Rest In Peace Mr. Heston.

[SirQittus]

I understand what you're saying. But also, it's important to know what's behind the votes. We both know that many times legislation is written in a way that's intended to benefit the clients of lobbying firms and not coincidentally, those firms rarely represent common everyday people (one can argue that that's the case with the NRA, but they also represent firearms manufacturers so it's a mixed bag).

The thing about Obama that I think a lot of people don't yet get is that he does not see the world in clear-cut black-and-white terms. He understands the tradition of private gun ownership and respects it. At the same time, in his political and legal careers he has always represented people living in densely populated cities. There is far too much unnecessary death by gunfire in the cities and he wants to find ways to reverse that trend.

But let's let him speak for himself: Obama on gun control

Paraphrasing Obama in the link, "I think gun ownership is an individual constitutional right, but one that can be completely taken away by a city government."



Which other constitutional rights does he think can be permanently denied to a city's population on the basis of public safety without a declaration of martial law?

 

[00Syd]

Paraphrasing Obama in the link, "I think gun ownership is an individual constitutional right, but one that can be completely taken away by a city government."



Which other constitutional rights does he think can be permanently denied to a city's population on the basis of public safety without a declaration of martial law?

Uhm, freedom of speech. Thats been taken away numerous in the past in the name of public safety. During WWI I believe it was against the law to speak ill of the president. Of course, freedom of speech restrictions have never been permanent, thank goodness.

 

[midwestyankee]

Paraphrasing Obama in the link, "I think gun ownership is an individual constitutional right, but one that can be completely taken away by a city government."



Which other constitutional rights does he think can be permanently denied to a city's population on the basis of public safety without a declaration of martial law?

Let's, instead, discuss what he actually said:

"And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions."​

I bolded the key phrase here: "a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets." This does not sound like some faceless government denying the rights of its citizens against their will. It sounds like a community deciding on a course of action that is in the best interests of everyone as they see it.

Do you object to towns and cities being able to make their own laws?

 

[JMohegan]

But let's let him speak for himself: Obama on gun control

Thanks for the link, MWY. That's a good one. The following quote, in particular, seems most pointed.



"You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence.

We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit.

But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now."



I'd be interested to hear from WD or Qittus, what they would suggest to help protect the children of Chicago.

 

[DVS]

[]

 

[WriterDom]

I'd be interested to hear from WD or Qittus, what they would suggest to help protect the children of Chicago.

The black culture has to change. When you have 60 to 70 percent of black women having babies out of wedlock you invite all sorts of problems that can't be fixed by regulating firearms.



It's a vicious cycle. Many of these women are born into extreme poverty to begin with then they are saddled with 3 or 4 kids and the only male role model for some of the boys have is the nearest gang leader.

I saw on the news yesterday some ex pro ballplayer is getting sued for child support from 8 women.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

<snip>
No one is saying that existing gun control laws aren't flawed, which is why I think that its not a ban we need, </snip>
=QUOTE]

How about just enforcing the laws on the books?

 

[Breaker_Morant]

I saw on the news yesterday some ex pro ballplayer is getting sued for child support from 8 women.

When did he have time to play ball?

 

[WriterDom]

When did he have time to play ball?

Wilt had time to bed 20,000 women. If you believe him. What better job than sports for a man ho?

 

[intothewoods]

The black culture has to change. When you have 60 to 70 percent of black women having babies out of wedlock you invite all sorts of problems that can't be fixed by regulating firearms.



It's a vicious cycle. Many of these women are born into extreme poverty to begin with then they are saddled with 3 or 4 kids and the only male role model for some of the boys have is the nearest gang leader.

I saw on the news yesterday some ex pro ballplayer is getting sued for child support from 8 women.

Is that stat true? It sounds fishy.

 

[WriterDom]

Is that stat true? It sounds fishy.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=38882

I think it peaked around 70% and is slowly coming down. It's fishy because no one but Bill Cosby wants to address it.

 

[midwestyankee]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=38882

I think it peaked around 70% and is slowly coming down. It's fishy because no one but Bill Cosby wants to address it.

I'm sorry, but I would much rather see statistics from the Census Bureau than World Net Daily, which is a highly partisan source of commentary. While it's no doubt true that a significant percentage of young black women in the inner city have children when they're too young, let's at least base our discussion on facts and not commentary.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

I'm sorry, but I would much rather see statistics from the Census Bureau than World Net Daily, which is a highly partisan source of commentary. While it's no doubt true that a significant percentage of young black women in the inner city have children when they're too young, let's at least base our discussion on facts and not commentary.

Like this?

 

[midwestyankee]

Like this?

Yes, exactly.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

Glad to be of service.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

Uhm, freedom of speech. Thats been taken away numerous in the past in the name of public safety. During WWI I believe it was against the law to speak ill of the president. Of course, freedom of speech restrictions have never been permanent, thank goodness.

Lincoln jailed/imprisoned several public officials who were inciting rebellion in Maryland.

 

[WriterDom]

60 to 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock. That's just a fact.

 

[00Syd]

60 to 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock. That's just a fact.

Shit, I was born out of wedlock. So? Its not about whether or not a baby is born in or out of wedlock, its about whether or not the parents or parent is able to support the child.

 

[Etoile]

Uhm, freedom of speech. Thats been taken away numerous in the past in the name of public safety. During WWI I believe it was against the law to speak ill of the president. Of course, freedom of speech restrictions have never been permanent, thank goodness.

There have been many laws against sedition in the United States. For the past two semesters I've been taking American History classes and it comes up a LOT. 1798, 1917, 1940...in fact, the Smith Act is still current law in the United States, though it hasn't been used in many decades.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_U.S._Sedition_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

 

[00Syd]

There have been many laws against sedition in the United States. For the past two semesters I've been taking American History classes and it comes up a LOT. 1798, 1917, 1940...in fact, the Smith Act is still current law in the United States, though it hasn't been used in many decades.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_U.S._Sedition_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

Yeah, I knew about that stuff from History classes I've taken, the WWI example was just the first that popped into my mind. Didn't know that the Smith Act is still on the books, though! Glad its not enforced.

 

[twysted73]

* shakes his fist angrily *

Damn dirty apes!


Man that was a cool movie. I don't care HOW 70's it is.

 

[SirQittus]

Uhm, freedom of speech. Thats been taken away numerous in the past in the name of public safety. During WWI I believe it was against the law to speak ill of the president. Of course, freedom of speech restrictions have never been permanent, thank goodness.

So you're happy those laws are gone (or at least not enforced)? I guess this goes back to the point a ways back that "people defend constitutional rights when they agree with the rights" which I do happen to agree with. However, I also think that the US Constitution forms a pretty good baseline, and while it is possible to amend it, it's also difficult, so as not to be subject to variable winds of popular opinion - so, I'll defend the current version as best I can and take the bad with the good.

Let's, instead, discuss what he actually said:

"And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions."​

I bolded the key phrase here: "a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets." This does not sound like some faceless government denying the rights of its citizens against their will. It sounds like a community deciding on a course of action that is in the best interests of everyone as they see it.

Do you object to towns and cities being able to make their own laws?

I object to towns and cities being able to make their own laws which run in opposition to the "supreme law of the land". The community you and Obama speak of is not a single individual. There are, I'm certain, many people in that community that do not think the course of action their neighbors prefer is in the best interests of everyone, and that minority in the community should have their rights protected even though their more numerous neighbors disagree. And yeah, that includes making sure women, college students, non-caucasians, and poor folk all can vote, even though the founding fathers didn't think that was necessarily a good idea.

 

[SirQittus]

Thanks for the link, MWY. That's a good one. The following quote, in particular, seems most pointed.

"You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence.

We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit.

But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now."

I'd be interested to hear from WD or Qittus, what they would suggest to help protect the children of Chicago.

I don't have a good answer of how to protect the children of Chicago, because I'm unfamiliar with the specific circumstances of how the children of Chicago are dying. But with that disclaimer, I could suggest frequent random searches of Chicago homes of people suspected to have guns or be violent? Or stationing a police officer in each of those homes? Or maybe immediate deportation of anyone found to possess a gun or other weapon?

If we're worried more about these Chicago children than constitutional protections, I'm sure you'd readily agree that these measures would be more helpful than making guns even more illegal.

 

[WriterDom]

Shit, I was born out of wedlock. So? Its not about whether or not a baby is born in or out of wedlock, its about whether or not the parents or parent is able to support the child.

Yes, but the odds are stacked against a teen mom with no husband. Obama won the lottery with a woman who earned a Ph.D. Many don't see the 11th grade.

 

[midwestyankee]

So you're happy those laws are gone (or at least not enforced)? I guess this goes back to the point a ways back that "people defend constitutional rights when they agree with the rights" which I do happen to agree with. However, I also think that the US Constitution forms a pretty good baseline, and while it is possible to amend it, it's also difficult, so as not to be subject to variable winds of popular opinion - so, I'll defend the current version as best I can and take the bad with the good.

This makes sense to me.

I object to towns and cities being able to make their own laws which run in opposition to the "supreme law of the land". The community you and Obama speak of is not a single individual. There are, I'm certain, many people in that community that do not think the course of action their neighbors prefer is in the best interests of everyone, and that minority in the community should have their rights protected even though their more numerous neighbors disagree. And yeah, that includes making sure women, college students, non-caucasians, and poor folk all can vote, even though the founding fathers didn't think that was necessarily a good idea.

No, the community is not a single individual. However, in this democratic republic we agree to live by the vote of the majority in most cases. When we disagree, we work to make change through the same mechanism of public and transparent representative legislation. The problem, of course, is that it's perfectly constitutional for a state or city to enact laws that place restrictions on gun ownership and use. The problem you cite here - that there is a minority that deserves to maintain its own rights - is a thorny one. In fact, I suggest that that is the very heart of the gun control issue. There's a minority of Americans (albeit a sizable one) who will fight tooth and nail to maintain a right that, when it is exercised in poor judgment, infringes on another essential right: the pursuit of happiness.