We make people who drive busses pass a drug test. We make kids who play high school sports or be in the band pass a drug test. We now have states who make welfare recipients pass a drug test to get food stamps.
Why not people who want to carry guns?
Not good at diving into a big ol debate with you all, I don't pretend to be as smart and I sure as heck don't have the time to go digging out facts to back up my stuff, but I'm going to go with the fact that owning a firearm is a guaranteed right under the constitution . . . Driving a bus, getting a welfare check or playing sports is not.
Everyone wants to control who gets the guns, that is NOT the issue. You can make a law to remove every gun, then guess who still has them? The bad guys. You think the Newton guy if he was set on that horrific deal wouldn't have found an alternative way to cause this? Remember the OKC bombing? no guns, 9/11? no guns . . . .
I think you focus on a solution for the real cause of what happened in Newtown, it wasn't that he had access to guns, it's that he had severe mental health issues and needed help. Same thing on the Auroa CO shooter. I could have supported a rush to find solutions for those issues....
Quote from: tulsa_fan on January 16, 2013, 09:05:31 AM
Not good at diving into a big ol debate with you all, I don't pretend to be as smart and I sure as heck don't have the time to go digging out facts to back up my stuff, but I'm going to go with the fact that owning a firearm is a guaranteed right under the constitution . . . Driving a bus, getting a welfare check or playing sports is not.
Everyone wants to control who gets the guns, that is NOT the issue. You can make a law to remove every gun, then guess who still has them? The bad guys. You think the Newton guy if he was set on that horrific deal wouldn't have found an alternative way to cause this? Remember the OKC bombing? no guns, 9/11? no guns . . . .
I think you focus on a solution for the real cause of what happened in Newtown, it wasn't that he had access to guns, it's that he had severe mental health issues and needed help. Same thing on the Auroa CO shooter. I could have supported a rush to find solutions for those issues....
If there wasn't the impetus to address the mental health issue after Virginia Tech, why would we think it would be any different now?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Quote from: tulsa_fan on January 16, 2013, 09:05:31 AM
Not good at diving into a big ol debate with you all, I don't pretend to be as smart and I sure as heck don't have the time to go digging out facts to back up my stuff, but I'm going to go with the fact that owning a firearm is a guaranteed right under the constitution . . . Driving a bus, getting a welfare check or playing sports is not.
Everyone wants to control who gets the guns, that is NOT the issue. You can make a law to remove every gun, then guess who still has them? The bad guys. You think the Newton guy if he was set on that horrific deal wouldn't have found an alternative way to cause this? Remember the OKC bombing? no guns, 9/11? no guns . . . .
I think you focus on a solution for the real cause of what happened in Newtown, it wasn't that he had access to guns, it's that he had severe mental health issues and needed help. Same thing on the Auroa CO shooter. I could have supported a rush to find solutions for those issues....
Hallucinatory drugs in your system make you mentally ill. Meth in your system makes you mentally ill. One could argue that just putting drugs in your system means you are ill. So if you have meth, coke, hash or heroin in your system do you think that right to carry a gun supersedes the rights of the community to safety?
You don't have to be too smart to figure that one out.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on January 16, 2013, 09:05:31 AM
Not good at diving into a big ol debate with you all, I don't pretend to be as smart and I sure as heck don't have the time to go digging out facts to back up my stuff, but I'm going to go with the fact that owning a firearm is a guaranteed right under the constitution . . . Driving a bus, getting a welfare check or playing sports is not.
Everyone wants to control who gets the guns, that is NOT the issue. You can make a law to remove every gun, then guess who still has them? The bad guys. You think the Newton guy if he was set on that horrific deal wouldn't have found an alternative way to cause this? Remember the OKC bombing? no guns, 9/11? no guns . . . .
I think you focus on a solution for the real cause of what happened in Newtown, it wasn't that he had access to guns, it's that he had severe mental health issues and needed help. Same thing on the Auroa CO shooter. I could have supported a rush to find solutions for those issues....
Hold those thoughts. You understand perfectly. Now, if some of the others around here could get some reality....
Bus drivers have to take random drug tests because they are in physical control of a 10,000 lb deadly weapon, carrying children, among puny little 2000 lb vehicles.
If only the founding fathers had foreseen buses we could have protected their rights as well. ;D
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2013, 09:28:05 AM
Hallucinatory drugs in your system make you mentally ill. Meth in your system makes you mentally ill. One could argue that just putting drugs in your system means you are ill. So if you have meth, coke, hash or heroin in your system do you think that right to carry a gun supersedes the rights of the community to safety?
You don't have to be too smart to figure that one out.
And what, in any planet or known universe makes you think for an instant that you have the right to have a gun under any of those circumstances?? You know for a fact, yet continue to spew this crap from the Brady Bunch that somehow it is perfectly ok, or that ANYONE advocates that it is ok for someone under the influence, to carry or use a gun. You know it isn't. It hasn't been for many decades. And yet, you continue to try to confuse reality with the Brady Bunch propaganda - even when you know it is not true. And you know it is not true, because it has been discussed here a lot. Just ignored by the Brady-istas.
And not just if you have it in your system - it goes beyond that - if you are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any unlawful substance - regardless of whether it is in your system at that point or not.
IF for some really stupid reason, like maybe too lazy to verify it yourself, google up "4473 form" and READ the conditions that are required to obey Federal law regarding owning/possession of a firearm. And ALL the states require at least that minimum level, and some even more.
Your "easy" button is way too obvious.
Before you get too crazy on me, read the original post. Do you believe that people who own guns should be drug tested? Simple enough. We all would agree that would be not only not feasible but intrusive by government.
Nonetheless you have to address the obvious. If you continue to hammer away that mental illness is the real problem and drugs are intimately involved with mental health, and 40% of your population is using at the current moment and 60% of your population owns guns,..do the math...it implies a discussion void of name calling might be in order.
I have never followed Brady law enthusiasts. I have much respect for the man though and their motives.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 16, 2013, 08:50:03 AM
We make people who drive busses pass a drug test. We make kids who play high school sports or be in the band pass a drug test. We now have states who make welfare recipients pass a drug test to get food stamps.
Why not people who want to carry guns?
I don't think it's a bad idea. Wouldn't' curb any crime, because the folks shelling out the money and time to get a conceal and carry are typically not the people committing crime.
I think the other provisions mentioned above would actually be more effective in decreasing gun crime. If all welfare, snap, and section 8 housing recipients were required to be clean of illegal drugs, it would probably have two effects. First, dealers would have a more limited clientele, and second, addicts would have incentive to be functional producers in order to abuse. Perhaps they would improve their quality of life and lessen the emotional urge to use.
I am still amazed at how liberals are attempting to focus on everything except causation, when it comes to gun controls. The incidents of gun violence in the US have actually plummeted over the past 20 years, and a direct correlation can be made to increased gun ownership, and carry permits. https://www.dropbox.com/s/y7z5k0xtztt5vh1/NVAT_Report_20-Dec-12_10-37-23AM.xls We have far fewer criminals willing to attack a woman walking on Riverside at night because chances are (especially if she is a member of my family) she is armed.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2013, 10:03:14 AM
Your "easy" button is way too obvious.
Before you get too crazy on me, read the original post. Do you believe that people who own guns should be drug tested? Simple enough. We all would agree that would be not only not feasible but intrusive by government.
Nonetheless you have to address the obvious. If you continue to hammer away that mental illness is the real problem and drugs are intimately involved with mental health, and 40% of your population is using at the current moment and 60% of your population owns guns,..do the math...it implies a discussion void of name calling might be in order.
I have never followed Brady law enthusiasts. I have much respect for the man though and their motives.
The discussion about guns has been resolved in the real world since the original "assault weapon" ban. It is still being trotted out, NOT as a serious discussion point, but as an "agenda of power and control" point. A real discussion would start with the mental health issues - which may NOT be the final topic - but IS the place to start, then move to other things if they become obvious. A real discussion does not start with 30 round magazines. That is insanity in a real world context - doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. (Much like our drug laws, too.)
Nothing has been "resolved".
I don't care if you own a thousand guns. If you carry a gun on you while shopping, at the movies, etc., I would hope you wouldn't be on the influence of drugs. I think it is reasonable to ask for drug tests for people who want to carry guns around on their hip.
I am not a proponent of drug testing in general, but it seems to be a condition of employment at many places. If my kid has to pass a drug test to play trumpet in the band, why not have people carrying guns into shopping areas pass a drug test?
Drugs don't cause or create a mental illness . . . . the may termorary alter your mental state, but that is NOT a mental illness, and I'm sure people who have battled with real mental illnesses would be happy to argue that fact with you. Regardless, I don't think a drug test should be a requirement of carrying a gun.
So if I choose to smoke some weed at home, but when I'm out (and sober) with my family, I shouldn't have the right to carry my gun anymore? I think a drunk with a gun is just as dangerous, so you shouldn't be allowed to consume alcohol ever if you want to carry a weapon.
It is a crime to carry a weapon while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on January 16, 2013, 10:40:10 AM
It is a crime to carry a weapon while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Actually, yes.
Quote from: Townsend on January 16, 2013, 11:11:43 AM
Actually, yes what?
It's illegal to carry while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The only problem with drug testing to carry is how often do you test?
(not speaking to you specifically T just adding in)
Ironic that people can't be troubled with the notion of having to get an annual prescription for pseudoephedrine which would help curb the meth problem because it would be a hardship. Yet, in order to carry a weapon to protect yourself against an attack by someone on meth or some other substance, getting regular drug tests wouldn't be considered a hardship? Why not regular drug tests for anyone with a driver's license? That's probably a greater nuisance to the general public considering 25 to 30,000 people are killed and upwards of 700,000 injured due to impaired driving every year. Guns account for about 11,000 homicides a year, less than 1/2 the number killed as a result of impaired driving.
In other words, cars are a bigger threat than guns to your safety and well being in the possession of someone under the influence.
Gaspar makes a good point that only law abiding gun owners would submit to the tests which would likely turn up very few violators. Those who are found in violation should be stripped of that privilege.
What a way to go....let's make the health care industry and gun dealers cross reference pharmaceutical prescriptions with a license to kill before selling them weapons and ammunition. Those people on anti depressants and on psycho active drugs as well as narcotics would not be able to purchase weaponry. That would have stopped almost all these mass killings. ; :-[ :'(
man has invented his doom....
Quote from: Conan71 on January 16, 2013, 11:33:05 AM
It's illegal to carry while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The only problem with drug testing to carry is how often do you test?
(not speaking to you specifically T just adding in)
Ironic that people can't be troubled with the notion of having to get an annual prescription for pseudoephedrine which would help curb the meth problem because it would be a hardship. Yet, in order to carry a weapon to protect yourself against an attack by someone on meth or some other substance, getting regular drug tests wouldn't be considered a hardship? Why not regular drug tests for anyone with a driver's license? That's probably a greater nuisance to the general public considering 25 to 30,000 people are killed and upwards of 700,000 injured due to impaired driving every year. Guns account for about 11,000 homicides a year, less than 1/2 the number killed as a result of impaired driving.
In other words, cars are a bigger threat than guns to your safety and well being in the possession of someone under the influence.
Gaspar makes a good point that only law abiding gun owners would submit to the tests which would likely turn up very few violators. Those who are found in violation should be stripped of that privilege.
My question stemmed from Tulsa_fan's statement getting an "Actually, yes" reply. As if Gaspar disagreed with him but he didn't...
Quote from: Townsend on January 16, 2013, 11:50:43 AM
My question stemmed from Tulsa_fan's statement getting an "Actually, yes" reply. As if Gaspar disagreed with him but he didn't...
Hers :-*, I was stating a fact and guess he believed it to be a question? Didn't understand the response.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on January 16, 2013, 10:40:10 AM
It is a crime to carry a weapon while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Unless the union says it's OK:
"our policy is that no guns are allowed into either building except for on duty law enforcement personnel.
"We have had incidents in the past when off duty law enforcement attended one of our events and did partake of the adult beverages." -- letter from BOK Center Security Director Dan Brown
Quote from: patric on January 16, 2013, 01:20:53 PM
Unless the union says it's OK:
"our policy is that no guns are allowed into either building except for on duty law enforcement personnel.
"We have had incidents in the past when off duty law enforcement attended one of our events and did partake of the adult beverages."
-- letter from BOK Center Security Director Dan Brown
There was also the incident at 18th and Boston a few years back when a TPD got completely shitfaced while armed. The smile really hit the fan when he drew his weapon.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 16, 2013, 10:21:50 AM
I am still amazed at how liberals are attempting to focus on everything except causation, when it comes to gun controls.
I shouldn't be, but I am still amazed at how anyone who disagrees with you on anything is a Liberal. My relatives are mostly Liberal. They mostly own guns for one reason or another. Try using Panascope when you're looking around the world.
I hear many gun proponents say that the Newtown School shootings were caused by a mentally ill person and that we should talk about mental illness and not about guns.
If we restrict the mentally ill from owning guns, why not the drug addict?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 16, 2013, 01:26:02 PM
I hear many gun proponents say that the Newtown School shootings were caused by a mentally ill person and that we should talk about mental illness and not about guns.
If we restrict the mentally ill from owning guns, why not the drug addict?
Addiction is considered a mental illness, far as I know. I can't imagine that would not be covered by any new restrictions.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on January 16, 2013, 10:40:10 AM
Drugs don't cause or create a mental illness . . . . the may termorary alter your mental state, but that is NOT a mental illness, and I'm sure people who have battled with real mental illnesses would be happy to argue that fact with you. Regardless, I don't think a drug test should be a requirement of carrying a gun.
So if I choose to smoke some weed at home, but when I'm out (and sober) with my family, I shouldn't have the right to carry my gun anymore? I think a drunk with a gun is just as dangerous, so you shouldn't be allowed to consume alcohol ever if you want to carry a weapon.
It is a crime to carry a weapon while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Why thank you Doctor. That certainly clears that up and makes it oh so convenient to discount any other arguments concerning drug testing. When that mentally deranged meth head attacks the next person we'll know at least he wasn't mentally ill from his long term use and it certainly doesn't preclude him from owning and using a weapon AS LONG AS HE'S NOT HIGH WHILE USING IT.
I suspect there are doctors who would disagree. Mentally ill people often self medicate or are easily persuaded to do so.
I'll say again, I think drug testing of gun buyers/owners might make sense but simply is not feasible for lots of reasons. I just thought it was interesting to find out that there is actually no situation in which these gun fanatics think a regulation is necessary. Its like God has given us manna and we must not question the gift.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 16, 2013, 01:26:02 PM
I hear many gun proponents say that the Newtown School shootings were caused by a mentally ill person and that we should talk about mental illness and not about guns.
Do you disagree?
If someone killed a number of people with a sledge hammer, I have my doubts there would be a need for hammer control.
Does the average citizen need a sledge hammer?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 16, 2013, 01:26:02 PM
I hear many gun proponents say that the Newtown School shootings were caused by a mentally ill person and that we should talk about mental illness and not about guns.
If we restrict the mentally ill from owning guns, why not the drug addict?
But what level of mental illness? OCD is mental illness... Gambling addiction? Narcolepsy? Dyslexia? You cannot broadbrush.
As for control itself, I have seen a lot of references to the statement that guns don't kill people, people kill people. To a certain degree, this is correct. But please remember this... a guns intended use is to cause injury, specifically death, in another living being. Whether that being be on four legs or two. Assult weapons have been created specifically to kill other people. So by nature, a gun operated as intended will kill the person or thing it is aimed at. A sledgehammer's intended use is the demolition of a structure, a cars intended use is transportation from one location to another. The problem with these is when it is not being used as intended. The same cannot be said about a gun. I am for responsible gun ownership but I also understand that laws only keep honest people honest.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 16, 2013, 10:36:12 AM
Nothing has been "resolved".
I don't care if you own a thousand guns. If you carry a gun on you while shopping, at the movies, etc., I would hope you wouldn't be on the influence of drugs. I think it is reasonable to ask for drug tests for people who want to carry guns around on their hip.
I am not a proponent of drug testing in general, but it seems to be a condition of employment at many places. If my kid has to pass a drug test to play trumpet in the band, why not have people carrying guns into shopping areas pass a drug test?
The discussion about guns being the "problem" has been resolved - and they are not.
As for drug testing...well that is one of those things that appeals to people but has no real practical value - it is solely one data point in time. All one has to do is wait a few days to get it out of their system, then start back up later. Has no real meaning - just another "feel good" exercise in bureaucracy. As for possessing, buying, or using a gun while impaired - or being an illegal user of any drug - that has also been resolved for way more than the 40 years back to the GCA of 1968.
So, how is it gonna help anything? Someone gets the drug test and it comes up clean. By the time they go from the drug test facility TO the store, they could be already back under the influence...again.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 16, 2013, 01:26:02 PM
I hear many gun proponents say that the Newtown School shootings were caused by a mentally ill person and that we should talk about mental illness and not about guns.
If we restrict the mentally ill from owning guns, why not the drug addict?
We do. It has been illegal for 70+ years. I have said this before. Others have said it. You can see the most visible manifestation of this on form 4473, which has been in place since 1968. What part of this is not making it to the innermost being??
Quote from: JCnOwasso on January 16, 2013, 01:44:19 PM
But please remember this... a guns intended use is to cause injury, specifically death, in another living being. Whether that being be on four legs or two.
I have been know to shoot spiders. Don't they count, with their 8 legs??
Quote from: JCnOwasso on January 16, 2013, 01:44:19 PM
But what level of mental illness? OCD is mental illness... Gambling addiction? Narcolepsy? Dyslexia? You cannot broadbrush.
As for control itself, I have seen a lot of references to the statement that guns don't kill people, people kill people. To a certain degree, this is correct. But please remember this... a guns intended use is to cause injury, specifically death, in another living being. Whether that being be on four legs or two. Assult weapons have been created specifically to kill other people. So by nature, a gun operated as intended will kill the person or thing it is aimed at. A sledgehammer's intended use is the demolition of a structure, a cars intended use is transportation from one location to another. The problem with these is when it is not being used as intended. The same cannot be said about a gun. I am for responsible gun ownership but I also understand that laws only keep honest people honest.
Killing is not the sole purpose of a firearm. There are sporting clays and target shooting competitions they are used in as well, it's even an Olympic sport. I never use a firearm to kill anything other than old cans, paper targets, clay pigeons, metal drop targets, and dead trees. I know others who also don't hunt anything but enjoy target practice and shooting competitions.
A gun is like a sledgehammer, car, or butcher knife. In the hands of the wrong person any of them can be quite deadly.
There simply is a focus on guns because of recent mass shootings. Mass shootings are an exceedingly small portion of preventable deaths in our country every year. Alcohol interlocks in every vehicle on the road would do far more to cut innocent or accidental deaths in our country than gun restrictions. So would a ban on all tobacco products.
It seems to me the issue is more about controlling firearms rather than saving lives.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 16, 2013, 03:08:25 PM
It seems to me the issue is more about controlling firearms rather than saving lives.
FIFY
Quote from: Conan71 on January 16, 2013, 03:08:25 PM
Killing is not the sole purpose of a firearm. There are sporting clays and target shooting competitions they are used in as well, it's even an Olympic sport. I never use a firearm to kill anything other than old cans, paper targets, clay pigeons, metal drop targets, and dead trees. I know others who also don't hunt anything but enjoy target practice and shooting competitions.
A gun is like a sledgehammer, car, or butcher knife. In the hands of the wrong person any of them can be quite deadly.
I have reviewed my post and found that at no time did I say that a guns sole purpose was to kill people. I did say that it is the
intended use of a gun, except for those which are manufactured for the use in shooting competitions etc. Assult weapons, were developed to kill people. I am not grabbing an AR-15 (M16) to have a little target practice. I am grabbing that to prepare for war or zombie apocalypse. And a gun in ANYONES hands is quite deadly... If I see a menacing person walking down the street with a gun, I am frightened. If I see a menacing person with a sledgehammer, car or butcher knife, I am less frightened, because I know that I can generally out run a person with a heavy sledge, I can out maneuver a person with car, and I can also get away from a person with a knife. A gun you cannot out maneuver, outrun, or get away from a bullet.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 16, 2013, 03:08:25 PM
It seems to me the issue is more about controlling firearms rather than saving lives.
If it were about saving lives, we'd have banned (or at least extremely restricted) handguns 40 years ago. Note how rarely firearms subject to the NFA are used illegally. Maybe a couple of times a year at most. Handguns, on the other hand, are routinely purchased by straw buyers for sale to the black market. Maybe there are indeed other ways to approach the problem, but handguns are the instrument of choice in most gun deaths despite being only a third of all guns in circulation in the US, so arguing that restrictions on handguns are necessarily about people being uncomfortable with guns or whatever isn't reasonable.
But yes, we are talking about it right now because of mass shootings in recent months. Sad that over 8,000 people murdered and another 22,000 people either suiciding or being accidentally killed by firearms each year doesn't rate discussion all on its own.
And comparing it to driving is silly. Firstly, the difference between firearm-related deaths and auto-related deaths is very small these days. Secondly, auto-related fatalities are lower (relative to population) than they have been at any time since 1918 while gun deaths continue to rise relative to population.
Edited to add: I should have noted that gun deaths are far lower than they were between about 1985-1995, but have been on the rise for the past decade or so. And less than 40% of auto fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. 40% is the official number, but counts all "alcohol-related" crashes, which includes crashes in which a driver, passenger, or bystander has even 0.01% BAC, even if the involved driver(s) has/have no detectable alcohol or are under the legal limit.
Quote from: nathanm on January 17, 2013, 01:01:48 PM
If it were about saving lives, we'd have banned (or at least extremely restricted) handguns 40 years ago. Note how rarely firearms subject to the NFA are used illegally. Maybe a couple of times a year at most. Handguns, on the other hand, are routinely purchased by straw buyers for sale to the black market. Maybe there are indeed other ways to approach the problem, but handguns are the instrument of choice in most gun deaths despite being only a third of all guns in circulation in the US, so arguing that restrictions on handguns are necessarily about people being uncomfortable with guns or whatever isn't reasonable.
But yes, we are talking about it right now because of mass shootings in recent months. Sad that over 8,000 people murdered and another 22,000 people either suiciding or being accidentally killed by firearms each year doesn't rate discussion all on its own.
And comparing it to driving is silly. Firstly, the difference between firearm-related deaths and auto-related deaths is very small these days. Secondly, auto-related fatalities are lower (relative to population) than they have been at any time since 1918 while gun deaths continue to rise relative to population.
Edited to add: I should have noted that gun deaths are far lower than they were between about 1985-1995, but have been on the rise for the past decade or so. And less than 40% of auto fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. 40% is the official number, but counts all "alcohol-related" crashes, which includes crashes in which a driver, passenger, or bystander has even 0.01% BAC, even if the involved driver(s) has/have no detectable alcohol or are under the legal limit.
Nate, it doesn't matter how it happens. Dead IS dead.
Quote from: nathanm on January 17, 2013, 01:01:48 PM
If it were about saving lives, we'd have banned (or at least extremely restricted)....
That's the whole point. It's not about saving lives. If it were, there are a vast number of things that we would have done in many other areas first.
The US Shooting Academy in Tulsa is offering CC classes to teachers for free. So far 300 have signed up. That's a pretty good number.
Nutjobs beware, next time may not be so easy, at least not in Tulsa.
Something else to make some in here regret living here.
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment-preservation-act-introduced-in-oklahoma/
Quote from: guido911 on January 18, 2013, 04:42:27 PM
Something else to make some in here regret living here.
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment-preservation-act-introduced-in-oklahoma/
That'll work out.
Quote from: guido911 on January 18, 2013, 04:42:27 PM
Something else to make some in here regret living here.
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment-preservation-act-introduced-in-oklahoma/
related news!
http://www.mediaite.com/online/white-nationalist-party-among-sponsors-of-gun-appreciation-day/
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 18, 2013, 04:50:05 PM
related news!
What you and others seem to have lost track of is the fact that the Constitution does not "give" us rights - it enumerates unalienable rights that we are endowed with by our Creator. By definition of the documents defining our very existence! (Except, of course, when expedient to let big business have a boon, as in big oil, banks or insurance companies, since after all, they are more special than actual people, being able to afford to buy Congress and all that...)
The government, again by definition, is specifically created to secure these rights. And then when that government becomes destructive to that end, it is the Right, again by definition, of the People, to alter or abolish it and institute new government most likely to fulfill these ends. I paraphrase...
Sounds pretty revolutionary. The subtext of a lot of 2a fanaticals (not indicting you H) is this concept of being able to defend against the tyranny of their own government. Unlike the tyranny foisted by an unelected King upon the colonies, this alleged tyranny would be from a government "of and by the people".
Should that happen it would indeed be the abolishment of the current government along with several million of its inhabitants. Then the defense of a shattered government and economy against its enemies would ensue. Good luck with aiming that Bushmaster at drones, helicopters and tanks.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 19, 2013, 08:25:32 AM
What you and others seem to have lost track of is the fact that the Constitution does not "give" us rights - it enumerates unalienable rights that we are endowed with by our Creator. By definition of the documents defining our very existence! (Except, of course, when expedient to let big business have a boon, as in big oil, banks or insurance companies, since after all, they are more special than actual people, being able to afford to buy Congress and all that...)
The government, again by definition, is specifically created to secure these rights. And then when that government becomes destructive to that end, it is the Right, again by definition, of the People, to alter or abolish it and institute new government most likely to fulfill these ends. I paraphrase...
You have a declaration of independence and constitution mash up going on there.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 18, 2013, 04:04:43 PM
The US Shooting Academy in Tulsa is offering CC classes to teachers for free. So far 300 have signed up. That's a pretty good number.
And Im sure this would have turned out so much better with the introduction of another gun:
A Tulsa, Oklahoma elementary school principal is fighting to have her case dismissed following a March incident in which she was arrested after asking if police searching her daughter's residence had a warrant to do so.
The case of Lynnette Dixon is about a black woman speaking up in a city where one race usually rules, civil rights leaders and Dixon's lawyer say.
That point was made clear in an email made public last week in which the Tulsa schools chief of police told Tulsa police officers the system wanted to fire Dixon, and her arrest would help their case.
The incident began on March 7, when police went to the residence of Dixon's daughter who lives in subsidized housing. A neighbor had accused the daughter and her boyfriend of burglary, according to her attorney, Richard O'Carroll.
Police were going through the apartment when Dixon arrived. She asked her daughter if the officers searching her home had a warrant. She also told her daughter to get the officers' badge numbers, according to O'Carroll.
"Ms. Dixon asked them what they were doing. Instead of asking her to be quiet, they told her to leave," O'Carroll told BlackAmericaWeb.com.
Dixon was charged with obstructing a police officer and fined $200, according to O'Carroll. She was placed on paid leave from the Tulsa Public School System, but the incident could cost Dixon her job as principal of Hawthorne Elementary School, the lawyer said.
"Ms. Dixon is a good principal. The parents are supporting her. The school is not at risk," he said. "She meets all of the challenges and deals with them, helping the children to succeed."
Hawthorne has 430 students, and 99.7 percent of the students are on either free or reduced lunch. An overwhelmingly majority of the students – 94 percent – are African-American, according to the school's web site.
"This is not only affecting Ms. Dixon. It's affecting the students and their families," Blakney said.
School officials told BlackAmericaWeb.com they could not comment on Ms. Dixon, or the email from Tulsa Public Schools Police Chief Gary Rudick, obtained by NewsChannel 8.
Here is an excerpt of the email to Tulsa police made public in Oklahoma and dated March 8:
"I am sure you know the fat is in the fire over the arrest of Principal Lynette Dixon. The NAACP is having a support mtg for a public show of support tonight. We served a suspension letter on Dixon this afternoon and about 40 people were at her home all bitching about the racists cops we all are.
"We want to fire this woman so your case is important to us. I've got Collburn on this from our end gathering admin data. He spoke to your guys. We intend to interview the security guards. Here is what I think is the best course.
"We don't want any reports or statements on paper that are not already a matter of public record. I suspect that when we fire her that her attorney will want a hearing and try to do discovery at the hearing on anything we use. For that reason, we are simply putting a report together that is based on our interviews and what is already public, nothing more. That way if we go to an admin hearing BEFORE the court proceeding, we don't have a lot for them to do discovery on. However, chances are good that the attorney would subpoena your guys to our admin hearing in order to do exactly that........ discovery of what the case would be about."
"If the criminal case is dismissed it will hurt us badly in trying to fire this woman. I think someone from TPD needs to make sure the Prosecutors are on board this case and don't dismiss it out of hand or bow to public pressure. There will be a great deal of pressure on this as we've been getting calls here and to the Sup's office all day.
"I am so glad that your guys arrested her ..."http://www.thesavvysista.com/2011/04/curious-case-of-lynette-dixon-and-tulsa.html
Quote from: guido911 on January 19, 2013, 02:12:12 PM
You have a declaration of independence and constitution mash up going on there.
Hitting some of the high points...
Quote from: AquaMan on January 19, 2013, 10:17:19 AM
Sounds pretty revolutionary. The subtext of a lot of 2a fanaticals (not indicting you H) is this concept of being able to defend against the tyranny of their own government. Unlike the tyranny foisted by an unelected King upon the colonies, this alleged tyranny would be from a government "of and by the people".
Should that happen it would indeed be the abolishment of the current government along with several million of its inhabitants. Then the defense of a shattered government and economy against its enemies would ensue. Good luck with aiming that Bushmaster at drones, helicopters and tanks.
Should "defense" against the US Federal government be necessary, it won't be accomplished with guns (I wouldn't even waste the time and effort trying.). It will require something along the lines of what Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, and people like them advocated. Heck, even Henry Thoreau advocated civil disobedience.
And if the situation did reach something along the lines of "1984", well, then you have to wonder how the military will feel - would it follow a civil government that ordered it to mow down civilians who are in revolt against an unjust government? No doubt. We have already seen examples of that with people who were merely protesting based on their alleged 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly. Repeatedly during just the last 100 years - and a lot more before that.
I think a very remote possibility - but still more likely than need to revolt against the US government is if some event occurred that was followed by a complete breakdown of the lifestyle. It could be from any one of a zillion different possibilities, most of which probably haven't even been thought of. EMP event (from solar event). Tsunami caused by the island in the Canary Islands shaking loose. Big volcano here. Rainier? Yellowstone? Russian invasion like in "Red Dawn". Instant ice age - "Day After Tomorrow". Pick your fear.
One can and should have a certain amount of preparation for emergency situations - heaven knows we get enough tornadoes, ice storms, dust storms, drought, flood and just plain old electric outages from any or all of the above. Do what the emergency management people recommend and it is more likely than not that everything will be fine after a certain amount of trama, drama, discomfort, or irritation. Or you can watch those "extreme prepper" shows and get yourself all worked up and worried about stuff that you just can't do a darn thing about, so why waste that energy there when you can use it for something more productive or fun? (Sex, drugs, and rock and roll...chips and dip, chains and whips... PARTY!!)
Personally, I don't worry about any of those "worst case" things. If it happens, it's probably time to just bend over and kiss your sweet don-key goodbye!
Quote from: nathanm on January 17, 2013, 01:01:48 PM
But yes, we are talking about it right now because of mass shootings in recent months. Sad that over 8,000 people murdered and another 22,000 people either suiciding or being accidentally killed by firearms each year doesn't rate discussion all on its own.
And comparing it to driving is silly. Firstly, the difference between firearm-related deaths and auto-related deaths is very small these days. Secondly, auto-related fatalities are lower (relative to population) than they have been at any time since 1918 while gun deaths continue to rise relative to population.
Edited to add: I should have noted that gun deaths are far lower than they were between about 1985-1995, but have been on the rise for the past decade or so. And less than 40% of auto fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. 40% is the official number, but counts all "alcohol-related" crashes, which includes crashes in which a driver, passenger, or bystander has even 0.01% BAC, even if the involved driver(s) has/have no detectable alcohol or are under the legal limit.
Suicide is not really a valid item to compare since we are pretty much at the bottom
If you are gonna parse the driving deaths into alcohol and non, then you should probably parse the murder deaths into at least 2 categories - plain old traditional murder and drug/gang related murder. Get rid of gangs, get rid of most of the murder.
The South as a region has over 50% more assault deaths than the other regions of the country. (Midwest is #2) Should have let them stay seceded...would have made the US murder rates look better.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
Suicide is not really a good discussion point, since our rates are less than so many other countries. It just says that a determined suicide is gonna find a way, gun or no gun. That also would apply to murder - if you could take all guns completely away, other means would be found. (And the thought that well, they would be killing slower....is BS - the propaganda machine for the last few weeks is FULL of the comment "if only one innocent life"....)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
The question is NOT worrying about guns and law abiding gun owners and shooting sports enthusiasts. The questions are what is the real cause of our violent streak as a nation and society? And how/what can be done to fix that! Other countries have mental illness - how is it dealt with differently than here. Other countries have illegal drug issues...why do ours lead to such high violence rates? Is it because the market is so much bigger than other places, so the stakes are higher??
If we identify the root cause and start to do something about that/those - everything else takes care of itself.
Just saw Ann Coulter with Santita Jackson on Fox. Discussing gun violence and just violence in general... this is just some miscellaneous stuff they talked about.
The worst mass killers are mostly crazy white guys. (with a few outliers) We already knew that....
In:
New York city
96% of all gun victims are black
97% of gun suspects are black
Chicago
75%
75%
Black people are being disarmed - so they cannot defend themselves - Ann Coulter. First time I have ever heard her actually make a truthful statement that I can remember. She blames it on Democrat administrations.
Santita brought up something I have mentioned earlier - we are a violent society. We must find out why!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 19, 2013, 08:13:48 PM
Should "defense" against the US Federal government be necessary, it won't be accomplished with guns (I wouldn't even waste the time and effort trying.). It will require something along the lines of what Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, and people like them advocated. Heck, even Henry Thoreau advocated civil disobedience.
And if the situation did reach something along the lines of "1984", well, then you have to wonder how the military will feel - would it follow a civil government that ordered it to mow down civilians who are in revolt against an unjust government? No doubt. We have already seen examples of that with people who were merely protesting based on their alleged 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly.
Our right to peaceably assemble and protest is what defines us as a free country, so based on your observation you would have to wonder how many steps removed might these two events be:
(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/11/16/occupy_seattle_pepper_spray_111116_620x350.jpg)
(http://www.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/08/kentstate_mini.jpg)
Quote from: patric on January 19, 2013, 11:47:01 PM
Our right to peaceably assemble and protest is what defines us as a free country, so based on your observation you would have to wonder how many steps removed might these two events be:
(http://www.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/08/kentstate_mini.jpg)
The National Guard troops who shot four unarmed protesters were never prosecuted or charged after Ohio Gov. Rhodes issued a blanket pardon for their actions. He did this almost immediately after the Kent State massacre.
The photo is the version that has not been retouched. There's another one that had the fence post removed from above the kneeling girl's head. That's still an issue in photojournalism since software makes it so much easier to 'clean up' your photos.
Quote from: patric on January 19, 2013, 11:47:01 PM
Our right to peaceably assemble and protest is what defines us as a free country, so based on your observation you would have to wonder how many steps removed might these two events be:
That's not even the big one...Kent State was only 4 killed. Remember the "Bonus Army" - World War I veterans who came to Washington to demand their promised bonus' early? General Douglas McArthur was the one who sent the infantry and tanks to clear them out. Many killed. Can you spell shades of Tienanmen Square??
Then there were the "government" guys - goons deputized by the powers that be and hired by Ford Motor company to gun down strikers with machine guns....
Not exactly a freedom of assembly issue, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was ok to round up US citizens and put them in concentration camps - Japanese internment camps of WWII. And of course, there had to be armed guards - US Army - and machine gun towers - to make sure all those old people, women, and children didn't put together a plot to invade the US and set up a battle front here. Oh, wait...they were already here....
This type of activity is very close to the surface - no steps removed. When you can get regular people off the street to sit in a room and "electrocute" others just because a person in authority says it needs to be done - after all, he is the Scientist - then a tense confrontation can spiral quite quickly. Especially when both sides have been bathing in their own propaganda and are absolutely convinced that their side has God on their side, and there is a moral imperative. We even get some of this here, just talking...I think there could actually be blows at times if this were in person.
Our rights at times are very much like the thin veneer of civilization humans adopt. It can be pierced easily, and our rights are all relative and can be conveniently ignored quite easily.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 20, 2013, 11:33:57 AM
Money is the root....
Only one. And probably the least one.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 20, 2013, 10:41:32 PM
This type of activity is very close to the surface - no steps removed.
(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/tulsa.jpg)