news article compairing us to jihadist fundamentalists

[RX-178]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The real jihadists will be broadcasting on Al Bores flopped channel, Aljazeera USA. They just bought it.

 

[Hapworth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Guys, don't give these people web hits. They get money from their advertisers the more people hit their page.

 

[Hapworth]

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]

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]

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]

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/uc...1/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder

 

[Bhi curamach]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.