Seriously, folks, I'd rather see him trying to get a new amendment passed to achieve his goals rather than just passing laws that may or may not be constitutional. It's more honest to say "I don't think anyone ought to have guns except the police, the military, and federal agents."
In the same article, it says: "A counter-rally by the Second Amendment Sisters, who oppose further gun restrictions, was planned throughout the day, also near the mall." So, where's the coverage on that event? Even if you're opposed to second amendment rights, you ought to be interested in what the opposition has to say. Unless, of course, you are only interested in getting your way by any means, rather than working with others to resolve your differences in a civilized manner.
--Baloo
P.S.: This is less about guns than it is about the partisan behavior of the media and how it chooses to tell us only what it wants us to hear.
------------------ "When you�re a geek . . . You�re a geek all the way, From your first sci-fi con To your last dying day." -- James Lileks http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/
posted
I'd like to see an actual PROPOSAL by these people. They march around saying that we have to do something about gun violence ("for the CHILDREN!"), but I have yet to hear one of them suggest a law that would actually do something positive about it.
As for the media, ICK! I don't know why they're so interested in advancing liberal policies that ignore your constitutional rights. Once private property, freedom of speech, and the fourth, ninth, tenth, and second ammendments are gone, what do you think will be next? Freedom of the press, of course.
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
posted
That's why we should form Militia groups to combat the damn opressive government, who's been takin aways our rights, likes it says in the damn consitution o' the USA
------------------ "Hello and welcome to 'Whose Line Is It Anyway?' The show where everything's made up and the points don't matter - just like a condom to a Trekkie." - Drew Carey, Whose Line Is It Anyway?
------------------ Frank's Home Page John Flansburgh: "This song is so old that it's actually featured on our brand new record." John Linnell: "It's one of those year 2000 problems."
------------------ "Oh, it's an anti-anti-WTO song. It's essentially a pro-Starbucks song. I saw this picture of a guy sticking his foot through a plate-glass window in a Starbucks in Seattle, and he was wearing a Nike. Man, couldn't you just change your shoes?" -- M. Doughty
posted
The gun thing really illustrates the problems with democracy in the US. A significant majority (don't make me go searching for poll numbers) want more restrictions, and yet there have been none. Why? Because a handful of special-interest-groups have a stranglehold on one of the two political parties.
Two-party politics on a triple-tier system invariably means no changes can be made unless everybody holding a placard for on against something has been appeased first. In Canada, we have five-party politics or what is pretty much a single tier. Maybe not as "democratic" as Americans believe their system to be, but at least a handful of backwater tumbleweeds haven't stopped us from placing "freedom from fear" above "freedom to bear arms."
------------------ The above post was mulled-over, composed, and posted during time Tom would have better spent on his plethora of homework and homework-related exercises. Now don't you feel special?
[This message has been edited by The_Tom (edited May 14, 2000).]
posted
To be fair, there are restrictions, a great many of them in some places. Just varying degrees of enforcement.
But what caused my spurt of laughter was the constitutionally demanded goal of militias to defend our freedom. While you can certainly read the 2nd amendment as saying that everyone should have weapons in their home, you cannot draw any connection between the modern militia movement and the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the document.
------------------ "Oh, it's an anti-anti-WTO song. It's essentially a pro-Starbucks song. I saw this picture of a guy sticking his foot through a plate-glass window in a Starbucks in Seattle, and he was wearing a Nike. Man, couldn't you just change your shoes?" -- M. Doughty
posted
"don't make me go searching for poll numbers"
Go searching for poll numbers. Also, I'll bet you'll find a difference between the polls in Texas and Vermont, for example.
------------------ Frank's Home Page John Flansburgh: "This song is so old that it's actually featured on our brand new record." John Linnell: "It's one of those year 2000 problems."
posted
This is golden. Firstly you talk about how free your great nation is, THEN you natter about how your rights are being taken away and the fact that you need to overthrow the goverment. There's a word for that. Paranoid. (And maybe, just a little stupid). Take a leaf out of Europes book, or Canada, New Zealand or Australia.
------------------ "Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
posted
No thanks. You screw up your country your way, we'll screw up ours in our way. That way, everyone might possibly find a country that suits them once everyone's royally screwed up (in distinctively different ways, of course).
--Baloo
------------------ "When you�re a geek . . . You�re a geek all the way, From your first sci-fi con To your last dying day." -- James Lileks http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/
posted
I think that one paragraph describes my personal philosophy perfectly.
------------------ Frank's Home Page John Flansburgh: "This song is so old that it's actually featured on our brand new record." John Linnell: "It's one of those year 2000 problems."
[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited May 14, 2000).]
posted
While reading this thread The_Tom asked a good question that has not been answered
"A significant majority (don't make me go searching for poll numbers) want more restrictions, and yet there have been none. Why?"
Simply put that "significant majority" of the US doesn't believe that more restrictions on guns is a major voting issue, while the "handful of backwater tumbleweeds" in the US actually do think this is an important issue and they vote that way. Why do you think the NRA is the most powerful special interest group, (for it's size, sure the AARP has more power but they have 10's of millions of members, the NRA has 3 million) because there membership (AKA backwater tumbleweeds)thinks that gun rights are important and they vote that way in an extremely high percentage.
So exactly how is this minority of "backwater tumbleweeds" voting on things they believe is important make them bad guys, compared to the "significant majority" not voting on things they believe is important some some how make them good. If the "significant majority" cared enough about the issue they should go to the voting both and cast ballots for the those canidates who support gun control, and if they don't they should shut the h*ll up.
*Note the preceding message is not an attack on any forum member here, but is an attack against people bitching about how government is run, not voting to actually make there opinions heard and then bitching more because no one is listening.*
------------------ Somehow you were linked to this page, which doesn't really exist. Well, this one does, but the one you were trying to get to doesn't. Actually, that's not really true either, because it probably does, but either you mistyped it or our webmaster is asleep at the wheel. If the later is the case (you were linked here from a page within **********.net) then please let us know.
If you were linked here from an external site, which is most often the case, it would be nice of you to let them know.
posted
Not only do most people think it's not a significant issue, most people DON'T think gun restrictions will help reduce crime. That's just what the media would have you think.
*hopes Fo2 will show up with his scads of info to back him up*
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
posted
But Whitestar, the gun issue is just one issue among many. Because of the nature of the American two-party politics, a vote against guns is, generally speaking, also a vote for a more liberal ideology, for abortion, and against massive tax and spending cuts. A vote for guns is, generally speaking, also a vote for a more conservative ideology, for capital punishment, and for less government-involvement in the lives of the individual.
The problem with the multi-tiered American democratic system is that a majority of Americans might want lower taxes and therefore elect a predominantly Republican Congress. In that very same election, a majority of Americans might also elect a Democrat president who fights for gun control. Unfortunately, that gun control can never be realized so long as the Congress will vote partisanly in accordance to the Republican Party's policy of backing prio-gun special-interest groups.
The problem with the United States is that issues of citizens rights are tied into political ideology too deeply, and that inhibits change.
------------------ The above post was mulled-over, composed, and posted during time Tom would have better spent on his plethora of homework and homework-related exercises. Now don't you feel special?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
