HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » samsingh » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 11,759

About Me

very liberal and progressive

Journal Archives

'shall not infringe'

if i take this literally, i think it's unfair that some people don't have enough money to buy every gun they want. 'this is an infringement'

gun manufacturers should be patriots and give guns away for free. We'll see how long they defend the liberal interpretation of the second amendment.

thats all i wanted

one comment, even in the closing. Something like:

My honorable opponent, with all due respect, keeps changing his position every week. From cancelling the ObamaCare program outright to salvaging the best parts of it. From cutting taxes to not cutting taxes. From...... Who really can say what he believes in or what he will believe in a month from now. Just look at the videos of diagramatically opposite comments he's made.

We can't afford to go back to the bush era policies that my opponent will bring us back to. We need to continue to fight hard to undo that damage as we have done in the Auto Sector .....

God bless America.

english grammar lesson CONTINUED

"Being in a car accident, you are entitled to a payout on your insurance policy, and this must be done in 60 days from the time of the accident."

If there is no accident, then the other clauses do not get implemented.

and the crap from Charlton Heston holding up his rifle

and saying he believes in the Constitution. He never did. He only believed in the special interests who have twisted wording to suit their immoral drive for profits and other goals. I especially appreciate the wording around the purpose of conceiled handguns and what could be their only purpose. Imagine what the founders would think about assault rifles.

btw - shouldn't everyone be in a militia and follow militia rules as per the second amendment?

The Case for Gun Control - more facts about the Second Amendment


Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the "mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."

(See photos of the Batman movie theater shooting.)

Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The court agreed unanimously.

Things started to change in the 1970s as various right-wing groups coalesced to challenge gun control, overturning laws in state legislatures, Congress and the courts. But Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon, described the new interpretation of the Second Amendment in an interview after his tenure as "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."

So when people throw up their hands and say we can't do anything about guns, tell them they're being un-American--and unintelligent.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2121660,00.html#ixzz235PTbRhN

i think there is sympathy for Don Siegelman

so the President should pardon him. There should be no political issues.

here's the interesting thing

when a gun control advocate finds a situation like Chicago except going the otherway, the argument from gun supporters is to question the correlation between the gun control legislation and the drop in crime.

what is the correlation, if there is one, between the gun control legislation and a hugely complicated city like Chicago? In fact, I would think that at one point there were lax gun laws and lots of violence. Gun control was probably brought in past a violence tipping point. This would be like waiting to bail water in a sinking ship, and then being told to put more water into the ship to make it stay afloat because the bailing isn't helping.

i already have with all my posts

gun supporters say there is no evidence that gun proliferation adds to violent deaths and that gun control does not work anywhere. Every study that is brought forward to demonstrate the opposite is parsed down until something, anything, real or not can be identified to suggest discrediting the study. The strategy of the gun supporters is to seed fear, uncertainty and doubt.

The same thing happened with smoking. For decades, arguments were used to dissociate smoking from being a health hazard.

It's now happening with climate change. With the hottest summer on record, lots of ice melting, and even a koch funded study suggesting that climate change is man made, it will not be possible to ignore this much longer.

The conclusions around the benefits of effective gun control, allowing law-abiding citizens to own a reaonable and appropriately powered firearms, and effective checks and balances are out there but still subject to fear, uncertainty and doubt. This will eventually change.

It's time to unemotionally look at the real facts around the impact of gun control

Here's a very interesting read with real statistics:

Time to face facts on gun control
by Fareed Zakaria

Look at the map below. It shows the average number of firearms per 100 people. Most of the world is shaded light green Ė those are the countries where there are between zero and 10 guns per 100 citizens. In dark brown, you have the countries with more than 70 guns per 100 people. The U.S. is the only country in that category. In fact, the last global Small Arms Survey showed there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans. Yemen is second at 54. Serbia and Iraq are among the other countries in the top 10.

We have 5 percent of the world's population and 50 percent of the guns.

But the sheer number of guns isnít an isolated statistic. The data shows we compare badly on fatalities, too. The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. Thatís four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England.

Whatever you think of gun rights and gun control, the numbers donít flatter America.

I saw an interesting graph in The Atlantic magazine recently. A spectrum shows the number of gun-related deaths by state. Now if you add one more piece of data Ė gun control restrictions Ė you see that the states with at least one firearm law (such as an assault weapons ban or trigger locks) tend to be the states with fewer gun-related deaths.


Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

links: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/antonin-scalia-guns_n_1715969.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

my comments:

in this interview, even scalia talks about two things of worth:

1. 'frighting', when the second amendment was passed was a crime. This involved carrying weapons intended to scare people

2. he sights that future courts will have to intepret what was reasonable to be carried at the time of the second amendment. e.g. rocket launchers did not exist. btw - neither did large magazines and other powerful hand guns. According to scalia's own words, it is reasonable to assume that weapons not present at that time can have restrictions placed on them. wow - this whole debate is more largely about making money for the NRA and the gun manufacturers as well as satisfying paranoia.

So many lives could be saved if we had meaningful controls to allow people to buy and collect guns, while ensuring that people are not being turned into parnoid creatures and over-buying through fear.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »