HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jody » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

jody

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: AL & CA & GA
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 26,624

Journal Archives

If you're serious, then attack presidents and the O-10s they select and Congress that funds the

things you and I oppose?

Why do people allow those who want to divide and conquer once again We the People when it is not the "military" but Presidents and Congress who are the problem.

IMO as long as We the People allow ourselves to be divided and polarized over 5 or 6 political issues between major political parties and as in this thread within a major political party, the only real winners are the corporatists who finance enough candidates in both major parties to pass bills that advance us toward a corporate state.

If we allow thoughts like this threads OP to impede progress within the Democratic Party, then Lincoln's dream of a people's government will indeed perish and MLK's "I Have a Dream" will die aborning.

Our United States government is the world's oldest continuous government, Iceland is disputable, and the grandest experiment of all times to see if a disparate society representing all aspects of the world's peoples, can find enough common ground to govern itself.

If that experiment fails, and each of us is a player, then the world's governments are doomed to fail and only a despotic world government controlled by corporatists will survive.

I support our Platform. You admit supporting PART of our Platform. In Heller, both opinion & dissent

acknowledge US v. Cruikshank (1876) that rights pre-exist our Constitution and do not depend upon it.

Both majority and minority recognize PA(1776) and VT(1777) constitutions and their declaration of "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable" rights that include "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".

Today, forty-four states have constitutional guarantees on the right to keep and bear arms.

DUers who call for repeal of the Second Amendment that obligates government created by We the Protect to protect the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense as an enumerated right ignore the simple fact that if the Second did not exist, RKBA that pre-existed our Constitution would then be protected as an unenumerated right under the Ninth Amendment.

FBI reports "Hands, fists, feet, etc." commit 5.7% of murders, Rifles and Shotguns for 5.4%.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

I'm sure you want mandatory liability insurance and taxation on "Hands, fists, feet, etc."

ON EDIT ADD
"Knives or cutting instruments" at 13.3% should also be included with your policy.

Agree and too many DUers want to insult and vilify we who support RKBA and ready to join together to

search for solutions to prevent another Sandy Hook Tragedy.

Those who "believe guns create crime" are no different from those who believe "god created the universe", gun-creationists.

"Gun Control Legislation” by CRS (Nov 14, 2012) reports

- from 1994 to 2007, firearm number increased from 192 million to 294 million.

- from 1994 to 2007, Firearms-Related Murder Rate decreased from 6.6 to 3.9.

Until that report is refuted, laws to prevent mass-murder should focus on the person and not banning the firearm.

I'm a scientist. Your post uses stats from nations with different cultures. I've conducted and

directed research on scientific hypothesis and social issues that are not science.

One might conjecture that there are more factors than firearms affecting those who commit traditional "violent crime" and "mass murderers".

Please see

IMO the problem is "self-defense" and "group-defense" and a solution must satisfy both.

Mass Shootings and the Ethic of the Open Heart Medscape Today (Dec 20, 2012)

People who commit traditional violent crime appear to be different than mass murderers.

Proposals that would ban guns under the belief guns create crime ignore the latest government report.

"Gun Control Legislation” by CRS (Nov 14, 2012) reports

- from 1994 to 2007, firearm number increased from 192 million to 294 million.

- from 1994 to 2007, Firearms-Related Murder Rate decreased from 6.6 to 3.9.

Until that report is refuted, laws to prevent mass-murder should focus on the person and not banning the firearm.

If drugs were not controlled, prices would go down and prison cells would be emptied. I'm for that.

Anyway the latest government report shows http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

From 1994 to 2007, firearm number increased from 192 million to 294 million.

From 1994 to 2007, Firearms-Related Murder Rate decreased from 6.6 to 3.9.

Suicides and Accidents rates associated with firearms also declined as firearm numbers increased.

In spite of DOI(1776) and PA(1776) & VT(1777) declaring that rights exist, you continue to

believe "rights did not pre-exist the Constitution" ratified by the states later.
Constitution ratification dates
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Delaware; December 7, 1787
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Pennsylvania; December 12, 1787
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Jersey; December 18, 1787
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Georgia; January 2, 1788
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Connecticut; January 8, 1788
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Maryland; April 28, 1788.
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of South Carolina; May 23, 1788.
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788.
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of North Carolina; November 21, 1789
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790.

You also want to talk about God as the source of "rights" but I've never said that.

I've posted several times that PA & VT's declaration of rights was simply a way of people in their sovereign capacity reserving unto themselves certain things that were off-limits to the government they were creating.

Rights of the individual protect each person against the tyranny of a simple majority in a pure democracy, a danger recognized by most of the founding fathers.

On a related vein, see:
Natural, inherent, inalienable rights versus privileges granted by Government
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x161892

Parsing Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions, 1776 and 1777
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x152320

More recently in DC v Heller (2008) SCOTUS acknowledged rights that PA & VT declared were "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable" as preexisting our Constitution. The court also grouped rights enumerated in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments together, i.e. they survive or die together.


Bloomburg et al who believe "guns cause crime" remind me of creationists believers who oppose

evolution and were told to take your best shot in the federal case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Those creationists tried their very best and lost.

Will Bloomburg and his gun-creationists win or lose in the court of public opinion aka We the People, many who support the right of each law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms for self-defense protected by our Constitution as enumerated in the Second Amendment?

Reports and statistics for discussing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense.

"First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services" October 3, 2003, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Summary

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.


"Firearms and Violence, A Critical Review" 16 December 04 by the National Research council of the National Academy of Sciences
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

Empirical research on firearms and violence has resulted in important findings that can inform policy decisions. In particular, a wealth of descriptive information exists about the prevalence of firearm-related injuries and deaths, about firearms markets, and about the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence. Research has found, for example, that higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide, that illegal diversions from legitimate commerce are important sources of crime guns and guns used in suicide, that firearms are used defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence. This information is a vital starting point for any constructive dialogue about how to address the problem of firearms and violence.

While much has been learned, much remains to be done, and this report necessarily focuses on the important unknowns in this field of study. The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

Drawing causal inferences is always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty. Some of the problems that the committee identifies are common to all social science research. In the case of firearms research, however, the committee found that even in areas in which the data are potentially useful, the complex methodological problems inherent in unraveling causal relationships between firearms policy and violence have not been fully considered or adequately addressed.


"Gun Control Legislation" November 14, 2012 Congressional Research Service
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »