Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (39327)	3/16/2005 7:14:03 PM
From: fresc	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

NRA LOBBYISTS, The lowest of the low! What money can do to a politician. HEY RED! Yes, 32,436 people in the United States were killed by guns in 1997. Over 13,000 homicides, 17,000 suicides and 2,000 accidental deaths. Firearm injuries, some causing permanent disabilities, also claimed over 70,000 victims. The National Rife Association says that guns don't kill people, insisting that people kill people. In reference to Gun control bills in Congress, Columnist Molly Ivins says: "Guns don't kill bills; lobbyists do." In the recent brutal shooting in a Wendy's in New York City, two gunmen bound and gagged the employees and shot them in cold blood. Suppose they hadn't had a gun, would these murders have occurred? This episode was followed by the gun death of a teacher in Lake Worth, FL by a disgruntled 13 year old student. The student had been sent home for throwing water balloons. The gun was a semiautomatic 5 inches long and can easily be concealed. If this student hadn't had a gun the teacher would be alive today and the student would be planning his summer vacation instead of facing an bleak future in jail. Suicides in homes where a gun is present are five times more likely than in homes without a gun. Gun murders and suicides are daily events in the United States. It is difficult to measure the total and long lasting damage done to American families and to our entire culture. Comments by mothers in the recent Million Moms march in Washington reflect some of the human anguish that extends for a lifetime. The goals of the Million Moms March are simple enough: 1) Licensing and registration of handguns; 2) Background checks for gun buyers; 3) Require manufacturers to put trigger locks on guns; and 4) A one per-month limit on handgun purchases. If implemented there would be no interference on legitimate purchase and use of guns for recreational uses. So why the objections? Common Cause calculates that the NRA has given over $8 million to politicians over he last decade. It could get worse. A recent New York Times headline stated: "Relying on Bush, Gun Makers End Talks. His Presidency Could Make a Settlement Unnecessary, They Say." Some political analysts suggest that George W. Bush was first elected Texas Governor in 1994 because he promised to sign a law making it legal to carry concealed handguns. The then popular Democratic Governor, Ann Richards, was against this legislation, and the NRA went all out to elect Bush and the legislation became law. Violence on TV is pervasive in the American culture. Studies indicate that people who watch more TV are more likely to believe that they are unsafe, that crime is rising and that they need to protect themselves so they buy more guns. Much publicity is given to the rare occasions when a gun is used to thwart a crime but the thousands of deaths from misuse of firearms is such an everyday event that we have tuned it out. But those moms and other family members and friends who have lost a loved one remember every day. Research has shown that the self-defense argument for gun ownership is seriously flawed. Homes with guns are 43 more likely to be used to kill a household member or friend than to stop an intruder. Other studies indicate that the use of a gun to resist a violent assault significantly increases the victims chances of getting hurt or killed. And what about the second amendment crowd? This is how the amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." One recognized encyclopedia has this comment: "This amendment prohibits only the national government from limiting the right to carry weapons. The amendment was adopted so that Congress could not disarm state militia." Many historians and constitutional legal authorities interpret this amendment, in the context of the time when it was passed (as does the encyclopedia), to mean that the Federal government could not prohibit state militia, and we continue to have the State National Guards. The amendment was not intended to be a blanket license for everyone to have their own private arsenal. This is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the NRA and its supporters. There are several court decisions backing this position. In 1971 (Stevens vs U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit) ruled, "Since the second amendment right to keep and bear arms applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any expressed constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." The Seventh Circuit came to a similar conclusion in 1982. The Supreme Court has never ruled explicitly on this issue but a 1992 decision, supported by the Conservative majority (Renhnquist, Souter, O'Connor) stated, "Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one (U.S.S.C. 5861, 5871)." The majority of Americans clearly want stronger gun control laws. If Congress would only ignore the gun lobby and act to reduce the gun bloodbath we are mired in, the nation would be grateful. Strong gun laws, which provoked a constitutional challenge, would put to rest the "second amendment" myth for it seems almost certain the Supreme Court would rule against the gun lobbyists. We should work toward this goal. Robert H. Linnell

To: Srexley who wrote (39327)	3/17/2005 5:59:03 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

And what about abortion too. Those poor little fellas didn't even do anything wrong. A fetus has no rights under US law. A fetus had no rights under biblical law. The Framers did not enumerate any rights for a fetus and abortion was permitted under the law at the time. We do have "inalienable" rights. They can't be taken away without cause. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The distinction you are missing is that rights can be taken away to protect the public. That just sends chills down my Constitutional spine. But if you want to believe that, then we can take away guns to protect the public. If you just "think" you are threatened, but cannot convince the jurors of that, you will go to jail for manslaughter or murder. We're living in different countries. Here in the US the prosecution has to prove a crime has been committed. In your country the defendent has to prove he's innocent. I like our system better. "I'm not sure what happens to the poor atheists here" You have rights too. Point being about the creator is not who the creator is. It is that rights are not given by humans. I'm not an atheist. Atheist don't believe there was a creator, hence they don't believe the Creator endowed them with anything. Why would one feel that other humans are so superior that they should tell them what their rights are. I suspect it has more to do with there's not a lot of people who have one-on-ones with God. It also has to do with the inconsistencies between religions as to exactly what God said. We would be able to do away with that if everyone belonged to the only true Church, which as we all know is the Roman Catholic Church. [Which is clear as day for those that have read the New Testament.] In the highly unliley event that someone dies by my gun, it will be his fault. That's good enough for me. jttmab