RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

SimplyMichael -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 12:52:01 PM)

quote:

So ... I guess I'm not differing with the overall point ... there are too many guns, and too much gun related crime. I'm only saying that if you want meaningful gun control, how about targeting the group committing most of the crimes, rather than targeting people that own guns, within the scope of the current law.


Too many guns?  Only in the movies do people carry two guns, in fact, I HOPE if anyone ever takes a potshot at me they hold  one in each hand!  It only works in the movies folks.

I own over 25 and less than 50 guns, honestly I don't know, the piles sort of ebb and flow a bit.  Not a one has ever killed anyone while I owned it, not a flicker of violence has ever erupted out of them while I owned them.

The people causing crime are the same folks who get 25 times stiffer sentences than I will.  Inner city poor trapped in poverty and screwed over by our silly drug laws.  Cigarettes are far more lethal and far more addictive than most street drugs but when was the last time someone got shot over a pack?  Legalize drugs, spend the money we save on reforming society and our medical system, and violence will drop overnight.

It isn't guns and it isn't drugs that cause violence, it is poverty and the lack of choices that it causes that is the root cause of most urban violence.  Treating a symptom has never cured a problem, we need to deal with the problem without all the hyperbole piled onto it by both the right and the left.



slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 12:53:16 PM)

TracyTaken kindly explain to me why the gun manufacturers keep the coffers of the NRA bulging if profit isn't the motive for them.The lobbying efforts aren't funded in their entirety by membership fees.Please lets be honest here the industry isn't going to stand by and leave protection of their interests to hunters and collectors ,it takes a boat load of money to buy influence,and the NRA has that and than some...



kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 12:55:36 PM)

I don't like guns because they're not pleasing esthetically. As phallic symbols go, I'd rather see lots of Ferraris going around [8D].



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 1:06:42 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

TracyTaken i did not mean to imply the NRA has  no value.My point was their efforts at influencing our elected officials subvert the system same is true for the tobacco industry.Targeting congressman,threatening to finance your opponents campaign unless you vote in favor or against this or that legislation is a perversion of  our system and is a unfortunately all too common in Washington.Special interest groups have a stranglehold on Capitol Hill


I agree that special interests have a stranglehold on Capitol Hill.  Most of the are profit-motivated.  Some are not.  I don't like the way it works either, but the whole point of becoming a republic was so that special interests had to compete, which would lessen their power, which was considered a desirable thing at the time.

We could complain about special interests until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that some exist  because they are supported by the people and some exist solely because they are backed by corporate wealth.  The NRA is not in the latter category (which is not to say that it's not well financed, but by no means rich if you are making a comparison to tobacco or medicine or oil, etc.)

People think that the NRA and law enforcement are at odds.  They are not.  What does it say about the popular perception of guns and crime when it is law enforcement that teaches the NRA courses, and it is local law enforcement offering the classes (not the NRA itself)?



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 1:10:24 PM)





quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

TracyTaken kindly explain to me why the gun manufacturers keep the coffers of the NRA bulging if profit isn't the motive for them.The lobbying efforts aren't funded in their entirety by membership fees.Please lets be honest here the industry isn't going to stand by and leave protection of their interests to hunters and collectors ,it takes a boat load of money to buy influence,and the NRA has that and than some...


See my post to your previous post to me.  I reiterate - it is well-funded, but not by gun manufacturers.  [:D]



cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 1:16:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Can you really not see the difference between an organization supporting by citizens and one run by corporations?

Citizens ARE the system! Whats next, you going to complain they vote?



Well, that's just a PLAIN IGNORANT statement. Corporations are owned by shareholders who happen to be citizens. Arguably here, you are making a distinction without difference. Next, the NRA is probably closely associated with Gun Manufacturers, Dealers, and Sellers. I'm quite sure the NRA is a far cry from some grass roots citizen-based organization. Next, even if it were a citizen's based organization, is it good public policy to let a loud, powerful minority of Americans control and guide the public debates on national issues?

slvemike4u's point is perfectly valid and is also substantiated by the likes of Robert Reich, who wrote SUPERCAPITALISM; namely that democratic influences on public policy have been hindered / drowned out by organized, well funded special interest lobbyists in Washington.



Archer -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 1:29:09 PM)

Why not colective bargaining by unions seems to be OK but not a collective bargaining by a private non profit orginization.?

They lobby and hold that much power because they have been proven to be able to deliver the votes of their members.
Just like the NEA Teacher's union.



slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 1:33:50 PM)

So gun owners will give up their guns only after criminals are disarmed.How does any intelligent person make this argument,the only way to get guns off the streets of America is  to stop producing them in obscene amounts.And telling me that law enforcement personal administer NRA safety classes is disingenuous at best,the fact of their participation is not approval of ownership but might just be their acceptance of the fact of that ownership,are you really making the argument that law-enforcement as a whole (as if they speak with one voice)encourages gunownership.I think most urban police departments do their best to discourage guns in the home.



luckydog1 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 1:50:55 PM)

DC

"That raises the interesting and probably unanswerable question of whether the framers of the Bill of Rights intended the rights enumerated to taken absolutely literally."

BY absolutly literaly, I assume you mean ridicuously.  I am sure they literally meant them.  And intended the areas where they are in conflict to be settled by the court system they created in the same document.  Right to speak vs right to hurt someone else with lies, for example slander.   Having to face consequences for ones free choices does indeed influence the choices.  But does not eliminate them.  You can say any slanderous/libelous thing you want.  No law can stop you.  A civil lawsuit can force you to pay damages, if it is shown in court that you were intentionally lying to cause real harm to someone, after you have spoken. 

No where in the constitution does it say that rights can be exercised with impunity, infact the whole document seems to be geared towards rational exercising of rights within a legal framework.

"Maybe a better question would be whether the U.S. had the right to forbid Mormons from practicing polygamy Yes, Marriage is a civil instittuion and the democratic process can make any laws regarding that it likes.  or if an administration should be allowed to forbid scientists working for it to make certain statements in public. Yes, if they are speaking as agents of the Administrtion, they have to function as such.  They are also free to complain about it, speak anyway and take the consequnces, or quit"

"What I'm trying to get at, clumsily, is that we do indeed seem to accept some limits on the literal, absolute language used in the Bill of Rights."  Yes, we do,because rights come into conflict, and we have a branch of Government (the judiciary) to settle the issue when rights come into conflict.  Which is a far cry from saying the rights simply do not exist anymore, as you seem to be advocating.

"Hasn't the Constitution suffered enough lately?"  Whats with the when did you quit beating your wife type question?  Can you not frame your argument with out it?  You seem to be arguing that we should just throw away a right, because it is out of date. 



SimplyMichael -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 1:57:37 PM)

Mike,

Do you just make stuff up?

The NRA recieves a pittance from gun companies, most of their funding comes from donations by members.    I tried to find actual numbers but as someone IN the firearms industry, getting companies to work together on anything is next to impossible, they are a lot like Doms in that regard, too large an ego, too little interest in the other guy.

Do YOU have any numbers to back up your claim?  Considering how many members the NRA has times the membership fee, that alone is a stunning amount of revenue. 

And trust me, I am no friend of the NRA, they support hunting at all costs and sold out me and gun owners like me a long time ago.  I don't hunt, I have no interest in hunting, I just like collecting and shooting military weapons, something the NRA can barely stand.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:01:19 PM)

quote:

slvemike4u's point is perfectly valid and is also substantiated by the likes of Robert Reich, who wrote SUPERCAPITALISM; namely that democratic influences on public policy have been hindered / drowned out by organized, well funded special interest lobbyists in Washington.


Gun owners are not a "special interest" nor have they anything to do with capitalists.  They are not outside of the mainstream of America considering the numbers of people who own guns in this country.

Lastly, do  you believe we have the right to revoke rights of gays/blacks/bdsm/disabled people simply because they organize into a special interest lobby?

Or do you dislike it whenever it runs counter to how YOU would run the country?



thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:21:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I don't like guns because they're not pleasing esthetically. As phallic symbols go, I'd rather see lots of Ferraris going around [8D].

kS:
Your avitar and your post seem to be at odds with one another.[:D]
thompson








Moloch -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:22:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

If one needs guns to feel safe and free, whether from ones fellow citizens or ones government, it is a sad indictment of that society.

I can't get my head round this equation that guns equal freedom, it seems an idea that is more based on fear than any reality. Freedom is in the head, not in the barrel of a gun, that is just hocus-pocus myth.


Then go read some classical Greek literature!!!
Starting with Athens worlds first true Democracy.



slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:25:10 PM)

"getting companies to work together on anything is next to impossible" ARE YOU KIDDING ME .Please explain the tobacco lobby or the hundreds of other Washington law firms who's only client are big business....










Archer -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:28:43 PM)

3.8 million members generally motivated by the 2nd ammendment issue.
It's members vote at a higher rate -- 95 percent -- than the overall electorate.
That means a potential of 3.6 million votes

Of it's 30 million annual budget half of it comes from dues of individual memberships and 15% from advertising in their magazines. That leaves 35% that could come from any other source.

Best numbers I could find from Time Magazine back in the 80's.





SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:34:49 PM)

best ad for gun ownership i have seen lately.....

TUCKER, Ga. -- DeKalb County police say they don't plan to file any charges against an elderly man who shot and killed an intruder.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15638672/detail.html



Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:35:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I'm simply, genuinely puzzling over where and how one draws the line in defining "arms."

Any one of the people with whom we come into close proximity during the course of a day could kill us with something as simple and commonplace as a pencil. Any of the drivers we share the highway with could easily run us off the road if they didn't like the way we looked....

Each and every one of us lives to breathe another day only by the grace of the people around us.

A "where is the line" debate about weapons asks the wrong question. It's not a matter of what we allow. It's a matter of who has it. And no matter what we choose to disallow, someone who wants it will get it. Not to mention that rat poison and nail guns are available in any general hardware store. Some fertilizer mixed with this and that will take down a whole building. The populations of cities can be decimated through their water supply or via aerosols. Who needs a nuke, or even a "weapon" per se, to cry havoc and wreak mass murder?

It comes down to people.

If I didn't have a basic trust in other Americans, I certainly wouldn't want them armed. But I do. I have found that when it matters, you can pretty much count on the vast majority of Americans to help. Sometimes, they will be able to help only because they are armed. And in those situations, my mind would rest easier if I knew that, as Americans, they would be able to "keep and bear" whatever the fuck it takes.

K.




Moloch -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:40:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I am going to assume all posters using the 2nd amendment as the rationale for gun ownership are members of a well regulated militia


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.


I learned the meaning of comma in grade school, did you?



Moloch -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:46:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Good point: those that can afford it protect themselves with wicked cool expensive guns; those that can't have to make do with crappy little one round pistols.

The small fry gets loaded with ammo; the big fish get away with it.

All's for the best in the best of all capitalistic worlds [:D] .


What are you smoking? I can get an AK for unders 400$  with amma and magazines.



slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:49:23 PM)

Thanks for doing the research archer (i am seriously deficient in my ability to navigate the web)Okay using your 1980's numbers thats more than 1/3 from other sources and unless the tooth faery's are contributing to the NRA i think we can make an informed  guess has to where that 1/3 came from .Now adjust for inflation and multiply due to the pressure caused by columbine and viginia tech and numerous other gun tragedys, that sure seems like a lot of  cooperation between business competitors.I mean i'm not trying to imply that big business would subvert the democratic process to further there own agenda's (profit margin)......



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875