of speech to call for limitation of certain right of others they deem not appropriate?

I'm sorry but you rant about constitutional protection of gun rights and then ask this? You use your own first amendment right to counter the arguments you disagree with. The first amendment is not there to protect all speech, no matter how unpopular how much others disagree with. If that's not what it's for there is not point to it.

1911 guy
January 4, 2013, 05:16 PM
Agreed. My own chosen method is to try to get others to see to hypocrisy in it. Unfortunately, we see all too many willing to compromise because some on the left (for lack of a better descriptor) are willing to say untruthful things about gun owners as a group.

If, however, you are willing to place restriction on gun rights because of a few bad actors, what restrictions are you willing to place on free speech due to deliberate misinformation?

yokel
January 4, 2013, 05:19 PM
To its opponents the NRA can do little or nothing that is right.

We all know there are many elitist creeps who mendaciously and maliciously or maybe ignorantly portray the NRA as extremist and as an enemy of all that is decent and moderate.

Not all viewpoints are equal.

A big part of the reason that we should never compromise is that the forces we are up against have proven time and time again that they are just flat wrong.

Let's not pretend people who are wrong so often are merely in honest disagreement with us, they may be entitled to their own opinions but when the facts consistently prove them wrong we need to look at those facts above their opinions.

I've never believed the other side when they claim they're only interested in just one more gun-control law. They ultimately want a total ban on weapons and only make incremental claims to disguise their real aims.

There is nothing subtle about what's at stake. Whoever has the arms tends to win when it comes to self-defense and doesn't lose life or property. But if the tyrant/criminal has the gun, he has the upper hand.

Trisha
January 4, 2013, 05:28 PM
Commonly, IMO, folks seem to forget the Preamble to The Bill of Rights (which, IMO, eliminates any hair-splitting about the Second Amendment in particular):


Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

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 confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

If you enjoyed reading about "news article compairing us to jihadist fundamentalists" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!