(CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to spend $50 million this year through his new group Everytown for Gun Safety to counter the influence of the National Rifle Association, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.
Women, and more particularly moms, will be the key demographic in the outreach to curb gun violence, Everytown for Gun Safety spokeswoman Erika Soto Lamb told CNN.
The news was first reported by the New York Times.
"You've got to work at it piece by piece," Bloomberg told the newspaper. "One mom and another mom. You've got to wear them down until they finally say, 'Enough.'"
Everytown for Gun Safety will serve as an umbrella organization for Bloomberg's two gun control groups -- Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
The effort will target 15 states. And it will focus more on grass-roots organizing than on television ads, Lamb told CNN.
From gun-friendly states like Texas, Montana and Indiana to states like Colorado and Washington state where gun control initiatives have recently advanced, thanks in large part to the intense lobbying of the NRA.
"I don't want to lay blame anywhere, but it is a reality that the gun lobby has an incredible amount of political influence with members of Congress in Washington," Mark Kelly, a prominent gun control advocate, told CNN in December. Kelly's wife is former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was severely wounded in a shooting in Arizona in 2011.
"I mean, it's very clear that many members take their cues on this issue from the gun lobby," he said.
According to the New York Times, Bloomberg's strategy will seek to expand the background checks for gun buyers.
So there we go, after numerous failed legislative attempts, cries of 'Won't someone think of the children', demonizing your opponents, the next course of action is just to "wear them down"
Ah, Mayor Bloomberg. Using silly initiatives to promote ineffective solutions to huge social issues. Is 2014 going to be the year of "Think of the Children!!!!!"?
It must be nice having $50 million to throw into the wind while laughing gleefully.
He'd get more bang for his buck starting a free gun safety education and training program.
Mayor Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is one of those guys who managed to make enemies on all sides of the aisle. He's been Mayor of New York City since 2002. He was famous for awhile for claiming he cleaned up NYC's crime problem, until everyone realized that was a load of bull and he hadn't actually done anything on that front other than allow the police to do a lot of stupid stuff in the name of reducing crime. This is a good example of the shenanigans.
Daemonhammer wrote: I sense hostility towards this Mayor Bloomberg. Shouldnt he get some credit for trying to promote a cause?
But then again, im from Europe and i dont know much about what goes on over on the other side of the Atlantic.
Bloomberg was/still apparently is a billionaire philanthropist playboy from G̶o̶t̶h̶a̶m̶ New York City who fights crime and cures the ignorant populace of what aims them, specifically their own stupidity.
Here is an image of him:
Examples include limiting the size of soft drinks, directly controlling the education system of a city of eight million (this actually seemed to work), and opposing circumcisions done by Orthodox Jews.
In general, I don't consider him a bad mayor but he has had some interesting moments.
Daemonhammer wrote: I sense hostility towards this Mayor Bloomberg.
Shouldnt he get some credit for trying to promote a cause?
But then again, im from Europe and i dont know much about what goes on over on the other side of the Atlantic.
Since 8 times more people die yearly from alcohol related causes here than from guns, perhaps Bloomburg should put his efforts there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: It must be nice having $50 million to throw into the wind while laughing gleefully.
He'd get more bang for his buck starting a free gun safety education and training program.
Mayor Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is one of those guys who managed to make enemies on all sides of the aisle. He's been Mayor of New York City since 2002. He was famous for awhile for claiming he cleaned up NYC's crime problem, until everyone realized that was a load of bull and he hadn't actually done anything on that front other than allow the police to do a lot of stupid stuff in the name of reducing crime. This is a good example of the shenanigans.
What Kronk said. That, and frankly, he's pretty effective in his job. His handling of the NYPD has just allowed a poorly run police department to sink further into the depths of madness.
We'll probably see him as a Republican candidate in the primaries come 2016.
Daemonhammer wrote: I sense hostility towards this Mayor Bloomberg.
Shouldnt he get some credit for trying to promote a cause?
But then again, im from Europe and i dont know much about what goes on over on the other side of the Atlantic.
Since 8 times more people die yearly from alcohol related causes here than from guns, perhaps Bloomburg should put his efforts there.
Continually suggesting that "X kills more than Y, so leave Y alone" does not mean that you should just ignore Y...especially when X is taking into account things like a lifetime of heavy drinking, alcohol related motor vehicle accidents, pharmacological interactions between alcohol and medication.
Daemonhammer wrote: I sense hostility towards this Mayor Bloomberg.
Shouldnt he get some credit for trying to promote a cause?
But then again, im from Europe and i dont know much about what goes on over on the other side of the Atlantic.
Bloomberg was/still apparently is a billionaire philanthropist playboy from G̶o̶t̶h̶a̶m̶ New York City who fights crime and cures the ignorant populace of what aims them, specifically their own stupidity.
Here is an image of him:
Examples include limiting the size of soft drinks, directly controlling the education system of a city of eight million (this actually seemed to work), and opposing circumcisions done by Orthodox Jews.
In general, I don't consider him a bad mayor but he has had some interesting moments.
He also managed to make sure his car would never pollute his fine city while idling, and still managed to be able to step into a nice cold car every time he had to stop somewhere:
LordofHats wrote: What Kronk said. That, and frankly, he's pretty effective in his job. His handling of the NYPD has just allowed a poorly run police department to sink further into the depths of madness.
We'll probably see him as a Republican candidate in the primaries come 2016.
Kanluwen wrote: Continually suggesting that "X kills more than Y, so leave Y alone" does not mean that you should just ignore Y...especially when X is taking into account things like a lifetime of heavy drinking, alcohol related motor vehicle accidents, pharmacological interactions between alcohol and medication.
How about when the figures for Y include justifiable homicides, suicides, illegal acts, and actions from those people who are not permitted to possess Y?
Yeah.... gun control activists always conveinently ignore that guns save Y amount of lives, and are in volved with x amount of deaths, with x being much much smaller then Y.
Getting rid of somthing that does more good then harm is just silly.
A much more honest, less disingenuous approach would be to mitigate the bad parts while promoting the good parts, IE promote gun safety instead of gun abstinence, as the NRA does.
Bloom berg may as well be teaching abstinence only birth control while going around having unprotected sex with hookers (because of course, HE has armed guards, because guns are OK to protect him, just not you lowly peons)
Its unfortunate that people on the anti gun side keep ignoring the fact that guns save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in america, and keep repeating ad nausing "guns dont protect people, because I am ignoring those hundreds of thousands of people they protect"
Seaward wrote: And is Rush Limbaugh going to run as a Democrat? Conservatives loathe Bloomberg.
Is he a democrate (Bloomberg). I thought he was one of those Republicans who ran as a Republican because he couldn't get on the Democrat ticket (like Romney). EDIT: Oh, apparently he's been both XD
Seaward wrote: And is Rush Limbaugh going to run as a Democrat? Conservatives loathe Bloomberg.
Is he a democrate (Bloomberg). I thought he was one of those Republicans who ran as a Republican because he couldn't get on the Democrat ticket (like Romney). EDIT: Oh, apparently he's been both XD
He's one of those guys who float around nebulously in the middle in terms of labeling, and has positions all over the map - though they all could be described as authoritarian and pro-big government. Regardless of what he calls himself, I hope he gets genital warts.
Bloomberg was/still apparently is a billionaire philanthropist playboy from G̶o̶t̶h̶a̶m̶ New York City who fights crime and cures the ignorant populace of what aims them, specifically their own stupidity.
Here is an image of him:
Examples include limiting the size of soft drinks, directly controlling the education system of a city of eight million (this actually seemed to work), and opposing circumcisions done by Orthodox Jews.
In general, I don't consider him a bad mayor but he has had some interesting moments.
...But i like Batman and i dont like circumcision... To be serious, he sounds more like someone who would support NRA than oppose them.
easysauce wrote: Yeah.... gun control activists always conveinently ignore that guns save Y amount of lives, and are in volved with x amount of deaths, with x being much much smaller then Y.
Getting rid of somthing that does more good then harm is just silly.
A much more honest, less disingenuous approach would be to mitigate the bad parts while promoting the good parts, IE promote gun safety instead of gun abstinence, as the NRA does.
Bloom berg may as well be teaching abstinence only birth control while going around having unprotected sex with hookers (because of course, HE has armed guards, because guns are OK to protect him, just not you lowly peons)
Its unfortunate that people on the anti gun side keep ignoring the fact that guns save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in america, and keep repeating ad nausing "guns dont protect people, because I am ignoring those hundreds of thousands of people they protect"
But if we ban guns and make them illegal then no one will ever be able to get a gun. Just look at what happened when we criminalized drugs.
He said large soft drinks are making people fat and had a law passed banning them over X ounces (have no idea). However, you can still buy lots of smaller soft drinks, so that's really just pissing in the wind.
Was he mayor when they banned Transfats in New York?
kronk wrote: He said large soft drinks are making people fat. However, you can still buy lots of smaller soft drinks, so that's really just pissing in the wind.
...But i like Batman and i dont like circumcision...
To be serious, he sounds more like someone who would support NRA than oppose them.
And whats his problem with soft drinks?
Bloomy is a populist, which probably explains his party flip flopping too. He picks the positions that suit his needs. It's why he can still be mayor after a decade and why he'll probably never make it in national politics. His portfolio is so specifically built to appeal to New Yorkers that he's unlikely to gain traction anywhere else.
He said large soft drinks are making people fat and had a law passed banning them over X ounces (have no idea). However, you can still buy lots of smaller soft drinks, so that's really just pissing in the wind.
Well following his logic, shouldnt large meals at fast food restaurants be outlawed too?
Kanluwen wrote: Continually suggesting that "X kills more than Y, so leave Y alone" does not mean that you should just ignore Y...especially when X is taking into account things like a lifetime of heavy drinking, alcohol related motor vehicle accidents, pharmacological interactions between alcohol and medication.
How about when the figures for Y include justifiable homicides, suicides, illegal acts, and actions from those people who are not permitted to possess Y?
...which still does not realistically change the point I made as using alcohol related deaths to compare to gun related deaths is an exercise in statistical shenanigans. It's as bad as the comparisons with deaths related to motor vehicles.
easysauce wrote:Bloomberg may as well be teaching abstinence only birth control while going around having unprotected sex with hookers (because of course, HE has armed guards, because guns are OK to protect him, just not you lowly peons)
I absolutely love how in your post you talk about being disingenuous while posting this nonsense.
LordofHats wrote: What Kronk said. That, and frankly, he's pretty effective in his job. His handling of the NYPD has just allowed a poorly run police department to sink further into the depths of madness.
We'll probably see him as a Republican candidate in the primaries come 2016.
Only in your dreams. He would get run out on a rail if he even showed up. He's everything that typifies Yankee Nanny Stater.
Getting rid of something that does more good then harm is just silly.
Indeed, its just a shame that the US system of 'gun control' is extremely unlikely to do more good than harm, especially when firearms are apparently to be used for 'self defense' which of course means going to the supermarket armed.
He said large soft drinks are making people fat and had a law passed banning them over X ounces (have no idea). However, you can still buy lots of smaller soft drinks, so that's really just pissing in the wind.
Was he mayor when they banned Transfats in New York?
Getting rid of something that does more good then harm is just silly.
Indeed, its just a shame that the US system of 'gun control' is extremely unlikely to do more good than harm, especially when firearms are apparently to be used for 'self defense' which of course means going to the supermarket armed.
Unless its Sprouts of course, but the wife will just ignore their signs....
Kanluwen wrote: ...which still does not realistically change the point I made as using alcohol related deaths to compare to gun related deaths is an exercise in statistical shenanigans. It's as bad as the comparisons with deaths related to motor vehicles.
Then are you willing to admit the "statistical shenanigans" in relation to firearm deaths, as outlined?
Kanluwen wrote: ...which still does not realistically change the point I made as using alcohol related deaths to compare to gun related deaths is an exercise in statistical shenanigans. It's as bad as the comparisons with deaths related to motor vehicles.
Then are you willing to admit the "statistical shenanigans" in relation to firearm deaths, as outlined?
The point, as usual, goes over your head.
If a year is including "firearms deaths", it does not matter if the deaths are from justifiable homicides. Someone still died to a gun.
And yet all those justifiable deaths are used as a tool by people to drive their gun control agenda. Y'know, those statistical shenanigans that appear to have gone over your head
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And yet all those justifiable deaths are used as a tool by people to drive their gun control agenda. Y'know, those statistical shenanigans that appear to have gone over your head
So really you're just getting uppity because "justifiable homicides" shouldn't be included and that apparently is some kind of evidence that the "gun control agenda" does not actually think before speaking?
Kanluwen wrote: So really you're just getting uppity because "justifiable homicides" shouldn't be included and that apparently is some kind of evidence that the "gun control agenda" does not actually think before speaking?
Hey this opens the door for some amazing drinking games! Pull off your target from the wall. 1 shots of for a bullseye, 2 shots for hitting the target, and 3 for a miss! Oh the fun
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im confused. What is he doing is bad? And Im not going anti-gun, but the article leaves it vague as to what he is trying to accomplice
I think it's more weird than bad. His plan sounds solid to me. So long as his employees live by it we shouldn't have drunks firing shot guns into anyone.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im confused. What is he doing is bad? And Im not going anti-gun, but the article leaves it vague as to what he is trying to accomplice
I think it's more weird than bad. His plan sounds solid to me. So long as his employees live by it we shouldn't have drunks firing shot guns into anyone.
Abolishing guns is about as functional as trying to abolish teenage sex. It isn't going to happen and spending money trying to do so is wasteful and ignorant.
Sure, it's his money. But if he really gave a gak about people and not power and control, he'd spend that money on gun safety programs for young people and at schools.
Spending a gakload of money trying to abolish guns.
and while enjoying armed protection 24/7.
this, QFT times a billion.
without exception, the most vocal proponents of anti gun legislation will always retain their right to have the protection via firarms.
OFC its only the unwashed masses that cannot be trusted.
For some reason, this simple double standard, as well as the simple, verifiable fact that more people are saved by guns then killed by then, just passes right over Anti-gun nuts heads.
Spending a gakload of money trying to abolish guns.
More specifically it is seed money for what is either Nega-NRA (like Negaduck in Darkwing Duck) or an anti-NRA group called Everytown. You can visit the website and learn more.
Jihadin wrote: Is he involving Mayors against Guns in this?
I don't usually do this, but fixed that for you. It's an important distinction.
Re-corrected your error. Thats their intent. Let them own it.
I don't think it is their intent to ban all firearms, but we tend to be very binary on this subject where either only see people as standing up for all guns are wanting to ban them all with no in between. To be fair I don't like either the NRA or Everytown.
Frazzled wrote: Re-corrected your error. Thats their intent. Let them own it.
Please don't rephrase reformat my quote for the sole purpose of making it look like I said something I did not, it's incredibly rude and a Rule 1 violation to any reasonable person.
The name of the group is properly, "Mayors Against Illegal Guns". If you want to argue with what they do, then that's a good argument to have, and salient to the thread even, but lets not build on a foundation of BS.
cincydooley wrote: Abolishing guns is about as functional as trying to abolish teenage sex. It isn't going to happen and spending money trying to do so is wasteful and ignorant.
Sure, it's his money. But if he really gave a gak about people and not power and control, he'd spend that money on gun safety programs for young people and at schools.
The Netherlands has done pretty well in abolishing guns and teenage sex.
Gun related deaths per 100,000 population (2011)
USA, 10.3 (2011)
The Netherlands, 0.46 (2010)
Teenage pregnancies, including births and abortions, per 1000 women (2006)
USA, 61.2
The Netherlands, 14.1
cincydooley wrote: Abolishing guns is about as functional as trying to abolish teenage sex. It isn't going to happen and spending money trying to do so is wasteful and ignorant.
Sure, it's his money. But if he really gave a gak about people and not power and control, he'd spend that money on gun safety programs for young people and at schools.
The Netherlands has done pretty well in abolishing guns and teenage sex.
Gun related deaths per 100,000 population (2011)
USA, 10.3 (2011)
The Netherlands, 0.46 (2010)
Teenage pregnancies, including births and abortions, per 1000 women (2006)
USA, 61.2
The Netherlands, 14.1
Ahtman wrote: I don't think it is their intent to ban all firearms, but we tend to be very binary on this subject where either only see people as standing up for all guns are wanting to ban them all with no in between. To be fair I don't like either the NRA or Everytown.
They've lost about fifty mayors in the past couple years, some of whom (like Tzakiki or whatever his name is) have outright said that Bloomberg's focus is against all guns, not just illegal ones.
Ahtman wrote: I don't think it is their intent to ban all firearms, but we tend to be very binary on this subject where either only see people as standing up for all guns are wanting to ban them all with no in between. To be fair I don't like either the NRA or Everytown.
They've lost about fifty mayors in the past couple years, some of whom (like Tzakiki or whatever his name is) have outright said that Bloomberg's focus is against all guns, not just illegal ones.
Well that isn't a very tenable position.
Edit: Referring to banning all firearms, not yours.
That first one... seems off. If I have time, I'll dig deeper.
As the the teen sex... that's very interesting. Keep in mind that in the past couple of decades, the US was much worse and teen preggy has been on the downward trend since then... What changed? Easy access to pr0n???
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I suppose no-one is pro illegal guns except criminals.
eh... no.
I know plenty of folks who wants to own full auto weapons... and they ain't criminals. (as far as I know... )
cincydooley wrote: Abolishing guns is about as functional as trying to abolish teenage sex. It isn't going to happen and spending money trying to do so is wasteful and ignorant.
Sure, it's his money. But if he really gave a gak about people and not power and control, he'd spend that money on gun safety programs for young people and at schools.
The Netherlands has done pretty well in abolishing guns and teenage sex.
Gun related deaths per 100,000 population (2011)
USA, 10.3 (2011)
The Netherlands, 0.46 (2010)
Teenage pregnancies, including births and abortions, per 1000 women (2006)
USA, 61.2
The Netherlands, 14.1
Any idea how they did this or if it's even teneble in the US?
Found part of it:
Governments strongly support education and economic self-sufficiency for youth.
Seems quite the opposite of what we have in the US.
By John Paul Stevens, Published: April 11 E-mail the writer
John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”
Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.
The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.
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.”
In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense. And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens. I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.
In my dissent in the McDonald case, I pointed out that the court’s decision was unique in the extent to which the court had exacted a heavy toll “in terms of state sovereignty. . . . Even apart from the States’ long history of firearms regulation and its location at the core of their police powers, this is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this Court’s meddling. Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.”
“Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.”
In response to the massacre of grammar-school students at Sandy Hook Elementary School, some legislators have advocated stringent controls on the sale of assault weapons and more complete background checks on purchasers of firearms. It is important to note that nothing in either the Heller or the McDonald opinion poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.
First, the court did not overrule Miller. Instead, it “read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” On the preceding page of its opinion, the court made it clear that even though machine guns were useful in warfare in 1939, they were not among the types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment because that protected class was limited to weapons in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Even though a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun might well be kept at home and be useful for self-defense, neither machine guns nor sawed-off shotguns satisfy the “common use” requirement.
Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court’s decision in Heller.
A second virtue of the opinion in Heller is that Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way to limit the court’s holding not only to a subset of weapons that might be used for self-defense but also to a subset of conduct that is protected. The specific holding of the case covers only the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, while a later part of the opinion adds emphasis to the narrowness of that holding by describing uses that were not protected by the common law or state practice. Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, or on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are specifically identified as permissible regulations.
Thus, Congress’s failure to enact laws that would expand the use of background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons cannot be justified by reference to the Second Amendment or to anything that the Supreme Court has said about that amendment. What the members of the five-justice majority said in those opinions is nevertheless profoundly important, because it curtails the government’s power to regulate the use of handguns that contribute to the roughly 88 firearm-related deaths that occur every day.
There is an intriguing similarity between the court’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence, which began with a misinterpretation of the 11th Amendment, and its more recent misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. The procedural amendment limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction over private actions against states eventually blossomed into a substantive rule that treats the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity as though it were part of the Constitution itself. Of course, in England common-law rules fashioned by judges may always be repealed or amended by Parliament. And when the United States became an independent nation, Congress and every state legislature had the power to accept, to reject or to modify common-law rules that prevailed prior to 1776, except, of course, any rule that might have been included in the Constitution.
The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.
As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.
It is true, of course, that the public’s reaction to the massacre of schoolchildren, such as the Newtown killings, and the 2013 murder of government employees at the Navy Yard in Washington, may also introduce a strong emotional element into the debate. That aspect of the debate is, however, based entirely on facts rather than fiction. The law should encourage intelligent discussion of possible remedies for what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy.
cincydooley wrote: Abolishing guns is about as functional as trying to abolish teenage sex. It isn't going to happen and spending money trying to do so is wasteful and ignorant.
Sure, it's his money. But if he really gave a gak about people and not power and control, he'd spend that money on gun safety programs for young people and at schools.
The Netherlands has done pretty well in abolishing guns and teenage sex.
Gun related deaths per 100,000 population (2011)
USA, 10.3 (2011)
The Netherlands, 0.46 (2010)
Teenage pregnancies, including births and abortions, per 1000 women (2006)
USA, 61.2
The Netherlands, 14.1
Any idea how they did this or if it's even teneble in the US?
Found part of it:
Governments strongly support education and economic self-sufficiency for youth.
Seems quite the opposite of what we have in the US.
I'm not going to answer to the gun point, but as far as teenage sex goes the Dutch have a more enlightened sex education programme in schools. Rather than trying to ignore it, or make it go away with virginity pledges, they explain it fully, including relationships, love and respect, as well as the mechanics, contraceptives and venereal diseases.
One of the results is a later average age of first intercourse, which is of course what the US system aims for but fails to achieve.
The point is that you can get teenagers not to screw like minks.
The point is that you can get teenagers not to screw like minks.
To translate it into a language that pro-gun folks can understand:
If you teach kids about what guns do, how they work and how to handle them responsibly and safely then they are less likely to go looking for this mythical gun and pull it out in front of their friends and have an early negligent discharge.
The point is that you can get teenagers not to screw like minks.
To translate it into a language that pro-gun folks can understand:
If you teach kids about what guns do, how they work and how to handle them responsibly and safely then they are less likely to go looking for this mythical gun and pull it out in front of their friends and have an early negligent discharge.
Same goes for penises...
Huh?
Doesn't the pro-gun crowd want to "teach kids about what guns do, how they work and how to handle them responsibly"???
The point is that you can get teenagers not to screw like minks.
To translate it into a language that pro-gun folks can understand:
If you teach kids about what guns do, how they work and how to handle them responsibly and safely then they are less likely to go looking for this mythical gun and pull it out in front of their friends and have an early negligent discharge.
Same goes for penises...
Huh?
Doesn't the pro-gun crowd want to "teach kids about what guns do, how they work and how to handle them responsibly"???
I think it's a stab at people who would be okay with trying the education route for abstinence but leave guns with the "Don't talk about guns, think about guns, or look at guns" approach currently going on.
Doesn't the pro-gun crowd want to "teach kids about what guns do, how they work and how to handle them responsibly"???
Nonsense. It's the pro-gun crowd that propagates "thirty caliber clip, thirty calibers in thirty seconds!"-type language. Pro-gun people don't ever bother to learn anything about guns, and definitely don't teach their kids. That's why you always see pro-gun people on the news, claiming that everything smaller than a rifle is a Glock, and everything bigger than a Glock is an AR-15 automatical assaulter firegunarm. You really need the anti-gun crowd to come around and rein in some of the hilarious misinformed claims.
d-usa wrote: Did three people in a row seriously fail at reading comprehension?
Probably. I'm useless before my 4th cup of coffee
Let me try it again then
A good way to get a mix of reactions out of people is to show them a picture of a child at a gun range shooting a firearm. The anti-gun crowd will have a heart attack, and the pro-gun crowd will make the following argument: If you teach kids about what guns do, how they work and how to handle them responsibly and safely then they are less likely to go looking for this mythical gun and pull it out in front of their friends and have a negligent discharge. I agree with this approach by the way. Educate them, let them know how dangerous weapons are and help them be responsible when they do handle them. Take away their curiosity, and they are less likely to get into trouble with a firearm.
Europeans take the same approach, except they teach their kids about sex instead of guns.
In my neck of the woods you will have conservatives embrace comprehensive firearm education, but refuse any sort of sex education.
So therefore my statement: teach our kids as much about their penis as we do about guns and maybe they will keep both of them from shooting.
Chongara wrote: If he really wanted people to be safe from gun violence, he'd spend that $50 million buying them all guns.
I suspect he doesn't have enough money for that... (wild assed guess... we have THAT much guns on the streets).
He's got $50 million dollars, that'll buy a lot of guns. Failing that he could just buy them bullets, once they have bullets they're bound to get guns on their own somehow (why else would they have bullets?). Law of of nature and all that "Bullets find a way".
He's got $50 million dollars, that'll buy a lot of guns. Failing that he could just buy them bullets, once they have bullets they're bound to get guns on their own somehow (why else would they have bullets?). Law of of nature and all that "Bullets find a way".
If he wants to buy me a bunch of quality .22LR I would appreciate it. I can't find it available, or if it is in stock, at an even half way reasonable price.
By John Paul Stevens, Published: April 11 E-mail the writer
John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”
Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.
The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.
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.”
In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense. And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens. I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.
In my dissent in the McDonald case, I pointed out that the court’s decision was unique in the extent to which the court had exacted a heavy toll “in terms of state sovereignty. . . . Even apart from the States’ long history of firearms regulation and its location at the core of their police powers, this is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this Court’s meddling. Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.”
“Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.”
In response to the massacre of grammar-school students at Sandy Hook Elementary School, some legislators have advocated stringent controls on the sale of assault weapons and more complete background checks on purchasers of firearms. It is important to note that nothing in either the Heller or the McDonald opinion poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.
First, the court did not overrule Miller. Instead, it “read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” On the preceding page of its opinion, the court made it clear that even though machine guns were useful in warfare in 1939, they were not among the types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment because that protected class was limited to weapons in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Even though a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun might well be kept at home and be useful for self-defense, neither machine guns nor sawed-off shotguns satisfy the “common use” requirement.
Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court’s decision in Heller.
A second virtue of the opinion in Heller is that Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way to limit the court’s holding not only to a subset of weapons that might be used for self-defense but also to a subset of conduct that is protected. The specific holding of the case covers only the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, while a later part of the opinion adds emphasis to the narrowness of that holding by describing uses that were not protected by the common law or state practice. Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, or on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are specifically identified as permissible regulations.
Thus, Congress’s failure to enact laws that would expand the use of background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons cannot be justified by reference to the Second Amendment or to anything that the Supreme Court has said about that amendment. What the members of the five-justice majority said in those opinions is nevertheless profoundly important, because it curtails the government’s power to regulate the use of handguns that contribute to the roughly 88 firearm-related deaths that occur every day.
There is an intriguing similarity between the court’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence, which began with a misinterpretation of the 11th Amendment, and its more recent misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. The procedural amendment limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction over private actions against states eventually blossomed into a substantive rule that treats the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity as though it were part of the Constitution itself. Of course, in England common-law rules fashioned by judges may always be repealed or amended by Parliament. And when the United States became an independent nation, Congress and every state legislature had the power to accept, to reject or to modify common-law rules that prevailed prior to 1776, except, of course, any rule that might have been included in the Constitution.
The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.
As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.
It is true, of course, that the public’s reaction to the massacre of schoolchildren, such as the Newtown killings, and the 2013 murder of government employees at the Navy Yard in Washington, may also introduce a strong emotional element into the debate. That aspect of the debate is, however, based entirely on facts rather than fiction. The law should encourage intelligent discussion of possible remedies for what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy.
Changing the Second Amendment to “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” completely changes the landscape for legal gun owners, and not in a positive way.
Pathetic scare mongering. Any prudent gun owner should have told the children in the house that firearms can be dangerous, are not toys, and are never to be touched. Besides, what good is a loaded pistol hidden in a closet?
The point is that you can get teenagers not to screw like minks.
To translate it into a language that pro-gun folks can understand:
If you teach kids about what guns do, how they work and how to handle them responsibly and safely then they are less likely to go looking for this mythical gun and pull it out in front of their friends and have an early negligent discharge.
Same goes for penises...
Sounds like a talk every responsible parent should have with their child
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: A good way to get a mix of reactions out of people is to show them a picture of a child at a gun range shooting a firearm. The anti-gun crowd will have a heart attack, and the pro-gun crowd will make the following argument: If you teach kids about what guns do, how they work and how to handle them responsibly and safely then they are less likely to go looking for this mythical gun and pull it out in front of their friends and have a negligent discharge. I agree with this approach by the way. Educate them, let them know how dangerous weapons are and help them be responsible when they do handle them. Take away their curiosity, and they are less likely to get into trouble with a firearm.
Europeans take the same approach, except they teach their kids about sex instead of guns.
In my neck of the woods you will have conservatives embrace comprehensive firearm education, but refuse any sort of sex education.
So therefore my statement: teach our kids as much about their penis as we do about guns and maybe they will keep both of them from shooting.
Or at least ensure that projectiles don't irrevocably change a lives
I say educate people and let them make up their own minds.
When I first saw this picture my sense of perspective didn't kick in properly and I thought Batman was about 2 feet tall with a comically over sized cape. That was good for a laugh. Thanks for that.
Also as far as saying something on topic I don't really like the NRA or Evreytown. They both over-react pretty far. What really bothers me is a lot of the crazy "guns are life" stuff out there. That makes me cringe a little whenever I see it. For instance, this is an actual add for an actual product ("the world's quietest pistol silencers"):
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem is not the prudent gun owners, it is the imprudent gun owners.
So why trample over the rights of the prudent and lawful?
It's a bit like before you needed a driver's licence to drive a car. Prudent people got themselves trained how to drive safely, and had fewer crashes, but imprudent people didn't bother -- they drove too fast and drunkenly, and had more crashes.
So the government brought in a scheme to make sure drivers were trained to an acceptable standard, and also made up a number of road laws limiting speed, drinking, and so on. Thus trampling all over the rights of the prudent, who now had to pay for licensing and road signs the same as the imprudent.
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem is not the prudent gun owners, it is the imprudent gun owners.
So why trample over the rights of the prudent and lawful?
It's a bit like before you needed a driver's licence to drive a car. Prudent people got themselves trained how to drive safely, and had fewer crashes, but imprudent people didn't bother -- they drove too fast and drunkenly, and had more crashes.
So the STATE governments brought in a scheme to make sure drivers were trained to an acceptable standard, and also made up a number of road laws limiting speed, drinking, and so on. Thus trampling all over the rights of the prudent, who now had to pay for licensing and road signs the same as the imprudent.
However road accidents were reduced.
You'll note driver licensing is not a federal issue. You'll also be willing to admit that nothing in the bill of rights is in question when it comes to licensing a driver who wants to use public roads.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's a bit like before you needed a driver's licence to drive a car. Prudent people got themselves trained how to drive safely, and had fewer crashes, but imprudent people didn't bother -- they drove too fast and drunkenly, and had more crashes.
So the government brought in a scheme to make sure drivers were trained to an acceptable standard, and also made up a number of road laws limiting speed, drinking, and so on. Thus trampling all over the rights of the prudent, who now had to pay for licensing and road signs the same as the imprudent.
However road accidents were reduced.
So are we allowed to compare firearms to cars or not? Because it seems that there is some upset whenever pro-2nd Amendment people make such a comparison
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem is not the prudent gun owners, it is the imprudent gun owners.
And most responsible gun owners think those people need to be held accountable by law for their negligence. Kid kills himself with a gun you left unsecured? You just lost your kid AND you're going to prison for criminally negligent homicide.
There are laws on the books to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, too. We just don't enforce them very well.
Believe me, as a responsible gun owner I want nothing more than the morons that make the rest of us look bad to be held accountable for their actions.
@wombat - not seeing the problem with that ad.....
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd also argue that the problem with those "imprudent drivers" is the same for gun ownership: we don't enforce well enough the laws we have on the books. And the penalties aren't nearly severe enough.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's a bit like before you needed a driver's licence to drive a car. Prudent people got themselves trained how to drive safely, and had fewer crashes, but imprudent people didn't bother -- they drove too fast and drunkenly, and had more crashes.
So the government brought in a scheme to make sure drivers were trained to an acceptable standard, and also made up a number of road laws limiting speed, drinking, and so on. Thus trampling all over the rights of the prudent, who now had to pay for licensing and road signs the same as the imprudent.
However road accidents were reduced.
So are we allowed to compare firearms to cars or not? Because it seems that there is some upset whenever pro-2nd Amendment people make such a comparison
Well, I am comparing safety legislation here, not cars and guns specifically. I could as well have used planes and guns, drugs and guns, or civil engineering projects and guns.
I mean, do you get the basic point that sometimes the innocent have to be inconvenienced in order that a greater good may be promoted?
Everything in the constitution, including the document as a whole, can be changed if we want it to be changed.
The 2nd is just a law, nothing more and nothing less. Hiding behind "the constitution says so" is just a way of actually avoiding talking about stuff that we don't want to address.
We like having the freedoms in the constitution, and for the most part it has served us well. But the 2nd was a change to the original document, and there is nothing preventing us from changing it again.
"We can never pass a certain law because of the 2nd" is wrong because we can always get rid of the 2nd to begin with.
How dare you suggest the Bill of Rights isn't some super human vision in a cape with super powers that will punch out uncle sam if he so much as tries to step on someone's lawn.
d-usa wrote: Everything in the constitution, including the document as a whole, can be changed if we want it to be changed.
The 2nd is just a law, nothing more and nothing less. Hiding behind "the constitution says so" is just a way of actually avoiding talking about stuff that we don't want to address.
We like having the freedoms in the constitution, and for the most part it has served us well. But the 2nd was a change to the original document, and there is nothing preventing us from changing it again.
"We can never pass a certain law because of the 2nd" is wrong because we can always get rid of the 2nd to begin with.
I'll note the Bill of Rights was ratified with the main document, and does not have changes to the main document but instead adds to it, further putting explicit limits on Federal power, unlike some ammendments which do change the main document.
AI'll also note, folks opposed to the 2nd never attempt to go about repealing it in the way the constitutions allows.
d-usa wrote: Everything in the constitution, including the document as a whole, can be changed if we want it to be changed.
The 2nd is just a law, nothing more and nothing less. Hiding behind "the constitution says so" is just a way of actually avoiding talking about stuff that we don't want to address.
We like having the freedoms in the constitution, and for the most part it has served us well. But the 2nd was a change to the original document, and there is nothing preventing us from changing it again.
"We can never pass a certain law because of the 2nd" is wrong because we can always get rid of the 2nd to begin with.
I'll note the Bill of Rights was ratified with the main document, and does not have changes to the main document but instead adds to it, further putting explicit limits on Federal power, unlike some ammendments which do change the main document.
But if the Bill of Rights is an extension of the main document, then it can still be changed just as the main document has been changed. At some point enough people agreed that the 2nd was needed, at some point one more SCOTUS judge than the opposition agreed that it doesn't just applies to militias, and at some point enough people can agree to get rid of it.
AI'll also note, folks opposed to the 2nd never attempt to go about repealing it in the way the constitutions allows.
I don't think that the majority of "2nd Amendment Opponents" are actually against the second, they just think that what they want doesn't violate the second. They think that more regulations doesn't mean that you can't have guns, so there is no violation.
Just thinking that there is nothing there to legally stop the following from happening at some point:
Anti-gun: We want reform. Pro-gun: Nope, 2nd. Anti-gun: What about this reform. Pro- gun: Nope, 2nd. Anti-gun: This one? Pro-gun: Nope, 2nd. Anti-gun: Screw it, let's get rid of the 2nd. Pro-gun: Feth...
Do I think that getting rid of the 2nd is something that should happen? Narp. Do I think that there are near enough numbers to even make it a realistic thread at this point? Narp. But can the 2nd be thrown in the trash if enough people want to do it? Yarp.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My point was to explain the kind of circumstances in which a "prudent" group may have to be imposed upon in order that an "imprudent" group can be got to behave in a less irresponsible way.
d-usa wrote: Everything in the constitution, including the document as a whole, can be changed if we want it to be changed.
The 2nd is just a law, nothing more and nothing less. Hiding behind "the constitution says so" is just a way of actually avoiding talking about stuff that we don't want to address.
We like having the freedoms in the constitution, and for the most part it has served us well. But the 2nd was a change to the original document, and there is nothing preventing us from changing it again.
"We can never pass a certain law because of the 2nd" is wrong because we can always get rid of the 2nd to begin with.
Nothing in the Constitution is "a law." The Second was a change, just like the First. Thank God for the Bill of Rights.
I think a lot of people have a big problem with the notion that we should infringe upon the rights of the law abiding to further control the non law abiding.
d-usa wrote: Everything in the constitution, including the document as a whole, can be changed if we want it to be changed.
The 2nd is just a law, nothing more and nothing less. Hiding behind "the constitution says so" is just a way of actually avoiding talking about stuff that we don't want to address.
We like having the freedoms in the constitution, and for the most part it has served us well. But the 2nd was a change to the original document, and there is nothing preventing us from changing it again.
"We can never pass a certain law because of the 2nd" is wrong because we can always get rid of the 2nd to begin with.
True... but, the only way that happens is if enough states initiate the Constitutional Convention via Article V and if enough states ratify it.
It ain't going to happen from Congress.
So... like it or not, it's here to stay.
If only the anti-2nd amendment crowd would spend their efforts in education and training on proper guns safety...
Automatically Appended Next Post: My point was to explain the kind of circumstances in which a "prudent" group may have to be imposed upon in order that an "imprudent" group can be got to behave in a less irresponsible way.
You did actually. The needs of them many vs. the needs of the one only works for dictatorships and coffee houses. The Bill of Rights was put in place STRICTLY TO PROTECT THE NEEDS OF THE ONE.
cincydooley wrote: I think a lot of people have a big problem with the notion that we should infringe upon the rights of the law abiding to further control the non law abiding.
Nobody has a problem with that notion, we do it every single day and people are okay with that.
cincydooley wrote: I think a lot of people have a big problem with the notion that we should infringe upon the rights of the law abiding to further control the non law abiding.
Nobody has a problem with that notion, we do it every single day and people are okay with that.
Really?
I guess I should expand upon that.
I disagree. I think any instance where were attempting to limit the rights of the many to adhere to the (in this case deviancy) of the few it isn't a good thing. In this particular instance, where there is literally no substantiation that it would further protect the many, is even more egregious.
cincydooley wrote: I think a lot of people have a big problem with the notion that we should infringe upon the rights of the law abiding to further control the non law abiding.
Nobody has a problem with that notion, we do it every single day and people are okay with that.
Really?
If you have never realized that, then the rights must not be that important to you to begin with...
Well, I am comparing safety legislation here, not cars and guns specifically. I could as well have used planes and guns, drugs and guns, or civil engineering projects and guns.
I mean, do you get the basic point that sometimes the innocent have to be inconvenienced in order that a greater good may be promoted?
Really? Using reference to communism in a reductio ad hitlerium manner, on a topic about gun control ?
I definitely need to make some U.S. cliché blingo for Dakka's Off-Topic. Would be real fun.
Really? Using reference to communism in a reductio ad hitlerium manner, on a topic about gun control ?
I definitely need to make some U.S. cliché blingo for Dakka's Off-Topic. Would be real fun.
"The Greater Good" is not an American concept. Though they have not always been afforded by our government, freedom and equality are amongst the rights guaranteed us by our Bill of Rights. Nowhere in there does it say that it's OK to break a few eggs as long as you make a good omelette.
No, it is not. Using communist or socialist as an insult, or a way to automatically discredit something, though, is still very characteristic of U.S. A. You will not see it happen in many European countries, and I think it would be the same for most non-European countries too.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Though they have not always been afforded by our government, freedom and equality are amongst the rights guaranteed us by our Bill of Rights.
Yeah, so ? Do you know what the French Constitution says ? Or the founding legal documents of other countries ? Do you believe that having that in your Bill of Rights makes you special, or different, or something ?
Hell, even your national motto includes those two notions, along with brotherhood. That must be the most common, consensual thing you can find.
No, it is not. Using communist or socialist as an insult, or a way to automatically discredit something, though, is still very characteristic of U.S. A. You will not see it happen in many European countries, and I think it would be the same for most non-European countries too.
Thats because Europe is full of Socialists and countries that don't spend enough on defense because Daddy USA has their back, but then put down America.
Yeah, so ? Do you know what the French Constitution says ? Or the founding legal documents of other countries ? Do you believe that having that in your Bill of Rights makes you special, or different, or something ?
Hell, even your national motto includes those two notions, along with brotherhood. That must be the most common, consensual thing you can find.
Our motto, signed into law by Ike, is In God We Trust.
No, it is not. Using communist or socialist as an insult, or a way to automatically discredit something, though, is still very characteristic of U.S. A. You will not see it happen in many European countries, and I think it would be the same for most non-European countries too.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Though they have not always been afforded by our government, freedom and equality are amongst the rights guaranteed us by our Bill of Rights.
Yeah, so ? Do you know what the French Constitution says ? Or the founding legal documents of other countries ? Do you believe that having that in your Bill of Rights makes you special, or different, or something ?
Hell, even your national motto includes those two notions, along with brotherhood. That must be the most common, consensual thing you can find.
I think you a missing something here: I don't care what you do in France. I don't care what your constitution says, and I don't care about your willing embrace of a flawed ideology. For almost a decade now, Muslim terrorists have been rioting and destroying your country and nobody is willing or able to lift a finger to stop them. Sorry to say, but France isn't exactly on my list of high council for self-preservation. As for "spreading the wealth" your taxes are absolutely through the roof. What intelligent hard-working person would want the United States to be ANYTHING like France? That was a rhetorical question obviously, because the answer is "nobody."
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I think you a missing something here: I don't care what you do in France.
Not just France, buddy. Obviously, you do not care about what anyone else does. Which is not giving you a good reputation.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: For almost a decade now, Muslim terrorists have been rioting and destroying your country and nobody is willing or able to lift a finger to stop them.
That is rich, coming from the U.S.
Remember the twin towers ? Because we sure did not loose the Eiffel tower, or any other significant building, to Muslim terrorists . But I guess you would know better if you cared about France. Since you do not, you can only spill uneducated bs .
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I think you a missing something here: I don't care what you do in France.
Not just France, buddy. Obviously, you do not care about what anyone else does. Which is not giving you a good reputation.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: For almost a decade now, Muslim terrorists have been rioting and destroying your country and nobody is willing or able to lift a finger to stop them.
That is rich, coming from the U.S.
Remember the twin towers ? Because we sure did not loose the Eiffel tower, or any other significant building, to Muslim terrorists . But I guess you would know better if you cared about France. Since you do not, you can only spill uneducated bs .
The funny thing is that, pre 9/11 attack, I'd never actually heard of anyone outside of non-Americans really consider the WTC a significant cultural icon. I mean, when I think of US iconic cultural locations, I think of stuff like the Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, and Normandy.
cincydooley wrote: Abolishing guns is about as functional as trying to abolish teenage sex. It isn't going to happen and spending money trying to do so is wasteful and ignorant.
Sure, it's his money. But if he really gave a gak about people and not power and control, he'd spend that money on gun safety programs for young people and at schools.
The Netherlands has done pretty well in abolishing guns and teenage sex.
Gun related deaths per 100,000 population (2011)
USA, 10.3 (2011)
The Netherlands, 0.46 (2010)
Teenage pregnancies, including births and abortions, per 1000 women (2006)
USA, 61.2
The Netherlands, 14.1
I'm sure the issues of certain legal drugs in the Netherlands being illegal in the US (and the resultant black market) along with a legalized sex trade in the Netherlands have nothing to do with it...
Kilkrazy wrote: I mean, do you get the basic point that sometimes the innocent have to be inconvenienced in order that a greater good may be promoted?
If you drive then please turn in your license and car keys. After all, it is only fitting that you be inconvenienced so that innocent people are not hurt by reckless drivers, or those who are driving whilst impaired.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: I think a lot of people have a big problem with the notion that we should infringe upon the rights of the law abiding to further control the non law abiding.
