|
|
|
Obama On Gun ControlPosted Thursday, July 26, 2012, at 5:42 PM
Lightsabers---The Real Answer To Home Security And National Security!
"And I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation --- that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage," he said."
BUT................
"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."
Well, let me say that THIS gun owner does NOT agree with Obama's position on the above weapons as far as these weapons only being in the hands of soldiers or on the battlefield. I think that if you are a non-criminal American who can pass the background check for a gun---that YOU, as an AMERICAN, should be able to buy whatever YOU want.
The sad reality in all of this killing is that guns do not kill, people do. Criminals and mentally ill will ALWAYS be able to buy/obtain guns. There is no way around this. To disarm the American public or limit what can be purchased is a crime because our Government makes the guns available to the people who SHOULD NOT have them.
Here are some stats on what kills:
In the United States, annual firearm homicides total:
2009: 9,146
2008: 9,484
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,659
2002: 9,369
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,259
1998: 9,257
Smoking:
"Smoking kills more than 5 million people a year worldwide, accounting for 1 out of every 10 adult deaths.
The addictive effects of tobacco have been well documented. Tobacco is considered to be a mood and behavior altering substance that is psychoactive and abusable."
Drugs:
"Government data showed there were more deaths caused by drug use than there were motor vehicle fatalities in 2009. There were at least 37,485 drug-related fatalities that year, according to preliminary data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
Drunk Driving:
2008 - National DUI / Drunk Driving Statistics--
Motorcycles:
"Motorcyclist fatalities in single vehicle motorcycle crashes decreased each year from 1990 to 1996, reaching a historic low of 937 in 1996 and again in 1997. In 1998, the fatalities increased to 1,042 (11.2 percent increase); in 1998 and in 1999 they increased to 1,140 (9.4 percent). The overall increase in motorcyclist fatalities from 1997 to 1999 was 203 (21.7 percent)."
It would seem to me that we need to outlaw many other things before we worry about guns. Criminals and "crazy" people will always have the ability to get guns---why punish the rest of us?
Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Str8 Talk  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.mountainhomenews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Send email to Tracy Lauric - Login I have lived in Mountain Home for over 11 years now. I love to be outdoors in wide open spaces (as long as it does not involve camping...in a tent and an out house). I dislike Government waste/abuse of tax dollars and "sky is the limit" spending by those that we elect to represent "us." I value free speech when what is stated is factual (as opposed to lies, gossip and un-truths). I love the Chicago White Sox (I never said I was perfect) and the Broncos are okay too! I am 38 years old and married to a guy who is active duty USAF (and a Cubs fan...he is the "perfect" one). I am anti-nuclear and against further desecration of our planet with waste that we can do little to nothing with. If you dislike blunt, this is not the blog for you. Enjoy!
Hot topics The Authorized Killing Of Americans By Drones(89 ~ 7:34 AM, Mar 28)
A Tribute To My Friend, Joe Howard a/k/a "Eagle Eye"
Some Of My "Favorite" Political "Tools"
Gun Control Obama Style Via "Executive Order"---If Ya Can't Beat Em Then By All Means Back Door Em!
Guns Are To Blame? Any Reason To Disarm America!
|
Email link
Read comments (44)
Blog archive
Kneel and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be chopped down. No matter which side of the argument you stand, if you show your behind, don't complain when somebody takes a swipe at it.
With all due respect for the Zook; Patriot or Rebel, why make yourself a target?
"Imminent", "Anytime now", and so on... Sounds like predictions of "when" to me.
Keep pumping your chest, Mountain Home hero . And I'll keep calling you a nut.
Can I ask a question? How is it that Hollywood makes movies with extreme violence, guns and blowing buildings up and wrecking cars continue their own brand of hypocrisy while collecting a sizable paycheck? This would also include countless scenes of unprotect sex.
Then they have the gall to use their entertainment credentials and use their TV time in interviews to spout their political views.
They drive their electric cars to Red Carpet events only to turn around to charter private jets.
And you call the conservatives brainwashed? We don't profit from the spoils of war, the celebrities do. Each and every week at the box office.
And then to really put icing on the cake. They employ armed body guards to protect them. If you don't believe in guns, what the heck are you doing with an armed body guard?
See the world is not fair or even. Our fore fathers knew this. They didn't advocate violence but they did put protections into place for the possibility of Tyranny.
It doesn't take a gun to "force" people to be afraid. The nature of man has not changed since the beginning of time. And they knew this to be true.
According to my HS Govt Teacher, The Constitution is a wonderful document encompassing the solution to a host of future problems. Again, I say the nature of man has not changed but the weapon of choice has. Words or guns don't kill people. It is the act of a person who wants to destroy someone else's peace of mind.
Buckleberry, you're the king of insults, so don't even try that tactic, okay tool?
Bradbury,
You're so self-brainwashed and self-indoctrinated you can't see straight. "Everybody who doesn't agree with the 'ole zook' is a liberal", by golly. You sling yourself around like a hero, but you're nothing more than a storyteller. Can't wait 'till next year when you continue with your saga. That's right, next year. We all know it'll get here. Just the same as last year and this year.
Keep walking around town with your leadthrower on your hip and your stories of armegeddon.
See you in Neverland
You two really are 2 peas in a pod. Funny, "it's" supposed to have hit the fan for over a year. What a fearmongering, paranoid, sociopath you are.
It still doesn't change the meaning of militia as it stood then. As far as Idaho's laws and definitions, the US Constitution takes precedence.
So taken in context from the time, militias were organized, like it or not.
An article about the early militias as in context to the time when then the 2nd amendment was written.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen
The argument of whether the right to bear arms is restricted to a "militia" or not is really a moot point in Idaho. The Idaho constitution states that "All able-bodied male persons, residents of this state, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, shall be enrolled in the militia, and perform such military duty as may be required by law"
Now, if you're a conscientious objector and do not wish to be considered for service, you can opt out....at a cost. Whether this would be considered a "fine" or a "tax" is another argument. "...but no person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to perform such duty in time of peace. Every person claiming such exemption from service, shall, in lieu thereof, pay into the school fund of the county of which he may be a resident, an equivalent in money, the amount and manner of payment to be fixed by law.
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/IC/A...
There are also Idaho statutes which expand membership in the militia to "all able-bodied citizens of the state, and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall have declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States and are residents of the state of Idaho" between the ages of 18 and 45.
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Titl...
Statutes further divide the militia into three divisions. "The militia of the state of Idaho shall be divided into three (3) classes, to wit: The national guard, the organized militia, and the unorganized militia."
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Titl...
So basically, if you're a resident of Idaho between the ages of 18 and 45, your RIGHT to bear arms CAN NOT be infringed upon no matter how you "interpret" the 2nd Amendment. What happens after you're 45 is up for debate, but i highly doubt anyone will ever suggest that you turn in your weapons.
Take for example, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. It is the Mexican half of the greater El Paso area. The murder rate has been very high for a long time. Long before the latest ordeal with the drug cartels. One reason for this is that it can be very difficult to obtain a gun of any sort in Mexico. The penalties for having an un-registered gun or committing a crime with one are quite steep as well. What does that lead to? It leads to the average citizens being at a severe disadvantage against criminals. The presence of drug cartels simply exacerbates this.
Now lets go across the border to El Paso. Largely the same city with about the same political and social dynamics. The murder rate drops considerably and the number of armed robberies does as well. Why? The criminal knows that there is a chance of someone having just as much firepower as they do. Sounds like a solid reason to not have strict gun controls to me.
Additionally, Canada and Switzerland have a very high rate of civilian gun ownership. What else do they have? A very low murder/manslaughter rate as well. Coincidence? No.
I shall choose to lock and load with Zook (and many others). I am ok with rag tag...beats brainwashed by Obama and being an Obama follower.
It was a pretty rag tag bunch of citizens with guns - not butter churns - that resolved to rid this country of the tyranny of the British King. I doubt that they spent a great deal of time debating the heirarchy of their ranks, rather, they followed those that had or would lead a charge or plan a successful assault.
And at the end, most returned (with their guns) to the countryside, ready to stand in defense of their victories as a militia, as they had done at the start. Others stayed behind to form the force needed on a national basis to defend the states as a whole.
Does the NRA hang it hat solely on the Second Amendment? No. Why? Because it knows that in its mission to convince gun control advocates to come to its side, they have to appeal to them with reason and logic. Relying solely on the Second Amendment gives the message a religious feel. That might work for those of you on here but it does not work for the younger generation. There has to be more to your message than emotion, rhetoric, and scripture. Does the NRA succeed with this approach? Yes. Can you really argue with the logic given by them? Not really. So where is the problem with using some good, old-fashioned, solid, data-driven reasoning?
CJW, I didn't mean to offend you or others. My point was that those who have served understand the need for a command structure. That's all. Everyone that works for someone else knows that there is a chain of command, but tend to ignore it when it suits them. Outside of mutiny, the military adheres to command structure. It is a necessity.
The Army National Guard predates the founding of the nation and a standing military by almost a century and a half - and is therefore the oldest component of the United States armed forces. America's first permanent militia regiments, among the oldest continuing units in history, were organized by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/guardandr...
Mike, I'll address this to you and those who have served.
A well regulated militia requires a command structure, otherwise you you have nothing more than a rag tag group of armed citizens.
Look back at the very early history of our country. Every state had it's own militia due to the lack of an effective national army. This is what the founding fathers meant. A well regulated citizen army.
Buckshot,
Well, we shall just have to have different views on this. If there are good, solid, modern, logical arguments that back up one's cause then why not use them? Maybe I care too much about getting the result and not how one gets it.
Buckshot,
Sometimes in life, you have to increase your arsenal. What is wrong with trying to beat Gun Control types at their own game?
A well regulated Militia
Why are these four words ignored????
It seems to state that all citizens that members of a well regulated militia are entitled to own arms.
Stop cherry picking words. Adhere to the whole amendment!
Imagine that you are walking in a windstorm. One could stand there and complain about the wind. That would be an enormously counterproductive act but nonetheless, one could do it. Or one could acknowledge the obstacle and figure how best to deal with it and get home. I assume that one is more focused on the result than whining.
To connect this, we could complain about Gun Control and those who support it. That would be the same as complaining about the wind. Or you could think about what the opposition (pro Gun control) and figure out how to persuade them. Persuading them with purely emotional rhetoric is not going to work. We have to use well thought out reasoning if we are to get them to reconsider their stance. I assume that is the purpose of complaining about gun control. If not, then feel free to enlighten me. If we want a positive result (less gun control) then we have to gauge the obstacle and figure out how best to conquer it. Screaming and using the tired line of " But the Constitution says" is not going to work. That may offend some but if results are what you want then maybe try appealing to your opposition with logic and reasoning. It can be done.
Any study of history (pre-1850) has to be accompanied by critical thinking and ability to see through propaganda. Most literature written prior to this time was more propaganda than anything. The reasons for this are simple. One, printing was expensive and therefore one had to economize. Two, information was at a premium and those who had the keys to the printing press could say whatever they wanted and there was little people could do to disprove it. Reading historical documents and understanding why they said it or did it demands that one read between the lines and look beyond the purely literal.
For one, I am not pro-Gun Control. However, there are many solid, logical, applicable reasons that back up their case. The Second Amendment is one but not the only. Those who rely solely on the Second Amendment are going to come off as dogmatic and lacking in the ability to think critically. Like it or not, that's how it is.
First, the murder rate goes up when you disarm the public. Canada, Switzerland, and Mexico are examples of this. Second, a gun is a piece of property just like anything else. Third, when you legislate something away you make a black market as a result. Black markets are dangerous and inefficient. Fourth and finally, it is a waste of time and energy to write the laws and then enforce them. To fully do away with private gun ownership would entail a massive use of resources that could be better used elsewhere.
I got all of these reasons from NRA members and my very pro-gun friends. The arguments given by them are rock solid, in my opinion. They reflect the times and are well thought out.
Nice to see what college is teaching people these days.
"My only problem with those who oppose gun control is their weak reasoning. Usually, they rely solely on the second amendment. While that is alright, it says to most that they are copping out and lack the use of articulate logic and reasoning to back up what they say." (Compliments of Twilcox)
"A cop out and lack of articulate logic and reasoning..."
Wow. That is the only clear, articulate word that I can come up with right now. This is why this country is going in the direction that it is. My fear is that people like this can vote and REASON away rights with "logic." WOW!!!
The first website (Monticello.org) is run by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. I believe they might know a bit more than some web blogger.
Monticello is owned and operated by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., which was founded in 1923. As a private, nonprofit 501(c)3 corporation, the Foundation receives no ongoing federal, state, or local funding in support of its dual mission of preservation and education.
In its 86 years of existence, the Foundation has steadily expanded Monticello's functions and holdings. Its stewardship now includes approximately 2,500 of Jefferson's 5,000 acres, of which more than 1,400 are held under protective easements. The 2004 purchase of Montalto, the neighboring mountain that rises 400 feet above Monticello, represents the Foundation's most significant land acquisition. In addition to the new Thomas Jefferson Visitor Center and Smith Education Center, which had its grand opening in April 2009, large capital projects have included the Jefferson Library and the Saunders-Monticello Trail, both dedicated in 2002.
Today, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation remains committed to a twofold mission:
1.preservation -- to conserve, protect, and maintain Monticello in a manner which leaves it enhanced and unimpaired for future generations -- and
2.education -- to interpret and present Thomas Jefferson to the widest possible audiences, including scholars and the general public.
Monticello is a National Historic Landmark and the only house in the United States designated a UNESCO World Heritage site.
Vision:
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation engages a global audience in a dialogue with Jefferson's ideas.
The Foundation seeks to facilitate conversations and to use its extensive research and knowledge to stimulate interactions on a variety of topics that were of keen interest to Jefferson, the most powerful of which are liberty and self government. Through virtual, off-site and on-site engagement, the Foundation seeks to excite the world about Jefferson's relevance today and ignite a passion for history.
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-...
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/j...
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/je...
That is not a quote by Thomas Jefferson. It might strike a strong chord, but it is not his quote.
Maybe this will help your discussion
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2...
Buckshot,
I am writing about the historical context behind it not the exact words. They did not dream up the Second Amendment while they were sitting around. They had hundreds of years of history to draw from.
James Madison speaks of it in Federalist No. 8. He speaks of the vulnerability of the new nation to invasion from the North.
We forget that Europe had a long history of despotic leaders and nasty wars. Wars that left the average citizen at a severe disadvantage if the standing armies failed. These citizens were largely not armed and stood no chance against an army if the opposing army was to break through.
If one knows the history surrounding the War of 1812, one will know that American leaders acted largely based on fear of Britain creeping back into the picture. A loss in that war could have undone what had been set in place just 20 years before that.
The founding fathers did not include the second Amendment so that some gun-toting, individualist, wanna-be Daniel Boone's could be given legitimacy. The founding fathers were simply second generation Englishmen who were trying not to follow in the footsteps of the mother nation.
They included it because they feared the return of Britain and the threat of a land invasion. Britain still controlled what we today call Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime provinces. America after the war was not a nation rich in manpower and resources. Had Britain not stretched itself so thin trying to secure colonies in Africa and Asia, they could have easily regrouped and came back. The founding fathers knew that their military could not win another war. They needed help from the citizenry and arming them was the best way to do that.
Also, America had something that no other place on Earth had. Space. Lots of wide open land that was not just barren wasteland. Russia had space but the land was largely cold, barren wasteland that had no ag potential. With the space came an abundance of wildlife that had not been seen by Europeans since before Christ. The abundance of wild game available for consumption was beyond words. So why not arm the citizens and let them be self sufficient?
Using the second Amendment as your sole source of justification is to neglect historical context.
I like your comment Trouble2011
Gun Control laws are like trying to reduce the DUI rate by making harder for sober drivers to buy cars....
My only problem with those who oppose gun control is their weak reasoning. Usually, they rely solely on the second amendment. While that is alright, it says to most that they are copping out and lack the use of articulate logic and reasoning to back up what they say.
Think about this, the motivation for the inclusion of the Second Amendment was twofold. There was threat of imminent land invasion. After the Revolutionary War, Britain was still very strong. Most early Americans felt that Britain would strike again. Hence, they needed the citizens to be ready. America, even in its earliest stages, was bigger than Britain and had places that were vastly more remote than anything Britain had.
The second motivation was that those early Americans (which were really just transplanted Europeans) were trying the Federalist approach. One where there were semi-autonomous states or regions that were not dependent on the central authority for guidance. Europe (from inception to early 1900's) has a long history of despots, monarchies, and strong central governments. America represented a bit of a social/political experiment. Arming the citizens helped them be more independent.
In Britain, the citizens were disarmed for two reasons historically. One, they were easier to rule. Two, so that they did not decimate themselves in meaningless squabbles between villages and clans. In Europe as a whole, largely the same approach was taken. Having a citizenry that was independent of a king/ruler was unheard of.
The realities that made the second Amendment do not apply today. Therefore, lets bring some rationale that does apply into the argument.
First, a gun is a piece of property. We have the right to own a TV, a couch, etc. so why not a gun. I could kill someone with a nail gun, a TV, or a knife so why the singling out?
Second, lets look at Ciudad Juarez. It is the city on the other side of the border from El Paso, TX. The murder rates are very high. Why? Because the citizens can't own guns. Therefore, the drug cartels are free to kill. If those citizens were armed, those numbers would surely decline.
Overall, today's pro-gun advocates need to stop relying on the crutch of the second Amendment. There are plenty of good, solid arguments that back up their cause. Good, solid arguments that reflect the times.
"On a world-wide scale, I don't think it can be argued President Reagan did a lot more to bring peace on an international level."
Change to: On a world-wide scale, I don't think anyone can argue against the fact Presedent Reagan did a lot more to bring peace on an internation level.
Sorry for spam post. My fingers were moving slower then my eyes and the grammer looked a little funny. And not to detract but I haven't spammed it in a while... RIP Major Richard Winters.
"I AM still baffled as to how he won the Nobel?.......what exactly did he do?"
And why didn't President Reagan? Unless I'm mistaken...
On a world-wide scale, I don't think it can be argued President Reagan did a lot more to bring peace on an international level. And if diplomacy didn't work, he was quick to react (the original shock and awe) to minimize casualties. In, remove the problem via silent professionality, and out.
I'd gladly buy a ticket to see that monster's (Holmes) public execution. He needs to be dispatched quickly rather than take up any more space and air on this planet.
Caldwell Idaho billboard makes national news:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/...
The sign features photos of Holmes and Obama side by side. Of Holmes, it says: "Kills 12 in a movie theater with assault rifle, everyone freaks out." Of Obama, it says: "Kills thousands with foreign policy, wins Nobel Peace Prize."
Rather than be constructive we go on a liberal bash.....YOU know how I feel about the death penalty.....and that is not a liberal stand.
The aurora idiot bought all the stuff legal no problem,he planned it for months,I say a quick and speedy trial is called for.Maybe we should try what thailand has and have a public execution in this case maybe that will help deter,and yes I am serious.........later
Makes you wonder what can be possibly done to end Gun Violence... How can they keep guns away from people that have no record of mental illness?
even if they banned assault weapons there's plenty more other guns to use.
Yep, MsMarylin, I'll get right on that.
Right after I finish my letter to the Wizard of Oz asking for freedom for those little folks in Kansas....
Demand a plan to end Gun Violence
http://action.secondchancecampaign.org/o...
I put nothing past Obama. After his "amnesty" scam...anything is possible.
Many want to blame these gun incidents on the guns but it really is not about the guns. It is the nut jobs that crack. We need to focus on what is going wrong in this country to create these prolems and such a high level of stress that these people see killing people as a "solution."
Obamacare will save us.
I tend to believe he is not as likely to advocate for direct legislative expansion of American gun control laws as he is to defer to the the Arms Trade Treaty currently before the United Nations. Among the reported requirements for UN member states is creation of a registry of all civilian small arms (including the owner's name and location) and provide that information to other member nation governments on demand. The creation and maintenance of that registry COULD be left to (or usurped by) the executive branch of our government, according to several accounts I have seen.
At least one report I read indicates that the treaty does not provide for or recognize the use of small arms for self defense.
And while I am one of those gun owners that would "probably" agree that assault rifles are more appropriate on the battlefield than the sporting field, it doesn't mean I might never need one.
Anybody else remember Obama's 2008 statement describing small town people as bitterly clinging to their guns and religion?
Anybody remember Clinton's 1994 ban on assualt rifles and extended capacity magazines?
Anybody really think ANY politician is going to advocate for stricter gun laws between now and November?
If our Government is going to be "Judge and Jury" on mental illness and who has it and who does not---few will have guns. Everyone has some sort of "mental illness." It could be OCD, anal retentive disorder, menopause, ED (you know...the need for the "little blue pill"---linked to depression), etc. If you get the label...kiss those guns goodbye. Welcome to the world of Obamacare and your medical records being owned by "big brother."