Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Gun Violence (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=768017)

  • Feb 13, 2014, 02:12 PM
    tomder55
    9th Circus just smacked down Kalifornia's restrictive gun control laws. ( Peruta v. San Diego).The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The court leaned heavily on the Heller decision in deciding this case . Heller noted that there are many cases which say that a state may ban concealed carry so long as open carry is still allowed. But it is unconstitutional to prohibit carrying in every mode: “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”
  • Feb 13, 2014, 02:12 PM
    speechlesstx
    While y'all are still pondering to address whether or not MAIG's intent to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens is a good thing or not, the 9th Circus Court has discovered the right to "keep and bear arms" means the right to keep and "carry" arms for self defense. They struck down a San Diego rule that required citizens to show "good cause" to carry in order to obtain a carry permit.

    Quote:

    The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a particular purpose—confrontation.” Id. The “natural meaning of ‘bear arms,’” according to the Heller majority, was best articulated by Justice Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998): to “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”

    ...

    Speakers of the English language will all agree: “bearing a weapon inside the home” does not exhaust this definition of “carry.” For one thing, the very risk occasioning such carriage, “confrontation,” is “not limited to the home.” Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 2012). One needn’t point to statistics to recognize that the prospect of conflict—at least, the sort of conflict for which one would wish to be “armed and ready”—is just as menacing (and likely more so) beyond the front porch as it is in the living room. For that reason, “[t]o speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage.”
    https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/434042455587954688/photo/1


  • Feb 13, 2014, 02:13 PM
    speechlesstx
    Yeppers. you noticed, too.
  • Feb 13, 2014, 02:30 PM
    excon
    Hello again,

    Yeah, you can't do that... Those silly libs...

    But, NOTHING in a comprehensive background check diminishes your 2nd Amendment rights whatsoever... As YOU said a thousand times, you already HAVE a background check.. So, passing a COMPREHENSIVE one WON'T alter your life in the slightest. It'll just STOP people like me from getting guns.. I can't, for the life of me, figure out what you've got against that.

    excon
  • Feb 13, 2014, 02:47 PM
    speechlesstx
    As with Mayors Against "Illegal" Guns is after LEGAL guns, define "comprehensive." I have NO treason to trust liberals and their innocent sounding populist initiatives. They've proven they are out to violate my rights and micromanage my life, and that pi$$es me off. It would pi$$ off the Libertarian excon I used to know as well.

    Thankfully Bloomy's true intentions are being exposed, and you're still dodging the point. Bloomberg and his ilk want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. Do you?
  • Feb 13, 2014, 02:50 PM
    cdad
    What are you calling comprehensive? A registration or a mandated waiting period or what? The current system passes through the FBI. What more do you want? Need every gun owner pass a Rorschach test ?
  • Feb 13, 2014, 02:56 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    What are you calling comprehensive? A registration or a mandated waiting period or what? The current system passes through the FBI. What more do you want? Need every gun owner pass a Rorschach test ?
    I believe they do want that Rorschach test, yes.
  • Feb 13, 2014, 03:00 PM
    excon
    Hello again,

    Nothing has changed.. The comprehensive background check I have in mind, would check EVERYBODY who buy's a gun. That's it.

    You ALREADY go through a background check, so have the buyers of guns from private sellers won't effect YOUR rights one iota. It'll just STOP people like me from getting guns. I dunno what's WRONG with that.

    excon
  • Feb 13, 2014, 03:13 PM
    speechlesstx
    I want details, not rhetoric. And I take it you're OK with Bloomy's goal since you won't respond.
  • Feb 13, 2014, 05:08 PM
    excon
    Hello again,

    Bloomy doesn't run anything.. Who cares what he thinks?

    excon

    PS> Details? I thought it was self explanitory. If you sell a gun at a gun show, you must do through an FFL. If you do it on the internet or on craigs list, you must transact the business AT an FFL.. That way EVERYBODY, who buys a gun will be ELIGIBLE to buy a gun... Who doesn't want that?
  • Feb 14, 2014, 07:14 AM
    speechlesstx
    I don't care what he thinks, I care that he wants to violate my rights, don't you? You can't buy firearms on Craigslist by the way, or ebay.
  • Feb 14, 2014, 09:32 AM
    cdad
    ex, if you buy a gun over the internet it has to go through a FFL already. It is only private sales that bypass FFL requirements. If those are shipped to you then they still must go through a FFL regaurdless of being private sale or business.
  • Feb 14, 2014, 09:48 AM
    speechlesstx
    Did you hear the one about the "unsteady" anti-gun NY Governor's aide illegally carrying a loaded 9 mm Glock into government buildings and of all things, using the laser sight as a pointer during a presentation with foreign officials?

    Quote:

    Jerome M. Hauer, Gov. Andrew Cuomo's director of homeland security, took out his handgun and used the laser sighting device attached to the barrel as a pointer in a presentation to a foreign delegation, according to public officials. It happened Oct. 24 in Albany at the highly secure state emergency operations center below State Police headquarters.


    These officials, one of whom claimed to be an eyewitness, said that three Swedish emergency managers in the delegation were rattled when the gun's laser tracked across one of their heads before Hauer found the map of New York, at which he wanted to point.

    Hauer, commissioner of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, was disabled by a stroke a few years ago and can be unsteady. He isn't a law enforcement official. He carries the loaded 9-millimeter Glock in a holster into state buildings, an apparent violation of state law barring state employees from bringing weapons to the workplace, several witnesses say.
    No worries though, he got a waiver 4 days after the report. I assume the Swedish officials recovered from the trauma of a perfect demonstration of not not to handle a firearm.
  • Feb 14, 2014, 10:04 AM
    talaniman
    Okay everything is peachy keen and we can't do anything about undiagnosed nuts and criminals until AFTER they break the law and shoot up a school of kids, then shoot themselves. If it happened at your school, or movie house where your kids are, what would you do Speech? Cdad?
  • Feb 14, 2014, 01:36 PM
    speechlesstx
    Perhaps if you guys started caring about the traditional family and life before it's born some of these things would resolve themselves.
  • Feb 14, 2014, 02:32 PM
    talaniman
    Wrong thread. Or are you tying religion, gay marriage, and abortion, to gun violence? This should be interesting.
  • Feb 14, 2014, 02:59 PM
    paraclete
    may as well blame someone tal, the NRA sure isn't taking responsibility. Remember guns don't kill people, people kill people therefore people should be allowed to have guns so they can kill more people, following this logic people should also practice abortion and a gay lifestyle. Following these courses of action people should be extinct within a generation and there will be noone left to shout freedom, you won't take my freedom away
  • Feb 15, 2014, 06:39 AM
    speechlesstx
    Nope, right thread, but I'm not surprised you can't see a connection between your cheapening of human life and kids without a strong family not valuing life enough to avoid snuffing it out with a gun. And Clete, the NRA had always advocated responsible gun ownership, not using laser sights on a loaded gun as a pointing device for a PowerPoint presentation or pumping a few blasts from your shotgun off your balcony. Those are things liberals teach us while whitewashing the consequences.
  • Feb 15, 2014, 08:56 AM
    cdad
    Tal, I have learned to accept life as it comes at me. I would think I would handle in a manner that I already live by. I wouldnt go screaming in the halls to have everyones gun removed from them. I have seen how the law in action is used to take over our society. I have drawn my lines and Im not crossing over to liberal thinking when it comes to many issues. I still listen but I have to weigh that against what I have already learned and experienced. I will always be an advocate for second amendment rights. Isnt part of the liberal mantra choice? Then let this be mine. I dont want to see people hurt nor do many that advocate for the same issues I do. What you have to try to remember is that freedom isnt free. There is always a price to pay for it. Your choice in the making is how much it is worth to you?
  • Feb 15, 2014, 01:52 PM
    paraclete
    speech by responsibility I mean recognising that the problem is the availability of guns particularly high capacity semi automatic weapons
  • Feb 15, 2014, 02:18 PM
    talaniman
    @At Speech,

    While I haven't seen any legislation, advocating or near what the Vice President has said, I don't think that following your bible or making people stay married is the answer, nor is it the problem. Neither is repealing Roe v Wade, or making more state restrictions. People falling through the cracks more now than before and being underserved through institutional solutions like education and economic options as the population grows and the dollars becomes rare is where I start my approach to diminishing gun violence.


    I wouldn't consider ever taking guns from RESPONSIBLE citizens for hunting, protection or any other reason.

    @ Cdad

    I can respect your position and I too have seen and learned much and made many adjustments no matter who was running the government, or who will in the future. But too you both, should we let FEAR of what the government could do stop us from ANYTHING? Haven't we paid a high price for our freedom already. Sorry guys, but the body count just keeps rising. There has to be a better answer than more guns.

    What is it?
  • Feb 15, 2014, 04:06 PM
    cdad
    The answer is to eliminate fear through education. We dont need to keep pushing the boundries to the point that no one gets hurt. This is life and to live it crap is going to happen. You mention body counts. How many die from car accidents in a year? Using the logic you are currently using we should all stop driving in motorized vehicles. Accidents happen crazy people happen. Life happens. We can't live in a bubble and it is not up to our government to force us into one.
  • Feb 15, 2014, 05:00 PM
    talaniman
    Ditto with education but we can do better identifying and dealing with UNresponsible gun owners, and purchasers, even if its baby steps. I have never said anything about doing away with cars, or guns.
  • Feb 15, 2014, 05:15 PM
    paraclete
    we always talk in extremes and absolutes rather than effective solutions, limiting the types of weapons available has been proven to effectively reduce the fallout from gun violence, limiting alcohol consumption has been effective in reducing the fallout from auto accidents, we should go further to identify and limit auto usage where age related irresponsibility is a factor and to identify other factors.

    The second amendment has been intrepreted in an absolutist manner thereby multiplying the availability of weapons but certain other aspects of the loss of life are not contained in absolutist restrictions on applying remedies. There is no right to own and operate an automobile, there is no right to drive irratically or at speed, there is no right to smoke tobacco or own and use a cell phone. If society can regulate in one area it can regulate in others
  • Feb 17, 2014, 07:26 AM
    speechlesstx
    So, how many firearm homicides, how many firearm suicides and how many traffic fatalities? There were over 2600 traffic fatalities in Texas last year as the signs keep reminding us. We'd be much better dealing with irresponsible drivers in my opinion, I have to dodge them every day.
  • Feb 17, 2014, 07:48 AM
    excon
    Hello again,

    In my view, if we got rid of cars, it would effect our lifestyle. If we got rid of guns, it wouldn't. Therefore, comparing the relative deaths caused by each, is STUPID, STUPID, and even STUPIDER than that..

    If you wanna compare stuff, MAKE it COMPARABLE... Otherwise, it's just right wingers flapping their gums...

    excon
  • Feb 17, 2014, 07:54 AM
    talaniman
    I see your logic now. Since you dodge irresponsible drivers every day, then you think its okay to dodge homicidal idiots everyday. Like you dodge solutions to real problems every day. That's a great strategy to holler loud and say NOTHING that can be a solution to the problem.
  • Feb 17, 2014, 08:17 AM
    speechlesstx
    When exactly was the last time you were shot at?

    Meanwhile, this is part of the left's answer to solving gun violence, punish and traumatize little boys for being honest while berating parents for daring to allow their child to play with toys..

    Quote:

    Zero Tolerance: Chicago School Officials Suspend 11-Year-Old Boy Under ‘Dangerous Weapons’ Policy for Voluntarily Turning in Non-Firing Toy Gun


    February 06, 2014

    CHICAGO, Il.— Criticizing Chicago school officials for being overzealous, misguided and incapable of distinguishing between an impotent toy and a dangerous weapon, The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an 11-year-old boy who was suspended from school after he voluntarily turned in a non-firing plastic toy gun that had been forgotten in his jacket pocket. Caden Cook, a sixth grader at Fredrick Funston Elementary School, was suspended for allegedly violating the school’s weapons policy against dangerous objects, in addition to being ordered to undergo counseling, and subjected to intimidation tactics, interrogation, and dire threats by school officials—all without his mother being present. Rutherford Institute attorneys have asked that the suspension be rescinded and all references to the incident be removed from Caden’s permanent school record.

    “This case speaks volumes about what’s wrong with our public schools and public officials: rather than school officials showing they are capable of exercising good judgment, distinguishing between what is and is not a true threat, and preserving safety while steering clear of a lockdown mindset better suited to a prison environment, they instead opted to exhibit poor judgment, embrace heavy handed tactics, and treat a toy gun like a dangerous weapon,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “In the process, school officials sent a strong, chilling message to this child and his classmates that they have no rights in the American police state.”

    Frederick Funston Elementary School introduced a random “pat down” to its security and screening procedures at the beginning of this school year. All students are physically separated from their bags and randomly chosen for a manual “pat down” before going through the metal detectors. Students’ bags are also separately searched at random. On Friday, January 31, 2014, sixth grader Caden Cook was waiting in the school line to be patted down when he realized that he had mistakenly left in his sweater pocket a toy plastic gun which he had played with the previous night while he was out with friends and family. Realizing his error and that the toy was a prohibited item on school grounds, Caden alerted the security personnel to his predicament, explaining that he had accidentally brought the plastic toy to school and relinquishing the toy to school security personnel. Instead of recognizing that Caden was attempting to do the right thing and acknowledging the mistake, school officials allegedly subjected the 11-year-old to intimidation tactics, interrogation, accusations of lying, and threats. All of this was done in the absence of Caden’s mother and without her having been informed of the incident. Upon her arrival, Caden’s mother was berated and criticized for allowing her son to use toy guys.

    In coming to Caden’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys point out that Caden’s conduct does not rise to the level of serious disruptive behavior, given that he immediately alerted school officials to his accidental transgression and voluntarily turned in the toy once he realized his mistake, even prior to entering the screening area, nor does the plastic toy gun constitute a dangerous object by the school’s standards or anyone else’s.
    I have a theory, that besides public school officials having been lobotomized, they're mad that we law abiding gun owners don't roll over for them so they use their Gestapo tactics on the kids. Get a grip people.
  • Feb 17, 2014, 01:37 PM
    Tuttyd
    " We would be better dealing with irresponsible drivers, in my opinion"

    You would be better off dealing with both.
  • Feb 17, 2014, 02:04 PM
    paraclete
    The irresposnible attitudes that lead to gun violence and irratic auto use are symptoms of the same problem, this idea that the individual has greater importance than the society in which they live

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:07 AM.