# Shooting in Tucson



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

What is to blame for this? Maniacs with easy access to guns? Dangerous rhetoric from politicians? Gun culture? A culture that celebrates violence? Sarah Palin's "targets"?
Whichever it is, it's a damning indictment on the land of the free.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I blame the maniacs!!


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Whichever it is, it's a damning indictment on the land of the free.


How so?


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

It's the natural outcome of the fascist propaganda machine. What the hell did you think would happen when you talk about "2nd amendment solutions" or "reload" or "targets". Lock the fascists up until the trial is over and then hang the bastards. Maybe it's time for some liberal retribution a sort of "eye for an eye" - my guns are ready.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

There are over three hundred million people in this country. Two hundred and ninety-nine million, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand two hundred and ninety-nine have never shot a congressperson. That so many of us are so well behaved is a triumph. 

This particular instance is the responsibility of one deranged man, not part of a societal failure in any way.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

sowilson said:


> It's the natural outcome of the fascist propaganda machine. What the hell did you think would happen when you talk about "2nd amendment solutions" or "reload" or "targets". Lock the fascists up until the trial is over and then hang the bastards. Maybe it's time for some liberal retribution a sort of "eye for an eye" - my guns are ready.


A curious response considering (1) fascists were/are liberals/progressives; and (2) fascists, like other totalitarians, strongly favored gun prohibitions.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

harvey_birdman said:


> This particular instance is the responsibility of one deranged man, not part of a societal failure in any way.


Isn't it interesting that Maj. Hassan shoots numerous people and immediately the media calls for "restraint," yet Loughner shoots numerous people and immediately the media calls for silencing political speech?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

smujd said:


> A curious response considering (1) fascists were/are liberals/progressives; and (2) fascists, like other totalitarians, strongly favored gun prohibitions.


fascists are liberal? Hitler was a leftist when he opposed the right wing communists?


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

young guy said:


> fascists are liberal? Hitler was a leftist when he opposed the right wing communists?


Read up on your history son. Hitler/Nazis were populist socialists as were the fascists in Italy. And, of course, Hitler and Mr. Stalin were partners until the Fuhrer decided opening an eastern front was a good idea.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

smujd said:


> Isn't it interesting that Maj. Hassan shoots numerous people and immediately the media calls for "restraint," yet Loughner shoots numerous people and immediately the media calls for silencing political speech?


Check out how "Google News" now lists under "Top Stories" a link to a blog titled "Palins's Target list."

Journalism's been dead for some time now.

I liked this response...



> Katy,
> This is possibly one of the most irresponsible pieces of "journalism" I've come across in quite some time. Rep. Gifford was a blue-dog and pro-life, yet you're going to push this narrative that her death was the result of right-wing extremism. You have no idea what happened here! I f*cking knew this would happen as soon I saw the reports of her shooting this morning. Our country is awash in sickening and dangerous hyperbole and subversive partisanship. Shame on you, Katy, for feeding the fire.


Another...



> Of course, in real journalism, this would be pointed out. But spin gets you so much more attention. That's why Google is also posting this as front page news - a blog. No wait, its a blog pointing to another blog.
> Journalism is so dead!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

blairrob said:


> Read up on your history son. Hitler/Nazis were populist socialists as were the fascists in Italy. And, of course, Hitler and Mr. Stalin were partners until the Fuhrer decided opening an eastern front was a good idea.


weren't we partners with Stalin too?


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

young guy said:


> weren't we partners with Stalin too?


Yes youngguy, we were. Once Hitler opened up that eastern front and a half million or more Russian troops died at Stalingrad his relationship with Stalin, I would say, suffered somewhat. Stalin, FDR, and Churchill would later meet several times secretly, once on a battleship off Newfoundland, as leaders of the Allies. Russia also switched sides during WWl. (WouldaShoulda was probably around for that one too).

youngBlair


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

When did Stalin meet Roosevelt and Churchill on HMS Prince of Wales? I know that Churchill and Roosevelt met at Placentia; perhaps Stalin was there in disguise. I thought that they met at Tehran and Yalta.
When did Russia change sides in WW1? They surrendered in 1918, viz the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but the didn't join the Central Powers, they just ended hostilities with them.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

smujd said:


> A curious response considering (1) fascists were/are liberals/progressives; and (2) fascists, like other totalitarians, strongly favored gun prohibitions.


The Nazis (National Socialist German Worker's Party) were socialists. They weren't liberals by any strech of the imagination!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

smujd said:


> How so?


How many more massacres of innocents by maniacs with guns do you need before realising that allowing maniacs to legally aquire guns isn't something to be proud of?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> ...allowing maniacs to legally aquire guns isn't something to be proud of?


Check your facts.

It's already illegal for maniacs to own guns in the US.

Problem is, no one wants to offened the afflicted by labeling them "maniacs!!"

What would that do to their self-esteem??


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Chouan said:


> When did Stalin meet Roosevelt and Churchill on HMS Prince of Wales? _I know that Churchill and Roosevelt met at Placentia; perhaps Stalin was there in disguise_. I thought that they met at Tehran and Yalta.
> When did Russia change sides in WW1? They surrendered in 1918, viz the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but the didn't join the Central Powers, they just ended hostilities with them.


Sorry, you are correct, Stalin was disguised as a pastry chef at Placentia; he first attended sans disguise at Tehran.



Chouan said:


> _When did Russia change sides in WW1?_ They surrendered in 1918, viz the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but the didn't join the Central Powers, they just ended hostilities with them.


After the February revolution and the collapse of the Eastern Front the allies _were_ at war with the Bolshevik armies even though they had not joined with the Central Powers. This includes battles in Siberia and around the White Sea, though I believe I'm telling you nothing you don't already know. The fact is Russia started out fighting in 1914 in Germany/Poland with the Allies and ended up fighting against the Allies in 1918. They were certainly on a different side of the war at the beginning from where they ended.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Whichever it is, it's a damning indictment on the land of the free.


As it turns out, one of Loughner's former classmates describes him as a left-wing pothead. So, the shooting is actually a damning indictment of liberals and/or potheads--right?


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Chouan said:


> The Nazis (National Socialist German Worker's Party) were socialists. They weren't liberals by any strech of the imagination!!


How so?

And why, then, did/do both self-identify as "progressives?" How odd.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Whenever innocents die at the hands of a nut case, you can usually look up and see Liberals cutting lazy circles in the sky over the dead bodies, looking for any scraps of freedom they can pick off the bones...


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Liberty Ship said:


> Whenever innocents die at the hands of a nut case, you can usually look up and see Liberals cutting lazy circles in the sky over the dead bodies, looking for any scraps of freedom they can pick off the bones...


...._as the larvae of Conservatives are hatching in the eyes and nostrils of the corpses_.

I don't think trying to make hay of a tragedy is solely the domain of liberals. It's simply the domain of politicians. Regardless of stripe.

I don't I'm going to add that quote to my signature. I'll wait for the next one.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Liberty Ship said:


> Whenever innocents die at the hands of a nut case, you can usually look up and see Liberals cutting lazy circles in the sky over the dead bodies, looking for any scraps of freedom they can pick off the bones...


I quite like this.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Chouan said:


> What is to blame for this? Maniacs with easy access to guns? Dangerous rhetoric from politicians? Gun culture? A culture that celebrates violence? Sarah Palin's "targets"?
> Whichever it is, it's a damning indictment on the land of the free.


Damning indictment of the land of the free? Maybe so, but not nearly as damning as Europe's decision to stand idly by while the thugs in Minsk stole another election.

And considering that Sweden has had two high level government officials murdered in the last 25 years (Palme in 86 and the Foreign Minister a few years ago) and Holland has had two political murders in the last 8 years, the violence US elected officials is exceedingly rare.

One doesnt even have to metion all the mafia related murders in Italy and the murders of prominent journalists in the UK and Ireland to come to the conclusion that public life is far more dangerous in Europe than it is in the US.

Surely you can direct your anti-Americanism in more novel ways.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Chouan, the fact that you're using this tragedy to promote your usual brand of anti-United States rhetoric is alarming at best and sickening at its worst.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Chouan, the fact that you're using this tragedy to promote your usual brand of anti-United States rhetoric is alarming at best and sickening at its worst.


Usual brand of Anti-Americanism? What anti-Americanism? As I've pointed out elsewhere, there seems to be a school of thought that any criticism of anything done by Americans is anti-Americanism. It isn't. It is, in this case, criticism of allowing maniacs to purchase guns.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Damning indictment of the land of the free? Maybe so, but not nearly as damning as Europe's decision to stand idly by while the thugs in Minsk stole another election.
> 
> And considering that Sweden has had two high level government officials murdered in the last 25 years (Palme in 86 and the Foreign Minister a few years ago) and Holland has had two political murders in the last 8 years, the violence US elected officials is exceedingly rare.
> 
> ...


I'm unaware of any murder of a prominent journalist in the UK. Please enlighten me.

"Usual brand of Anti-Americanism? What anti-Americanism? As I've pointed out elsewhere, there seems to be a school of thought that any criticism of anything done by Americans is anti-Americanism. It isn't. It is, in this case, criticism of allowing maniacs to purchase guns."

This, I think, adequately responds to your final point. Because people don't like some features of American culture or politics, or policy, doesn't make them anti-American.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Sarah Palin's "targets"?


Um...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Ummm....









This is what I meant.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> This is what I meant.


Of course you did.

There are even ignorant, lazy and inflamatory local Sheriffs jumping in on the bandwagon...



> "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
> 
> Dupnik hasn't backed down from his remarks, *even though no ties have publicly surfaced between the suspect in the shootings and conservative political groups*.


https://www.baltimoresun.com/la-na-arizona-shooting-sheriffs-20110111,0,1502818.story

I hate to form any conclusions before all the facts are in, but it appears Sheriff Dupnik "acted stupidly!!"


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

As a lifetime shooter and a past participant in orienteering, I immediately recognized that the Democrats had used BULLSEYES on their map, while Sarah Palin, an experienced outdoors person, had used topographic map symbols for principal points on hers -- Cross hairs do not exceed the boundaries of the lens. Principal points indicate location. Bullseyes indicate targets. 

While I don't have a problem with either map, let's be accurate. Applying the Liberal calculus, the Democrat's map is more egregious.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Liberty Ship said:


> While I don't have a problem with either map, let's be accurate. Applying the Liberal calculus, the Democrat's map is more egregious.


But their timing was better!! 

Sheriff Dipshit speaks again...



> *Sheriff Calls for National Commission on 'Civility'*
> 
> Dupnik said he'd like to see the federal government establish some kind of commission to deal with civility in the United States and make recommendations about how to get it back.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ari...rresponsible-vitriol/story?id=12583285&page=2

In legal parlance this type of example is referred to as "fox smells his own hole!!"


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Chouan said:


> I'm unaware of any murder of a prominent journalist in the UK. Please enlighten me.
> 
> "Usual brand of Anti-Americanism? What anti-Americanism? As I've pointed out elsewhere, there seems to be a school of thought that any criticism of anything done by Americans is anti-Americanism. It isn't. It is, in this case, criticism of allowing maniacs to purchase guns."
> 
> This, I think, adequately responds to your final point. Because people don't like some features of American culture or politics, or policy, doesn't make them anti-American.


Its shocking how little you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Dando

There are 300 hundred million people in the US, the actions of a crazed man dont make those actions "American" as you seem to imply. But perhaps you too believe words don't mean anything.

And I notice you dont comment at the appallingly high number of public figures murdered in Europe (and I am not talking about Eastern Europe or the Balkans either.)


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

A lot of this is about "optics." A terrible crime is committed with a gun in a country that has a "love affair" with guns, this makes it easy to say it is a result of the culture. Statistically one such crime does not mean that it is more or less common than in other jurisdictions.

The only potential point here is what motivated the guy (pure insanity or was it truly political rhetoric)? Of course if he could not get 32 round clips that might have reduced the impact... (no idea if the clip was legal or not, if it was that IS insane).


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

nosajwols said:


> Of course if he could not get 32 round clips that might have reduced the impact... (no idea if the clip was legal or not, if it was that IS insane).


He had magazines, not clips. And yes, 33 round Glock magazines are legal.

33 round magazines are no more insane than 33 gallon fuel tanks on vehicles.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I think it would be unwise, to say the least, to write laws or set national agendas based on how insane people interpret reality. Remember, for example, that David Berkowitz committed the Son of Sam murders because a German Shepherd told him to. Would the proper response to have banned all dogs or just German Shepherds? We don't know what, exactly, triggered the Tuscon shooter; and if and when we do it will quite likely make no sense at all. 

As I see it, one game being played here is that there is a push to force agendas and probably pass laws before it is revealed just how crazy this shooter is. Once that is apparent, no rational person would follow an agenda in reaction to his behavior. We shouldn't let a crazy person drive the bus.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

smujd said:


> He had magazines, not clips. And yes, 33 round Glock magazines are legal.
> 
> 33 round magazines are no more insane than 33 gallon fuel tanks on vehicles.


Lucky for me my one car has a 9 gallon tank and the other has a 15...


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

nosajwols said:


> Of course if he could not get 32 round clips that might have reduced the impact... (no idea if the clip was legal or not, if it was that IS insane).


 According to reports, he fired off a 30 round magazine and one more in the chamber, for a total of 31 rounds. With a little practice, pistol magazines can be reloaded very quickly. In most cases, that renders the magazine capacity argument moot but thankfully, in this case the shooter was not particularly adept at reloading. *edit* It seems that a faulty spring prevented the second magazine from loading any rounds into the chamber, so, mechanical, not human error.

My question is, if it's so easy to legally purchase and carry firearms anywhere in Arizona, why didn't one single person at the scene have a firearm with which to defend themselves and others from the shooter? A semi-auto pistol is not a machine gun. It' takes a LONG time to fire, absorb the recoil and reacquire targets for 31 shots, allowing at least some time for someone carrying concealed to take action. Then again, I wasn't there and can't second guess the survivor's actions.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Its shocking how little you know.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Dando
> 
> ...


She was a television presenter, hardly a "prominent journalist". I could also suggest that your assertions sound much more "anti-European" than mine are "anti-American".
We aren't talking about one crazed man, but the latest in a series of crazed people with automatic weapons.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Chouan said:


> She was a television presenter, hardly a "prominent journalist". I could also suggest that your assertions sound much more "anti-European" than mine are "anti-American".
> We aren't talking about one crazed man, but the latest in a series of crazed people with automatic weapons.


So perhaps the most popular broadcaster on the BBC isn't a prominent journalist? You are delusional.

And the have been mass shootings in the UK and Germany as well. And Finland seems to have a lot of them.

And my assertations are not anti-European (there is no doubt I know Europe far better than you know the US), just the facts.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> As a lifetime shooter and a past participant in orienteering, I immediately recognized that the Democrats had used BULLSEYES on their map, while Sarah Palin, an experienced outdoors person, had used topographic map symbols for principal points on hers -- Cross hairs do not exceed the boundaries of the lens. * Principal points indicate location. * Bullseyes indicate targets.


NICE TRY LIBERTY....lol

ANYONE that has ever shot a gun knows there are many different kinds of sights on many different kinds of weapons. Those were CLEARLY gun sights on her map - especially coming from a pac that has CONSISTENTLY used language like *"Dont Retreat...instead, RELOAD"*

Palin could have done herself (and her party) a much bigger service to use the opportunity to talk about how devicive things have become, and how she would like to take this opportunity to usher in a change in direction - in hopes of healing our broken political process. Instead, she tries to scrub her website and facebook page of all mentions of the her "reload" comments - and all images of the famous poster...and then has the audacity to try and convince us that we are idiots, and that those are surveyor's symbols.

I dont think there is any real connection between Palin and her over the top BS propaganda and what happened in Tucson. But to try and claim those are not crosshairs makes Palin (and you Liberty)* sound like fools*.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Karl89 said:


> So perhaps the most popular broadcaster on the BBC isn't a prominent journalist? You are delusional.


No, you are delusional. She would be a journalist if she researched/ wrote the news stories she was presenting (or any others); most presenters these days, however, have that work done for them. Most presenters/ news readers achieve prominence these days as readers, not journalists, unlike the days of yore where you became a journalist first.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Chouan said:


> We aren't talking about one crazed man, but the latest in a series of crazed people with *automatic *weapons.


Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated in the US since 1934. I believe the alleged shooter used a semi-automatic pistol- one shot fired per pull of the trigger. Unless you're into Cowboy Action Shooting or collecting, it's rather rare to see a pistol that doesn't fit that description.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Usual brand of Anti-Americanism? What anti-Americanism? As I've pointed out elsewhere, there seems to be a school of thought that any criticism of anything done by Americans is anti-Americanism. It isn't. It is, in this case, criticism of allowing maniacs to purchase guns.


You read too much in the news and of course fail to get the facts.
There is much speculation about his supposed mental health (a fictional state of being in and of itself) and they play it up to the max in the news. In reality we know little about his state of mind. He was an offbeat, obnoxious individual but that discribes so many young people these days that the only thing for sure is that he fell at the low end of normal behavior. That has nothing to do with being a maniac. Prior to this he knew how much he could get away with and had a fairly clean record. That is not insanity, just pushing the limits. 
As for guns and nuts, there are bound to be a few but you don't seem to realise just how rare it is. You hear about this one shooting but never hear about the MILLIONS of folks sitting at home cleaning their rifles and not shooting anyone. Statistically it is irrelevant to tie guns with being crazy.
You are no safer in England now than before they implemented their foolish gun control measures so why should we even consider following the obviously failed machinations of the British. You don't understand the American way so you shouldn't try to judge it, especially using a very unusual event as the basis for an opinion.

I will go back to cleaning my 1912 Steyr mauser now. Aren't you jealous ;-)


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Country Irish said:


> You read too much in the news and of course fail to get the facts.





Country Irish said:


> You read too much in the news and of course fail to get the facts. There is much speculation about his supposed mental health (a fictional state of being in and of itself) and they play it up to the max in the news. In reality we know little about his state of mind. He was an offbeat, obnoxious individual but that discribes so many young people these days that the only thing for sure is that he fell at the low end of normal behavior. That has nothing to do with being a maniac. Prior to this he knew how much he could get away with and had a fairly clean record. That is not insanity, just pushing the limits.


This is funny stuff.

You tell us about "failing to get the facts" - and then go on to state your own unenlightened "opinions" - and try to pass them off as facts. What a joke.

First off, you NO CLUE whether the shooter is or is not mentally ill - so the very thing you are accusing many other of doing, you go right ahead and do yourself - i.e. make a whole bunch of ASSUMPTIONS.

The media is reporting the *FACT* that he was kicked out of college for demonstrating dangerous and mentally unstable behavior, as well as the *FACT* that he has lots of incoherent, rambling writings on his facebook and blog pages.

What FACTS do you have to refute these factually corroborated statements?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

hardline_42 said:


> Unless you're into Cowboy Action Shooting or collecting, it's rather rare to see a pistol that doesn't fit that description.


You know what else is rare? Finding a legitimate reason why ANYONE not in law enforcement would need an extended capacity clip like the suspect had on Saturday. No hunter would need to shoot 30 rounds before reloading, nor would any target shooter. Hell, most police officers are carrying 12 to 15 shot clips. So why are 30 round clips legal?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> You read too much in the news and of course fail to get the facts.
> There is much speculation about his supposed mental health (a fictional state of being in and of itself) and they play it up to the max in the news. In reality we know little about his state of mind. He was an offbeat, obnoxious individual but that discribes so many young people these days that the only thing for sure is that he fell at the low end of normal behavior. That has nothing to do with being a maniac. Prior to this he knew how much he could get away with and had a fairly clean record. That is not insanity, just pushing the limits.
> As for guns and nuts, there are bound to be a few but you don't seem to realise just how rare it is. You hear about this one shooting but never hear about the MILLIONS of folks sitting at home cleaning their rifles and not shooting anyone. Statistically it is irrelevant to tie guns with being crazy.
> You are no safer in England now than before they implemented their foolish gun control measures so why should we even consider following the obviously failed machinations of the British. You don't understand the American way so you shouldn't try to judge it, especially using a very unusual event as the basis for an opinion.
> ...


On what basis do you assert that I am no safer after the introduction of "foolish gun control measures"? I feel pretty certain that I'm unlikely to be shot by a maniac with a semi-automatic pistol or assault rifle. There is no reason at all why individuals should keep firearms at home, unless they are farmers licensed to use a shotgun. If you NEED to handle other firearms, keep them secure in the secure premises of a firearm club.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> You know what else is rare? Finding a legitimate reason why ANYONE not in law enforcement would need an extended capacity clip like the suspect had on Saturday. No hunter would need to shoot 30 rounds before reloading, nor would any target shooter. Hell, most police officers are carrying 12 to 15 shot clips. So why are 30 round clips legal?


 It's not a clip, it's a magazine. A clip is something different. As for limiting access to firearms and accessories based on "need," it's been tried before. Full and extended capacity magazines, along with a list of specific firearms as well as some cosmetic features, were made illegal in 1994 under the Assault Weapons Ban using the same reasoning. The law was not very effective in reducing crime and was allowed to expire.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> This is funny stuff.
> 
> You tell us about "failing to get the facts" - and then go on to state your own unenlightened "opinions" - and try to pass them off as facts. What a joke.
> 
> ...


You state I have no clue about his mental state but I said specifically "In reality we know little about his state of mind.". I pointed out his actions in a general way but none of what you or I said is proof of insanity. Where do you get your assessment of my comments?

General chatter (this is called opinion by some):
His behavior was outside the desired parameters of society but that is not unusual. His so called ramblings are just bits and pieces of information completely without reference to to overall context of his thought process. You may have diagnosed some mental illness without tangible proof. 
You see what you want to see. There are many explanations of his actions prior to the shooting which are well within the realm of sanity. In fact there is no real line marking the end of sanity. It is not a FACT regarding his behavior is school, only opinion. His style of writing on facebook are not unheard of and only prove slipshod writing skills and incomplete reflections of his thoughts. That might make him functionally illiterate or maybe not. It is proof of nothing in and of itself. His actions remain unexplained at this point.
You know nothing of sanity because even the so called professionals know little of the workings of the human mind (although they try to claim otherwise). You know little of the legal implications of the situation because none of us know this since the facts are still being discovered. All we know for sure is the fact that he killed people but that is definitely not an indication of insanity. Sane people murder daily. Mentally ill people rarely do.

Back to you:
You read a few snippets of information along with the ramblings of cops and shrinks who simply want to see their own names in the paper and you think you know the story. Neither you nor I know much so far. The difference is that you seem to have already certified innuendo and trivia as fact , and interpreted my comments (badly) . Go back to CSI Miami where everything is simple, straight forward and ends in an hour.

The bottom line is that the only fact is that people are dead. Opinions are fine but don't take my opinions as fact and don't claim facts which are not... especially those cited in newspaper hysteria.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"So why are 30 round clips legal? "

Are you of the opinion that everything should be illegal until approved by the state?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> So perhaps the most popular broadcaster on the BBC isn't a prominent journalist? You are delusional.
> 
> And the have been mass shootings in the UK and Germany as well. And Finland seems to have a lot of them.
> 
> And my assertations are not anti-European (there is no doubt I know Europe far better than you know the US), just the facts.


You've been reading the tabloids too much. Being *A* popular television presenter doesn't make one a journalist, in any case she was popular, but hardly the most popular presenter, never mind broadcaster! She was probably assassinated by a Serbian organisation because of Britain's operations in the Balkans.

You are of course correct in stating that there have been massacres in Britain. After Hungerford assault rifles and all automatic weapons were banned from private ownership, and other firearms had to be kept locked up in a secure place, inspected by the Police. After Dunblane, handguns were banned from leaving secure premises. This suggests to me that Britain at least has recognised the danger of private possession of firearms, and how unnecessary it is to own one. It may not absolutely prevent a maniac from carrying out a mass murder, but it would make it a lot harder to do. In the US all I've seen is a lot of whinging by what I will call the gun lobby arguing that they should carry guns if they want to and that guns aren't responsible for mass murders, whenever one of your massacres occurs. This strikes a non-American that you'd rather have the mass-murders than give up your right to have guns. Looks like a love affair with the firearm to me.....

I'm glad that you're so confident in your knowledge about another continent. I'm glad that you're so confident that your knowledge is so much more secure than mine. Are you aware of how arrogant your assertion is? An assertion for which you have no evidence at all!
I criticise something in America and I'm condemned as anti-American. You criticise something in Europe, but you couldn't possibly be anti-European! The paradox in your views would be laughable if you weren't so serious.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> NICE TRY LIBERTY....lol
> 
> ANYONE that has ever shot a gun knows there are many different kinds of sights on many different kinds of weapons. Those were CLEARLY gun sights on her map - especially coming from a pac that has CONSISTENTLY used language like *"Dont Retreat...instead, RELOAD"*
> 
> ...


The symbols on the map are clearly what would be indicators of principal points or bench marks -- survey markers. The fact that the cross hairs extend beyond the circle are proof of that. Undoubtedly, they were part of the graphics package associated with the mapping software used to create the map. The exact symbol can be found in the legends of various types of maps. Many knowledgeable, less reactive people recognized that immediately.

Here is an example of what those symbols would normally represent:










The symbol is placed on the map to help reconcile the map to the landscape. Thus, the overlaid "cross" for the purpose of aligning the map grid; and it is this cross that is represented in the symbol.

While I agree with the map creator that it was a likely indicator, the fact that the symbol may have been interpreted to be some thing it wasn't by the uninformed or insane is really beyond his control.

Cross hairs exist outside the context of rifle scopes. They can be found in telescopes, survey tools, levels, and represented as graphics in a variety of indexing functions. Some of the cross hairs in your attached graphic are rifle and handgun scope reticles, some are not.

Associating these symbols with rifle scopes is akin to banning the word, "niggardly," on the grounds of racism.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> You know what else is rare? Finding a legitimate reason why ANYONE not in law enforcement would need an extended capacity clip like the suspect had on Saturday. No hunter would need to shoot 30 rounds before reloading, nor would any target shooter. Hell, most police officers are carrying 12 to 15 shot clips. So why are 30 round clips legal?


The only reasons that comes to mind to have or need such a high capacity magazine is combat or maybe if you are expecting to defend yourself against some sort of zombie attack. Even sport shooters would likely prefer less for no other reason than to improve the gun balance.

While I agree banning that size magazine will not reduce crime I still have to ask the question why not? (and in this case they stopped him when he was reloading, so a smaller magazine limit may have saved lives).


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Chouan said:


> You've been reading the tabloids too much. Being *A* popular television presenter doesn't make one a journalist, in any case she was popular, but hardly the most popular presenter, never mind broadcaster! She was probably assassinated by a Serbian organisation because of Britain's operations in the Balkans.
> 
> You are of course correct in stating that there have been massacres in Britain. After Hungerford assault rifles and all automatic weapons were banned from private ownership, and other firearms had to be kept locked up in a secure place, inspected by the Police. After Dunblane, handguns were banned from leaving secure premises. This suggests to me that Britain at least has recognised the danger of private possession of firearms, and how unnecessary it is to own one. It may not absolutely prevent a maniac from carrying out a mass murder, but it would make it a lot harder to do. In the US all I've seen is a lot of whinging by what I will call the gun lobby arguing that they should carry guns if they want to and that guns aren't responsible for mass murders, whenever one of your massacres occurs. This strikes a non-American that you'd rather have the mass-murders than give up your right to have guns. Looks like a love affair with the firearm to me.....
> 
> ...


Dando was a journalist and had a a career as a reporter prior to her tme as a newspaper presenter. If you and others wih to play semantics then by all means feel free, thoughthat is usually the last refuge of a person who an make their argument

And Ameicans value their rights and know that freedom entails a cost. The right to bear arms comes with a cost but to surrender a freedom is far costlier. Europeans have been far more willing to surrender their rights than Americans and most don't really have a clue what freedom costs as they are shielded from defense expenditures under the umbrella of Pax Americana.

But the fact remains that it is for more dangerous to be in public life in Europe than it is in the US. For all the European prohibitions on guns political violence is far more common there than in the US and that is far more troubling than the deranged actions of crazy people.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> She was probably assassinated by a Serbian organisation because of Britain's operations in the Balkans.


If we only reached out and understood why terrorists and maniacs hate us they would stop!! :rolleyes2:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Country Irish said:


> The bottom line is that the only fact is that people are dead. Opinions are fine but don't take my opinions as fact and don't claim facts which are not... especially those cited in newspaper hysteria.


Since you cant back up anything you have said here as more than your opinion, you are trying to paint everything else we know about this situation with the same broad stroke, which is not only dishonest -but patently false.

We DO know a number of facts. These are not opinions, they are substantiated facts about the situation. The fact that you chose to stick your head in the sand and ignore them doesnt make them go away.

1) The suspect was kicked out of college - that is a FACT.
2) The police at his college were called on no less than 5 occasions because of his outbursts and threatening behavior - that is a FACT
3) He was eventually suspended from that college and told he could not return without proof of a mental health evaluation - that is a FACT
4) He has been arrested multiple times over the last year or two - that is a FACT
5) He was denied entry into the US Army becasue of a failed drug test - that is a FACT

But yeah - no one really knows any facts about this guy.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> Cross hairs exist outside the context of rifle scopes. They can be found in telescopes, survey tools, levels, and represented as graphics in a variety of indexing functions. Some of the cross hairs in your attached graphic are rifle and handgun scope reticles, some are not.
> 
> Associating these symbols with rifle scopes is akin to banning the word, "niggardly," on the grounds of racism.


So if these are "survey symbols" - why did Sarah Palin have her websites scrubbed of all mention of them in the hours after the incident?

To quote one of the left's favorite sayings after the Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI were listening to Americans phone calls under the guise of homeland security? "If you havent done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"

Funny how people to try and have it both ways.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Since you cant back up anything you have said here as more than your opinion, you are trying to paint everything else we know about this situation with the same broad stroke, which is not only dishonest -but patently false.


I give bloggers a pass, not so with the Sheriff in charge of the investiagtion locally.

Check out how out of touch the Washington Post is on reporting on Dipshit's irresponsible and inflamatory comments...



> In a news conference Saturday evening, Dupnik condemned the "atmosphere of hatred and bigotry" that he said has gripped the nation and suggested that the 22-year-old suspect being held in the shooting was mentally ill and therefore more susceptible to overheated messages in the media.
> "There's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," he said during his televised remarks. "People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

nosajwols said:


> The only reasons that comes to mind to have or need such a high capacity magazine is combat or maybe if you are expecting to defend yourself against some sort of zombie attack. Even sport shooters would likely prefer less for no other reason than to improve the gun balance.
> 
> While I agree banning that size magazine will not reduce crime I still have to ask the question why not? (and in this case they stopped him when he was reloading, so a smaller magazine limit may have saved lives).


Completely right. I watched an interview with the Director of the ATF during the VA Tech shootings - and he said only a limited number of federal agents with true need have more than 12 to 15 bullets in each clip.

The only reason to have 30 bullets ready to go, is if you intend on killing humans. Period.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I give bloggers a pass, not so with the Sheriff in charge of the investiagtion locally.
> 
> Check out how out of touch the Washington Post is on reporting on Dipshit's irresponsible and inflamatory comments...


So what?

Does the fact that the Sheriff expressed an opinion change anything about the facts we already know? NO it doesn't.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> So what?
> 
> Does the fact that the Sheriff expressed an opinion change anything about the facts we already know? NO it doesn't.


You mean including there having been NO LINKAGE between his act and the alleged "vitriol??"

No, the Sheriff's ignorant and unprofessional statements do not change or alter the facts.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

nosajwols said:


> The only reasons that comes to mind to have or need such a high capacity magazine is combat or maybe if you are expecting to defend yourself against some sort of zombie attack. Even sport shooters would likely prefer less for no other reason than to improve the gun balance.
> 
> While I agree banning that size magazine will not reduce crime I still have to ask the question why not? (and in this case they stopped him when he was reloading, so a smaller magazine limit may have saved lives).


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Completely right. I watched an interview with the Director of the ATF during the VA Tech shootings - and he said only a limited number of federal agents with true need have more than 12 to 15 bullets in each clip.
> 
> The only reason to have 30 bullets ready to go, is if you intend on killing humans. Period.


Let's work on terminology. First, you are talking about magazines, not clips--they are different. Second, both magazines and clips hold cartidges or rounds, not bullets.

With that out of the way, I have yet to hear any explaination for why magazine capacity should be limited (much less limited to 10 rounds or fewer--an arbitrary number to be sure).

Why would I want a 33 round Glock magazine? Home defense to be sure. In protecting my family, I want as many rounds as I can get.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

nosajwols said:


> While I agree banning that size magazine will not reduce crime I still have to ask the question why not? (and in this case they stopped him when he was reloading, so a smaller magazine limit may have saved lives).


 If the point of making laws is to reduce (more like punish) crime, and a certain law is ineffective, why keep it on the books?

By the way, the shooter was stopped by a few very brave bystanders because a) he dropped his second magazine and someone grabbed it away from him and b) his third magazine, which he was able to load, failed because of a bad spring. Typically, a larger capacity magazine is more likely to fail because of a longer spring and the higher likelihood of the follower binding. Standard capacity magazines tend to be much more reliable. No one can know what would've happened if he had different magazines, but it's less likely that the gun would have jammed, thus preventing the opportunity to fight back.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> 1) The suspect was kicked out of college - that is a FACT.
> 2) The police at his college were called on no less than 5 occasions because of his outbursts and threatening behavior - that is a FACT
> 3) He was eventually suspended from that college and told he could not return without proof of a mental health evaluation - that is a FACT
> 4) He has been arrested multiple times over the last year or two - that is a FACT
> 5) He was denied entry into the US Army becasue of a failed drug test - that is a FACT





Chouan said:


> ...you'd rather have the mass-murders than give up your right to have guns. Looks like a love affair with the firearm to me.....


Given the facts, it actually appears we Yanks have a love affair with the deranged!!

We value their freedom to be deranged more than life itself!!

Some want to lock up the guns, I'd prefer we lock up the deranged.

But it's America, so we do neither.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

blairrob said:


> Read up on your history son. Hitler/Nazis were populist socialists as were the fascists in Italy. And, of course, Hitler and Mr. Stalin were partners until the Fuhrer decided opening an eastern front was a good idea.


Read up on your history "son". The national socialist German workers party (NAZI's) were nationalists and by action, fascists. Among other things, why else would they have supported Franco in Spain? You possibly need to read real history, not right wing extremist propaganda.

The NAZIs hated communists from the start and persecuted them once Hitler came into power. They also only added the term "socialist" to bring in the workers but they were never socialist, but nationalist and in action, fascist. The founders of the party in the 19-teens were anti socialist as it was left wing and too close to communism in their minds. Hitler's pact with Stalin was about power; nothing else (besides Stalin was also about power and was a communist in name only, not in actions). The only social welfare given was to the superior (their words) Aryan races. The American NAZI party parrots a lot of their views and I doubt there are many who would call them socialists.

As to Italy and Mussolini, a socialist??? He was arguably one of the founders of fascism which incorporated parts of many political parties, generally only in the use of terms to bring people in. They were never socialist and loved the Italian corporations.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> So if these are "survey symbols" - why did Sarah Palin have her websites scrubbed of all mention of them in the hours after the incident?
> 
> To quote one of the left's favorite sayings after the Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI were listening to Americans phone calls under the guise of homeland security? "If you havent done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"
> 
> Funny how people to try and have it both ways.


They were also associated with Sarah telling everyone to "target" these politicians. The claim that they were surveyors symbols is ludicrous, pathetic, and a crock of the usual. Until the shootings happened, no one would have ardued these were rifle sights and if fact some people did complain and no one came forward from Sarah's minions to claim they were map symbols. No one would use those map symbols for what the minions claim.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

MichaelS said:


> They were also associated with Sarah telling everyone to "target" these politicians. The claim that they were surveyors symbols is ludicrous, pathetic, and a crock of the usual. Until the shootings happened, no one would have ardued these were rifle sights and if fact some people did complain and no one came forward from Sarah's minions to claim they were map symbols. No one would use those map symbols for what the minions claim.


 Post #27


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

MichaelS said:


> Read up on your history "son". The national socialist German workers party (_*NAZI's) were nationalists and by action, fascists.*_ Among other things, why else would they have supported Franco in Spain?


You are completely correct.



MichaelS said:


> You possibly need to read real history, not right wing extremist propaganda.


OK, I'll put down Mein Kampf. Er, wait, that's left wing propaganda. Or is it liberal? So confusing _(at least to you:devil_.



MichaelS said:


> The NAZIs hated communists from the start and persecuted them once Hitler came into power. They also only added the term "socialist" to bring in the workers _*but they were never socialist*_, but nationalist and in action, fascist. The founders of the party in the 19-teens were anti socialist as it was left wing and too close to communism in their minds. Hitler's pact with Stalin was about power; nothing else (besides Stalin was also about power and was a communist in name only, not in actions). The only social welfare given was to the superior (their words) Aryan races. The American NAZI party parrots a lot of their views and I doubt there are many who would call them socialists.


Ah, but they were. Under Hitler, they espoused collectivism, populism, and a mixed economy. As stated by Overy in _The dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia_, Hitler was virulently anti-capitalist and hated free-markets, "and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld" _and_ "he preferred a state-directed economy". Now if that isn't the definition of a socialist philosophy, please enlighten me.



MichaelS said:


> As to Italy and Mussolini, a socialist??? He was arguably one of the founders of fascism which incorporated parts of many political parties, generally only in the use of terms to bring people in. _*They *_were never socialist and_* loved the Italian corporations*_.


Well that's true. That is to say they loved government _*owning*_ Italian corporations. Oh, no, that's socialism too! Mussolini himself claimed in 1935 the government had managed to bring 75% of Italian businesses under state control. Benito started as a socialist, became an opportunist during his early years in power cultivating support from corporate Italy, and then died a socialist, by his definition a Nationalist Socialist, having nationalized much of the banking industry as well as other large enterprises.

Perhaps we are arguing over the definition of socialism as it seems quite clear the fascists in Germany and Italy were anti- free markets/capitalism. I do consider the actions they took under that philosophy to be socialism.
I'm quite ignorant as to the ideology of America's Nazi party but I would be surprised if they espoused any sort of free market intervention. In fact, I would be surprised if they could even spell capitalism, let alone write a treatise on it.

Blair


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Sarah Palin seems to put her foot in it every time she opens her mouth. Publicly at least. 
"Blood Libel"?
Then using a speech that was supposed to show sympathy with the victims to condemn her political opponents and complain about being picked on.
Can she *really* be as popular in the US as our broadcast media suggests?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Can she *really* be as popular in the US as our broadcast media suggests?


Sarah is just someone some people love to hate.

Has your media reported on any possible special treatment the shooter may have received as the son of a local politician??

Any news on how pornography, violent video games or music lyrics drove him to a murderous rage?? Any literature, the internet??


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Sarah is just someone some people love to hate.


Only, as far as I can see, because she seems to say the most crass things. I can't believe that intelligent rational people can support her; her attitudes and personality strike me as ridiculous. How somebody of her obviously limited understanding (as she portrays herself) can be considering standing for the highest office in the world is staggering.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Only, as far as I can see, because she seems to say the most crass things. I can't believe that intelligent rational people can support her; her attitudes and personality strike me as ridiculous. How somebody of her obviously limited understanding (as she portrays herself) can be considering standing for the highest office in the world is staggering.


The election of Obama set the bar so low as far as Presidential qualifications go, that Palin is actually over qualified now.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Only, as far as I can see, because she seems to say the most crass things.


Stop deflecting.



WouldaShoulda said:


> Has your media reported on any possible special treatment the shooter may have received as the son of a local politician??
> 
> Any news on how pornography, violent video games or music lyrics drove him to a murderous rage?? Any literature, the internet??


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Can she *really* be as popular in the US as our broadcast media suggests?





WouldaShoulda said:


> Sarah is just someone some people love to hate.


Sarah Palin is a something of a polarizing figure. Depending on how far, and in which direction a person is on the political spectrum, she is either loved or hated. To the far right she is a goddess who can do no wrong. To the far left, if she sneezes, then sneezing becomes a sign of the devil. Either way, it can reach the point of absurdity.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

KenR said:


> Sarah Palin is a something of a polarizing figure. Depending on how far, and in which direction a person is on the political spectrum, she is either loved or hated. To the far right she is a goddess who can do no wrong. To the far left, if she sneezes, then sneezing becomes a sign of the devil. Either way, it can reach the point of absurdity.


To the people in the middle she is just another bonehead who continually puts her foot in her mouth and is incredibly ignorant of the world.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

KenR said:


> Sarah Palin is a something of a polarizing figure. Depending on how far, and in which direction a person is on the political spectrum, she is either loved or hated. To the far right she is a goddess who can do no wrong. To the far left, if she sneezes, then sneezing becomes a sign of the devil. *Either way, it can reach the point of absurdity*.





MichaelS said:


> To the people in the middle she is just another bonehead who continually puts her foot in her mouth and is incredibly ignorant of the world.


You just proved my point....


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

...and a lightning rod brought out to detract from anything meaningful on practically any topic or subject.

I'll repeat myself.



WouldaShoulda said:


> Has your media reported on any possible special treatment the shooter may have received as the son of a local politician??
> 
> Any news on how pornography, violent video games or music lyrics drove him to a murderous rage?? Any literature, the internet??


No??

Bring in dopey Sarah!!


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

blairrob said:


> You are completely correct.
> 
> OK, I'll put down Mein Kampf. Er, wait, that's left wing propaganda. Or is it liberal? So confusing _(at least to you:devil_.
> 
> ...


I should give up and start drinking a lot of good scotch!

That ANYONE could actually try to equate the WWII Nazi party and Italian fascism with the present day countries in Europe (who are continually called socialist by the far right) (or anyone who disagrees with the right) is incredulous and quite revolting. This is not anywhere near the truth and is an incredible insult to all who are painted such.

The ulterior motive of the propaganda machine spewing this vile hatred and extreme distortion of the truth seems to be to try again to discredit the normal liberals in this country by painting them as extremists which is so far from the truth as to be laughable if a large group of people whose view of the world appears to be completely controlled by Fox "News" didn't believe the propaganda. What a sad state of affairs we are in.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Compare what happened to this topic as opposed to the VTech shooting topic B.S. (Before Sarah)

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?68120-The-VA-Tech-Shooting

I can't vouch for what the removed offending comments were but I hope one gets the picture...


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> To the people in the middle she is just another bonehead who continually puts her foot in her mouth and is incredibly ignorant of the world.


Unlike Biden.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Completely right. I watched an interview with the Director of the ATF during the VA Tech shootings - and he said only a limited number of federal agents with true need have more than 12 to 15 bullets in each clip.
> 
> The only reason to have 30 bullets ready to go, is if you intend on killing humans. Period.


Or if humans are trying to kill you.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Since you cant back up anything you have said here as more than your opinion, you are trying to paint everything else we know about this situation with the same broad stroke, which is not only dishonest -but patently false.
> 
> We DO know a number of facts. These are not opinions, they are substantiated facts about the situation. The fact that you chose to stick your head in the sand and ignore them doesnt make them go away.
> 
> ...


Item 1-Irrelevant
Item 2-I was reading the statements of one of his teachers this morning. He complained about not being able to turn in an assignment late (which many people have done) and according to her there was some comment about the unconstitutional or unfair nature of this. Guess what mrkleen, the cops were called. He did not threaten, curse or otherwise become outrageous as far as the teacher reported. he did what a lot of spoiled brats do. He complained and tried to get a special break because he forgot to do his homework. That is the only first hand account I have seen from the college staff. The rest is apparently more of the same but the news plays it up like he was almost strangling the teachers or something.
Item 3- Actually the suspension was for issues like the one listed above. The very matter of wanting a mental evaluation shows they had no basis and were seeking one. Without a conviction they would have been hard pressed to enforce that suspension without this evaluation. If he had been smart (and I concede he was apparently anything but) he could have twisted this around until the faculty screamed for mercy. Thus Item 3 is irrelevant.
Item 4- Could you cite his convictions? I know he has been detained or escorted away from the scene, mostly the campus complaining, but I am failing to find enough convictions for anything to say. Thus Item 4 becomes obviously irrelevant .
Item 5- I have not seen that mentioned. Could you cite the source? In any event it is also irrelevant to sanity or to murder but I would like to read more about this drug test.

Now lets get real. You see a lot of innuendo and you try to make me believe it has some significant relevance to the matter at hand. That is what the news is trying to do. They make a big story out of little issues because they have to fill time on the air and space in the paper. These so called facts are not of any great importance.

What would be important, and I think we will find out in due course, is when and where he got his strange views of the law, the Constitution and his rights because he is way off base on those but they did not come out of thin air. What was his drug use beyond the test you mention? What violence has he committed in the past has much more bearing on the situation than any claims of weirdness and what has been mentioned has been claims/opinion. Weird is in they eye of the beholder and inflated when a camera is pointed at the claimant.

Now for another opinion. From the way it is stacking up I would not surprised if he had planned on an assassination well in advance and in his odd sense of rights and law set himself up to be thought of as crazy just for his defense. These are the recent things I am talking about not the classroom stuff (that is fairly common in the warped world of community college life). The shrinks will go along with it because this would mean millions in profit for them in "treating" him. Of course it will take a while because they can't really cure anyone of anything BUT they can treat and treat and treat until one day he is "improved". The obvious mistake is that he does not realize he will still be incarcerated, still be responsible for the murders and will not get off. The less obvious mistake is that courts often shut down the insanity defense because judges and juries know it is a scam.
So here is your FACT for the day. You don't have any relevant facts yet. Let's wait for some real evidence.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

MichaelS said:


> I should give up and start drinking a lot of good scotch!


You should certainly stop drinking whatever you are now as it seems to be having a deleterious effect on your frontal lobe.



MichaelS said:


> That ANYONE could actually try to equate the WWII Nazi party and Italian fascism with the present day countries in Europe (who are continually called socialist by the far right) (or anyone who disagrees with the right) is incredulous and quite revolting. This is not anywhere near the truth and is an incredible insult to all who are painted such.


 I have not done as you suggest, anymore than calling the Nazi government a government is equating them with Churchill's government since they are both governments. Clearly in history there are governments with socialist policies with good intentions, and those with socialist policies with evil intentions. the same can be said for centralist or conservative governments. Socialist means neither good nor bad, it simply describes a set of policies which some may or may not subscribe to, or may even pick and choose from, as is now usually the case.



MichaelS said:


> The ulterior motive of the propaganda machine spewing this vile hatred and extreme distortion of the truth seems to be to try again to discredit the normal liberals in this country by painting them as extremists which is so far from the truth as to be laughable if a large group of people whose view of the world appears to be completely controlled by Fox "News" didn't believe the propaganda.


For the record I do not subscribe to Fox news, and though I once was a social conservative I grew into a liberal viewpoint as I aged. I am generally more liberal than liberal Americans, in fact (as are most Canadian liberals).



MichaelS said:


> What a sad state of affairs we are in.


I heartily agree.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"To quote one of the left's favorite sayings after the Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI were listening to Americans phone calls under the guise of homeland security? "If you havent done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about""

Off topic but I thought of an interesting event after reading this. In 2005 a person overheard me talking and reported me for suspicious activity. I got a call from some dork who was asking me to explain my conversation. When he recited what had been heard someone in his office overheard what he had said and pointed out to him while I was on the phone that I had been reading an excerpt from a training lesson for Dragon naturally Speaking. After his coworker informed him I pointed out that it was a sad day in America when I guy can not train his own dragon and teach it a few new tricks. For some reason he seemed a bit upset.
OK it may not be as funny to you as it was to me but I was rolling around on the couch laughing for half an hour afterward. It just goes to show that things are not always what they seem and that one should check for reasonable explanations before jumping the gun. Now I think I should add that even if you have not done anything wrong, worry anyway.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> _*After his coworker informed him I pointed out that it was a sad day in America when I guy can not train his own dragon and teach it a few new tricks*_. For some reason he seemed a bit upset.
> OK it may not be as funny to you as it was to me but I was rolling around on the couch laughing for half an hour afterward. It just goes to show that things are not always what they seem and that one should check for reasonable explanations before jumping the gun.


:thumbs-up::thumbs-up::thumbs-up:


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Liberty Ship said:


> Unlike Biden.


 Biden is just another bonehead who continually puts his foot in his mouth _despite_ _not_ being incredibly ignorant of the world. Certainly a more difficult undertaking.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...and a lightning rod brought out to detract from anything meaningful on practically any topic or subject.
> 
> I'll repeat myself.
> 
> No??


No. Even the Guardian and the Independent don't seem to have covered that area. My apologies fopr not having replied sooner.
Would his background make a difference to his treatment?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Would his background make a difference to his treatment?


I don't know if being the son of a career County Civil Servant would garner special treatment from the local Sheriffs Office.

I don't know if any of his brushes with the law could have otherwise resulted in a felony conviction wich would have made him inelligible to purchase a handgun.

I don't know if the officer that pulled him over the morning of the shooting recognized him and let him off with a warning.

Why??

Because no responsible journalist is asking.

"Look!! Over there!! It's that Dopey Sarah Palin!!"


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Obviously, as I'm only accessing British news media, I'm unaware as to what American journalists are doing. We did see the SP speech, and there has been comment in the broadsheets about it. She does seem to polarise the publics' views. I must admit though, that I find it hard to understand (impossible, actually) that somebody whose self-created image is one of profound ignorance, indeed stupidity, and insensitivity, can have so much support in the US.
Are there really that many people in the US who prize ignorance, stupidity, arrogance and insensitivity that much? It isn't a question of political leanings, as far as I can see, but one of personal attitude to others, and the rest of the world.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

From first post to your last, you just can't keep Ol' Dopey Sarah out of the dialog. 

If a Sheriff senses impending hateful vitriol driven violence in his jurisdiction, why does he not post a single guardian in front of a public venue where a US Congressperson is holding an open meeting??

Could it be the Sheriff knows he failed to uphold the public safety, deflected his failure, and a bunch of ignorant media sycophants helped him??

Now, don't you feel silly for falling for it??


----------



## JohnRov (Sep 3, 2008)

Chouan said:


> I must admit though, that I find it hard to understand (impossible, actually) that somebody whose self-created image is one of profound ignorance, indeed stupidity, and insensitivity, can have so much support in the US.


The reality is that she doesn't have that much support in the US. She's more celebrity than anything. In the long run she will fade away. Liberals like to paint her as the voice of all conservatives for obvious reasons.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> You don't understand the American way so you shouldn't try to judge it, especially using a very unusual event as the basis for an opinion.


It's becoming more difficult to convince law abiding Americans that they need to disarm themselves and trust a Sheriff Dipship (or any Statist) to serve and protect them while they can't even protect their own Congressperson.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Completely right. I watched an interview with the Director of the ATF during the VA Tech shootings - and he said only a limited number of federal agents with true need have more than 12 to 15 bullets in each clip.
> 
> The only reason to have 30 bullets ready to go, is if you intend on killing humans. Period.


Don't paint with such a broad stroke. The friends I know who have 30 round AR-15 magazines, even the one who boasts about owning several pre-ban, don't even carry concealed! Having 30 rounds ready to go in the magazine (it's a magazine, not a "clip") is pretty convenient at the range.



JohnRov said:


> The reality is that she doesn't have that much support in the US. She's more celebrity than anything. In the long run she will fade away. Liberals like to paint her as the voice of all conservatives for obvious reasons.


 I'm liberal and_ refuse_ to believe she is the voice of all conservatives... for obvious reasons.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's becoming more difficult to convince law abiding Americans that they need to disarm themselves and trust a Sheriff Dipship (or any Statist) to serve and protect them while they can't even protect their own Congressperson.


I was just over on another web site saying almost the same thing. I realize that is is hard for many to separate specific components of an event into separate issues but we have a Constitution which has already done that for us and sadly court cases that prove why we need to preserve our rights. For example a cop has no duty to protect you but some depend totally on an officer showing up in the nick of time when they get in trouble. Even if one happens to want to protect the public they are often 20 minutes away so the crime is history before they ever arrive on the scene. Each person is responsible for his or her own safety. It can not be delegated.
The right to self preservation is given by God (or nature for you atheists). Our constitution simply acknowledges and preserves this right on the personal and national level. God is good!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

It's rather sad that people in the US, as evidenced by posts in this thread, seem to have a conviction that life in the US is so precarious, so fraught with mortal danger, that it is essential to posses a firearm to defend themselves. Are US citizens' homes under attack so frequently by armed desperadoes that firearms are so necessary? Or are American streets so plagued by armed muggers that carrying a revolver, at least, is the only means of life preservation? 
What a country it must be.....


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> It's rather sad that people in the US, as evidenced by posts in this thread, seem to have a conviction that life in the US is so precarious, so fraught with mortal danger, that it is essential to posses a firearm to defend themselves. Are US citizens' homes under attack so frequently by armed desperadoes that firearms are so necessary? Or are American streets so plagued by armed muggers that carrying a revolver, at least, is the only means of life preservation?
> What a country it must be.....


Speaking as one who has not carried a pistol since I retired, good lawd even I find it difficult to believe it's been eight years ago, it isn't essential or a necessity that we carry a concealed or openly carried weapon, but rather, that we may do so, if we so choose. It's called Freedom...rather a nice concept I think!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Speaking as one who has not carried a pistol since I retired, good lawd even I find it difficult to believe it's been eight years ago, it isn't essential or a necessity that we carry a concealed or openly carried weapon, but rather, that we may do so, if we so choose. It's called Freedom...rather a nice concept I think!


To reply to your last response first, it isn't "called freedom". That implies that carrying a weapon is, of itself, freedom. *You* might call carrying a firearm freedom. Others may think that freedom is lots of other things. I would suggest that calling the desire to carry a firearm "freedom" rather limits your ability to conceptualise what the vaguie expression "freedom" actually means. I, for example don't think that my own personal freedom is in any way at all limited by my not being allowed to carry a firearm. I tend to think that the freedom that I enjoy is so much more than that.

For example, as a mature adult I am able to purchase a bottle of wine to have with my dinner, if I so choose, and have done so since I was 18. I value that freedom more than that of being able to own a (rifled) firearm. I would think it an abuse of my freedom if somebody else, or some "authority" determined that I shouldn't do so, for whatever reason.

I would further suggest that, if you read the posts that have been made in favour of the carrying of firearms, they nearly all explain that firearms are necessary for personal defence. That suggests to me that the US, if a firearm is a necessity for this purpose, as the posters argue, is a country where one's life is in constant danger through attacks by armed villains. If the population of the US aren't constantly, or at least often, facing the threat of armed attack, then surely their argument of personal defence is fallacious? 
I have visited various parts of the US many times; never was I in need of a firearm for self-defence. Was I fooling myself? Was I neglecting my personal safety by not carrying a firearm, or at least keeping one in my accomodation for the inevitable attack, which so many people posting here seem to be in fear of?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> For example, as a mature adult I am able to purchase a bottle of wine to have with my dinner, if I so choose, and have done so since I was 18. I value that freedom more than that of being able to own a (rifled) firearm. I would think it an abuse of my freedom if somebody else, or some "authority" determined that I shouldn't do so, for whatever reason.


Even though tens of thousands die every year abusing the Freedom to Drink intoxicating beverages.

Why the love affair with booze??

Sad.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Even though tens of thousands die every year abusing the Freedom to Drink intoxicating beverages.
> 
> Why the love affair with booze??
> 
> Sad.


It was just an example. Still, you don't often see deranged people carrying out a massacre of college students, armed with a reasonable Beaujolais, do you? Or using a rather pleasant glass of chablis to mug someone. You might, I suppose, cause an alcohol related accident, like spilling some Bordeaux on the carpet, causing an unpleasant red stain that'll need professional cleaning. Rather like a firearm related accident that causes a not entirely dis-similar cleaning problem, accidentally discharging a pistol with tragic effect, for example. 
About 15% of road deaths in Britain (British government figures) are caused by alcohol, or at least involve a person who is subsequently found to be over the legal limit for alcohol. That means that some 85% are caused by people who are sober. On the other hand, "Drink Driving" is one of the freedoms that is denied to me; a freedom that I'm not annoyed about losing.

I find this meaningless mantra of "freedom", which seems to be used to justify what the poster wants, quite irritating. People seem far too ready to use it at any opportunity, which rather devalues the concept. So you've got freedom. So has most of the western world, yet I don't hear many people from other free nations going on about it; they just enjoy it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL...and the only thing that is perhaps even more irritating is a closed mind! Just as a driver, convicted of a DUI, should quickly find themselves looking at the world through iron grates, I suspect our present Tucson shooter has breathed his last free breath on this lovely planet of ours! You seem to confuse the freedom(s) with the incidents of abuse of those freedoms, Chouan.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> It was just an example. Still, you don't often see deranged people carrying out a massacre of college students, armed with a reasonable Beaujolais, do you?


I guess it is time to move onto another subject following the epic failure of your original post and topic...



sowilson said:


> It's the natural outcome of the fascist propaganda machine. What the hell did you think would happen when you talk about "2nd amendment solutions" or "reload" or "targets". Lock the fascists up until the trial is over and then hang the bastards. Maybe it's time for some liberal retribution a sort of "eye for an eye" - my guns are ready.


Well, what do you know...

Article~
Mr. Fuller was also involved in a confrontation on Jan. 8, shortly before the attack on Ms. Giffords, which occurred at an event she held for her constituents outside a Safeway supermarket. He said in a long interview last week with The New York Times that he had argued there with a man he described as a former Marine after a heated discussion over politics. Gabriel Zimmerman, an aide to Ms. Giffords, separated the two. 
Mr. Zimmerman was killed in the attack later that morning. 
Mr. Fuller spoke dismissively of Republicans during the interview. "They appeal to simple-minded ********," he said. 
He said that he had had trouble sleeping after he was wounded and that he calmed himself the first night by writing down the Declaration of Independence, which he had memorized three decades earlier. 
In the first days after the attack, his anger seemed especially strong. In the interview, he repeatedly denounced the "Tea Party crime syndicate," and said he placed some of the blame for the shooting on Sarah Palin and other Republican leaders, saying he believed they had contributed to a toxic atmosphere. 
He said he had expected to see protesters at Ms. Giffords's event, and had planned "to shout them down because I can make a lot of noise." 
Speaking of Jared L. Loughner, who is accused of being the gunman, he said, "Saying anything about him would be a waste of breath. Recognizing his existence is a waste. I don't like his face." 
Later in the week, Mr. Fuller visited the Loughner home to apologize to the parents for calling their son names, according to reporters at the scene. They said he did not manage to see them. 
Mr. Fuller used to drive a limousine, but in recent years, he said, he got by working various odd jobs, including collecting signatures for political campaigns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/...l=1&adxnnlx=1295186491-AmtTtxeLY+685E2f2KaAqA


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> LOL...and the only thing that is perhaps even more irritating is a closed mind! Just as a driver, convicted of a DUI, should quickly find themselves looking at the world through iron grates, I suspect our present Tucson shooter has breathed his last free breath on this lovely planet of ours! You seem to confuse the freedom(s) with the incidents of abuse of those freedoms, Chouan.


Not at all. I value my freedoms, as do many others, but don't feel the need to go on about it every five minutes.
My mind isn't closed, it just needs a convincing argument, which it hasn't yet heard.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Chouan,

I guess it isn't too surprising that an Englishman fails to grasp the individual right to possess arms. In terms of political theory, individual firearm ownership provides the opportunity for individuals to throw off oppressive regimes (e.g. the American Revolutionary War)--again, it is no coincidence that totalitarian regimes generally attempt to prohibit individual ownership of firearms.

In terms of self defense, individual firearm ownership both allows individuals to protect themselves and provides a deterrent effect. By way of example only, when Texas instituted its concealed handgun licensing, carjackings all but disappeared in Texas. It could be mere coincidence, or it could be that the first Texas CHL shooting was by the intended victim of a carjacking and the possibility of armed drivers deters potential carjackers. Similarly, Texas doesn't have much of a home invasion problem. Curiorusly, many states with oppressive gun laws have high crime rates (by way of example only, consider Washington DC--highly restrictive gun laws, LOTS of law enforcement, and, yet, lots of crime)--surely, they should be safer since their law-abiding citizens are restricted in owning firearms...


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

smujd said:


> Chouan,
> 
> --again, it is no coincidence that totalitarian regimes generally attempt to prohibit individual ownership of firearms.


Right. Unfortunately for your point, virtually all of the democratic regimes in the 1st world do the same. Except of course, the USA. I am certain when your constitution was drawn up it seemed appropriate to write in the bearing of arms as a right when the most powerful arms available were cannon which weren't particularly mobile), but with the advent of cruise missiles, nuclear arms and unmanned drones I don't think the American citizenry has much hope of throwing off a totalitarian regime with their fully automatic and semi- automatic weapons. Nor is it likely such a regime will rise. It is also ridiculous to compare the laws of your various jurisdictions when their borders are completely open. It would only be relevant if there was at least some bar to smuggling weapons from state to state but with the exception of Hawaii and Alaska, (and traffic issues from New Jersey to New York) there really isn't. The USA has a generally tolerant gun culture compared to the rest of the industrialized free world, generally higher crime rates, and without exception higher major crime rates. It's important to you as a nation, it's a symbol of your revolution and the freedoms gained from it, and because of that and for whatever other individual reasons your voters have you choose to keep it so. Just don't insult the intelligence of the forum with these disingenuous rationals for or against gun laws. It's silly. As am I for letting myself be drawn into this. Cheers.

Blair


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Not at all. I value my freedoms, as do many others, but don't feel the need to go on about it every five minutes.
> My mind isn't closed, it just needs a convincing argument, which it hasn't yet heard.


 How many of the freedoms that you value are under constant attack? Certainly, a person who is confident that his/her freedoms are not at risk has no reason to be vocal about them. I wouldn't call myself a "3rd amendment" activist but that's only because I don't expect to have to quarter soldiers in my home any time soon.

The rights of gun owners ARE under constant attack and we're constantly on the defensive because of it. Living in NJ, a state with one of the strictest set of gun laws in the nation, I have to deal with a judicial system that has said "in NJ, you own a firearm at your own risk." The state's version of the Assault Weapons Ban is still in effect here, even though it expired for the rest of the nation. There is a "one-handgun-a-month" restriction. There is no concealed-carry available to civilians. The process to buy a firearm is long, expensive and can take as long as a year. The allowed uses of a firearm are laid out in a confusing set of exemptions that, among other things, would make it illegal for my wife to defend herself against an attacker in our own home if she were to use a gun that belongs to me.

I'm sure that, to you, these are all common sense gun control measures. However, NJ is home to two of the most dangerous cities in America (Newark and Camden). I live relatively close to Camden, where just this week, HALF of the police force was laid off, and people are scared to death because most lack the ability to protect themselves. Maybe not every place in America is as dangerous, but the places where private ownership of firearms are needed most is precisely where they are most restricted.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Just a couple of points on this gun control tangent.
First and foremost, the Constitutional rights can not be voted out, not by the public for any reason and not by the Congress because that would automatically be an infringement leading to the national need for private firearms.
With talk of the cannons, tanks and other large ordnance, it may not be practical but it is doable. All one has to do is fill out the paperwork and pay the tax, and of course wait an indefinite period of time, and then it is OK. However if we want to nitpick the Constitution says "...keep and bear arms". If I can lift it then it is OK. The limitations of regulation and taxation are obviously infringements but they pretend it is OK in the name of protecting the public and of course taxes. 
This is not a symbolic right by any stretch of the imagination. It is the right and duty of every person in the USA to protect the Constitution. The 2nd is the enabler for the rest.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> The rights of gun owners ARE under constant attack and we're constantly on the defensive because of it. Living in NJ, a state with one of the strictest set of gun laws in the nation, I have to deal with a judicial system that has said "in NJ, you own a firearm at your own risk."


Seems logical.



hardline_42 said:


> The state's version of the Assault Weapons Ban is still in effect here, even though it expired for the rest of the nation. There is a "one-handgun-a-month" restriction.


ditto



hardline_42 said:


> There is no concealed-carry available to civilians.


ditto


hardline_42 said:


> The process to buy a firearm is long, expensive and can take as long as a year.


At least they are trying to keep guns out of the hands of those that cannot handle the responsibility.


hardline_42 said:


> The allowed uses of a firearm are laid out in a confusing set of exemptions that, among other things, would make it illegal for my wife to defend herself against an attacker in our own home if she were to use a gun that belongs to me.
> 
> I'm sure that, to you, these are all common sense gun control measures.


Yup.


hardline_42 said:


> However, NJ is home to two of the most dangerous cities in America (Newark and Camden). I live relatively close to Camden, where just this week, HALF of the police force was laid off, and people are scared to death because most lack the ability to protect themselves. Maybe not every place in America is as dangerous, but the places where private ownership of firearms are needed most is precisely where they are most restricted.


I can almost accept the 'but it's closing the barn door after the horse has already left' shtick but I suggest such laws, if enforced, are the long term solution to the problem, and in the short term, just move the hell out of there. If your family isn't safe, leave. Figure out the reasons Camden and Newark have become what they are, and deal with it as a country. Or accept it. America, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, is the only western one with such a dramatic personal safety problem (though of course we all suffer from it to some degree) and freeing up gun laws will not make living in Newark or Columbine any better.

Blair


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

blairrob said:


> Right. Unfortunately for your point, virtually all of the democratic regimes in the 1st world do the same.


And, curiously, virtually all are becoming less democratic.



blairrob said:


> Except of course, the USA. I am certain when your constitution was drawn up it seemed appropriate to write in the bearing of arms as a right when the most powerful arms available were cannon which weren't particularly mobile), but with the advent of cruise missiles, nuclear arms and unmanned drones I don't think the American citizenry has much hope of throwing off a totalitarian regime with their fully automatic and semi- automatic weapons.


Yup. The Viet Cong and the current opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate how ineffective small arms are against major militaries...



blairrob said:


> Nor is it likely such a regime will rise. It is also ridiculous to compare the laws of your various jurisdictions when their borders are completely open. It would only be relevant if there was at least some bar to smuggling weapons from state to state but with the exception of Hawaii and Alaska, (and traffic issues from New Jersey to New York) there really isn't.


The borders between US jurisdictions are hardly open with respect to firearms. There are severe penalties for bringing certain firearms and magazines into California, Chicago, New Jersey, and Washington D.C.

Your respopnse almost suggests that you do understand that criminals don't comply with laws. Surely, then, you can understand that restrictions on firearms only punish the law abiding?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

blairrob said:


> ...and in the short term, just move the hell out of there. If your family isn't safe, leave.


Wow, really?! Just like that? I try to never lose my cool when having conversations with folks from other countries about gun-control, but this is the epitome of "let them eat cake" and is so typical of the attitude that those who cry for more gun-control from up on high espouse. Camden is one of the most impoverished cities in the entire nation. Of the cities $280 million annual budget, only $22 million is from the cities own tax revenue, the rest is state aid. If the city can't generate enough money to run itself, how can you demand that the residents "move the hell out of there?" For the majority, moving is not financially feasible. In this economy, even those who live in better neighborhoods that border some of these cities don't have that option.



blairrob said:


> Figure out the reasons Camden and Newark have become what they are, and deal with it as a country. Or accept it. America, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, is the only western one with such a dramatic personal safety problem (though of course we all suffer from it to some degree) and freeing up gun laws will not make living in Newark or Columbine any better.


 Please post statistical evidence that proves allowing concealed carry or any other "freed up" gun law will make living in Newark or Columbine any worse.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

Are the gun laws strict in certain jurisdictions in the US because crime was/is high or is crime high because the gun laws are strict?

Inversely, are the gun laws lax in certain jurisdictions because the crime rate was/is low, or is the crime rate low because gun laws are lax?

Any and all discussions about how lax or tight gun laws statistically impact crime rates MUST first prove out the above statements one way or another (and that is not easy), otherwise they are meaningless!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> Wow, really?! Just like that? I try to never lose my cool when having conversations with folks from other countries about gun-control, but this is the epitome of "let them eat cake" and is so typical of the attitude that those who cry for more gun-control from up on high espouse.


Camden, NJ; Love it or leave it!!


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

nosajwols said:


> Are the gun laws strict in certain jurisdictions in the US because crime was/is high or is crime high because the gun laws are strict?
> 
> Inversely, are the gun laws lax in certain jurisdictions because the crime rate was/is low, or is the crime rate low because gun laws are lax?
> 
> Any and all discussions about how lax or tight gun laws statistically impact crime rates MUST first prove out the above statements one way or another (and that is not easy), otherwise they are meaningless!


Statistics are difficult for many reasons. Also, correlation does not equate to causation.

That said, I do believe it is instructive that jurisdictions such as Chicago and Washintong DC, which have had restrictive laws regarding firearm ownership for long periods of time, still have high crime rates. At a minimum, it would appear that their restrictive laws regarding firearm ownership do not decrease crime.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> Wow, really?! Just like that? I try to never lose my cool when having conversations with folks from other countries about gun-control, but this is the epitome of "let them eat cake" and is so typical of the attitude that those who cry for more gun-control from up on high espouse. Camden is one of the most impoverished cities in the entire nation. Of the cities $280 million annual budget, only $22 million is from the cities own tax revenue, the rest is state aid. If the city can't generate enough money to run itself, how can you demand that the residents "move the hell out of there?" For the majority, moving is not financially feasible. In this economy, even those who live in better neighborhoods that border some of these cities don't have that option.


Most of the immigrants who settled our 2 nations were dirt poor, many living in famine, and made it across the Atlantic. With family. Finances aren't keeping people at home, it's inertia.



hardline_42 said:


> Please post statistical evidence that proves allowing concealed carry or any other "freed up" gun law will make living in Newark or Columbine any worse.


I would posit a greater availability of guns generally leads to more gun crime. I'm not going to waste my time finding a study I'm sure we would interpret differently.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

smujd said:


> And, curiously, virtually all are becoming less democratic.


 You're not serious. The only 1st world nation with an election issue is the USA, although really that Bush Gore thing was decided by a vote, wasn't it? Stack your Supreme Court and you too can win re-election!

Name a couple of these 'virtually all' countries you mention that are sliding down the road to authoritarianism. You sound like a fox news apologist.



smujd said:


> Yup. The Viet Cong and the current opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate how ineffective small arms are against major militaries...


If those dang civilians would just get out of the way....
Fair point. 


smujd said:


> The borders between US jurisdictions are hardly open with respect to firearms. There are severe penalties for bringing certain firearms and magazines into California, Chicago, New Jersey, and Washington D.C.


I should have said 'physical bar' but I am certain you understood that is what I meant. Those jurisdictional barriers are completely open physically and my comment about Alaska and Hawaii having such a barrier made that obvious. 


smujd said:


> Your respopnse almost suggests that you do understand that criminals don't comply with laws. Surely, then, you can understand that restrictions on firearms only punish the law abiding?


Surely you can understand that many of the guns used in horrible killings such as Columbine and Tucson were purchased legally>>>>>>


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

blairrob said:


> I would posit a greater availability of guns generally leads to more gun crime. I'm not going to waste my time finding a study I'm sure we would interpret differently.


 I suppose I could spare a few minutes:



> "Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suiciceds has not risen [...]. There is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the rates of homicide and suicide in America"
> 
> Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports,
> CDC WISQUARS,
> BATF Firearms Commerce Report, 2002





> Internationally speaking, "There is no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence"
> 
> Source: Small Arms Survey Project
> Keith Krause, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 2007





> "...a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationshop between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists."
> 
> Source: Minutes of Evidence
> Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I, and I assume WE all are law abiding citizens. As a law abiding citizen, why shouldn't I be allowed to own a firearm? Just because someone doesn't like guns, doesn't give them the right to dictate whether or not I should have one. Many people don't like Tobacco or Alcohol, but we don't ban them. We regulate them for safety, just as we do in the Gun industry. We even tax the heck out of them.

But it is not the government's right to say what we (the people) can and cannot have. A man's home is his castle. He has a right to defend it. A man's person falls under the same category. It is the People's Right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers identified this. The supreme court has upheld this. And quite frankly there are too many gun owners, and guns out there to change it now.

Tucson was a terrible tragedy. The person who did it was insane (sane people don't do things like that). More gun regulation would not have changed its outcome (at this point in our history).

But this was an isolated incident. Pulling up the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control website, there we less than 13,000 gun related homicides in 2007 (was most recent year they had available when I looked it up), and less than 1,000 Unintentional Injury (leading to death) in the same year. That is less than 14,000 deaths, from firearms in a country with 300,000,000 people. Even if we add in the Suicides (approx 17,000), that only brings us to 31,000 out of 300 million. 0.0103% (less than half of that for not suicides). Just a hair over 1 in 1000.

Discounting Heart Disease (600,000) which is the number 1 cause of death, and going all the way to #5 (unintentional Injury) which is broken up into several categories, which include Motor Vehicle Traffic (42,000) Poison (29,000), and Falling (22,000), shows a comparison of how likely you are to die via Firearms. Plainly put, *you are more likely to Fall to Death than have someone else kill you with a Firearm*. You are twice as likely to die from accidental Poisoning, and THREE TIMES as likely to die in a Motor Vehicle accident.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> I suppose I could spare a few minutes:


 As can I, now.



> Internationally speaking, "There is no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence"
> Source: Small Arms Survey Project
> Keith Krause, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 2007


Great quote, however this project and it's research and papers deal with nations engaged in war or insurrection on their own soil such as the Sudan, Chad, and Afghanistan, _not_ developed democratic countries.



> Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect
> source: Florenz Plassmann & John Whitley,
> STANFORD LAW REVIEW Vol. 55:1313, 4/16/2003


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> I, and I assume WE all are law abiding citizens.


I did spend a (not) lovely evening in a Maine County Jail some years ago. I don't recommend dining there if at all possible.



Apatheticviews said:


> As a law abiding citizen, why shouldn't I be allowed to own a firearm? Just because someone doesn't like guns, doesn't give them the right to dictate whether or not I should have one. Many people don't like Tobacco or Alcohol, but we don't ban them. We regulate them for safety, just as we do in the Gun industry. We even tax the heck out of them.
> 
> But it is not the government's right to say what we (the people) can and cannot have. A man's home is his castle. He has a right to defend it. A man's person falls under the same category. It is the People's Right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers identified this. The supreme court has upheld this. *And quite frankly there are too many gun owners, and guns out there to change it now*.


 I suspect you are probably right as I think about it. I personally hope Canada does not reach that point of no return.



Apatheticviews said:


> Tucson was a terrible tragedy. The person who did it was insane (sane people don't do things like that). More gun regulation would not have changed its outcome (at this point in our history).
> 
> But this was an isolated incident. Pulling up the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control website, there we less than 13,000 gun related homicides in 2007 (was most recent year they had available when I looked it up), and less than 1,000 Unintentional Injury (leading to death) in the same year. That is less than 14,000 deaths, from firearms in a country with 300,000,000 people. Even if we add in the Suicides (approx 17,000), that only brings us to 31,000 out of 300 million. 0.0103% (less than half of that for not suicides). Just a hair over 1 in 1000.
> 
> Discounting Heart Disease (600,000) which is the number 1 cause of death, and going all the way to #5 (unintentional Injury) which is broken up into several categories, which include Motor Vehicle Traffic (42,000) Poison (29,000), and Falling (22,000), shows a comparison of how likely you are to die via Firearms. Plainly put, *you are more likely to Fall to Death than have someone else kill you with a Firearm*. You are twice as likely to die from accidental Poisoning, and THREE TIMES as likely to die in a Motor Vehicle accident.


Although in communities such as Camden and Detroit I suspect the ratios vary significantly from Seattle or Troy, Michigan.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

blairrob said:


> Although in communities such as Camden and Detroit I suspect the ratios vary significantly from Seattle or Troy, Michigan.


They might. They might not. I used examples significantly down the "list" for causes of death just to highlight the point. Had I gone with Heart Disease, we would be looking at a ratio of 31,000 vs 600,000 (roughly 1 in 20, or 1 in 40 if you remove suicides).

We're talking averages here. Sure if you live in a dangerous area (Camden, Detroit, DC) your chance of being killed by violent crime is increased, but the ratio of gun based death vs non-gun based death (within those violent crimes) doesn't vary significantly. The problem you run into is that you assume availability of guns will change the outcome of crime. It doesn't. DC is a prime example. It's no safer than anywhere else in the nation, and it has most restrictive gun control policies. It is actually less safe.

Gun control policy only hurts legal gun owners. We, fill out paperwork, go through a criminal background investigation, and *pay retail* for our guns (they're not cheap, many modern handguns start at $500). On the whole, it's not worth our time to commit crimes, because we are law abiding citizens. We follow the rules. Criminals don't. They get the guns 2nd or 3rd hand (often through theft), and don't care about the rules. The old adage is, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

The other adage I always liked was "An armed society, is a polite society." I'm a firm believer of more guns. I think concealed carry should be more widespread, because it makes criminals think about whether or not they carry a gun. VA & TX don't get a lot of armed bank robberies. We also have a lot of armed citizens. States like Maryland..... Let's just say, which would you rob: a bank in a state that has strict gun laws (no one has guns), or one where almost anyone can be carrying?


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> We're talking averages here. Sure if you live in a dangerous area (Camden, Detroit, DC) your chance of being killed by violent crime is increased, but the ratio of gun based death vs non-gun based death (within those violent crimes) doesn't vary significantly. The problem you run into is that you assume availability of guns will change the outcome of crime. It doesn't. DC is a prime example. It's no safer than anywhere else in the nation, and it has most restrictive gun control policies. It is actually less safe.


Using D.C. as an example of failed gun control legislation is a red herring as West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland, de facto suburban areas of D.C., take up that slack as 2 of the top 10 gun exporters or exporters per capita in the US, and contain what is (or was) the second largest seller of guns in the country. The laws would have to be standardized nationally to be effective.



Apatheticviews said:


> Gun control policy only hurts legal gun owners. We, fill out paperwork, go through a criminal background investigation, and *pay retail* for our guns (they're not cheap, many modern handguns start at $500). On the whole, it's not worth our time to commit crimes, because we are law abiding citizens. We follow the rules. Criminals don't. They get the guns 2nd or 3rd hand (often through theft), and don't care about the rules. The old adage is, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.


Going back to your previous comment about level of gun prevalence being such that it is too late to change/enact the laws, I would suspect your point is valid.



Apatheticviews said:


> The other adage I always liked was "An armed society, is a polite society."


You won't be surprised to hear I consider that an adage apropos to countries with weak central government, those involved in civil war, and the wild west of yore. There are no more polite societies than the gun controlled societies of Europe (_Paris and Norway excluded_) and, ahem, Canada.



Apatheticviews said:


> I'm a firm believer of more guns. I think concealed carry should be more widespread, because it makes criminals think about whether or not they carry a gun. VA & TX don't get a lot of armed bank robberies. We also have a lot of armed citizens. States like Maryland..... Let's just say, which would you rob: a bank in a state that has strict gun laws (no one has guns), or one where almost anyone can be carrying?


Frankly, I'd be robbing a bank in Palm Springs, Winter Park, or Palm Beach. Their residents have fat wallets, slow draws, and aging eyesight. I see new Santorinis in my future.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

smujd said:


> Chouan,
> 
> I guess it isn't too surprising that an Englishman fails to grasp the individual right to possess arms. In terms of political theory, individual firearm ownership provides the opportunity for individuals to throw off oppressive regimes (e.g. the American Revolutionary War)--again, it is no coincidence that totalitarian regimes generally attempt to prohibit individual ownership of firearms.
> 
> In terms of self defense, individual firearm ownership both allows individuals to protect themselves and provides a deterrent effect. By way of example only, when Texas instituted its concealed handgun licensing, carjackings all but disappeared in Texas. It could be mere coincidence, or it could be that the first Texas CHL shooting was by the intended victim of a carjacking and the possibility of armed drivers deters potential carjackers. Similarly, Texas doesn't have much of a home invasion problem. Curiorusly, many states with oppressive gun laws have high crime rates (by way of example only, consider Washington DC--highly restrictive gun laws, LOTS of law enforcement, and, yet, lots of crime)--surely, they should be safer since their law-abiding citizens are restricted in owning firearms...


Point 1 Your Revolution against Britain was won by the Continental Army, and the State forces, aided by the French and Spanish Army and Navy. As has been argued elsewhere in this forum it was emphatically not won by armed civilians. Once the armed civilians realised that the war could only be won by trained soldiers and organised themselves into an army, then the Americans began to win. However, the victory was only acheived through the French Navy rendering British logistical support, and reinforcing it's army, impossible. Hence this argument that "as a Brit you wouldn't understand", is flawed. It relies on myth and emotion, not on fact or reality.

Point 2. Carjacking in Britain is rare that if it does occur it is national news. If your argument was valid, it would mean that carjackings in Britain would be at epidemic proportions. They aren't.

Point 3 Britain has almost no home invasion problem. By which I assume that you mean armed villains entering a person's home whilst they are there. Therefore that argument is also fatally flawed.

The only reason that seems to make sense is the oft repeated one that firearms are essential for personal defence. But, if this argument is valid, then the US must be a really dangerous place to live. Yet American members of this forum insist that it isn't, which spoils that argument as well.

As a final point, I'm rather puzzled by the suggestion that western countries, apart from the US are becoming less democratic. In what way are Britain and Ireland becoming less democratic? I hadn't noticed. For example, look up "Oldham East and Saddleworth", and "Cowen Wins Vote of Confidence" in the news. Looks like democracy in action to me.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Point 1 Your Revolution against Britain was won by the Continental Army, and the State forces, aided by the French and Spanish Army and Navy. As has been argued elsewhere in this forum it was emphatically not won by armed civilians. Once the armed civilians realised that the war could only be won by trained soldiers and organised themselves into an army, then the Americans began to win. However, the victory was only acheived through the French Navy rendering British logistical support, and reinforcing it's army, impossible. Hence this argument that "as a Brit you wouldn't understand", is flawed. It relies on myth and emotion, not on fact or reality.
> 
> Point 2. Carjacking in Britain is rare that if it does occur it is national news. If your argument was valid, it would mean that carjackings in Britain would be at epidemic proportions. They aren't.
> 
> ...


Regarding your point #3, Chouan, you overlook one major difference between home invasions occuring in Great Britain vs in the US. On this side of the pond, should a wayward soul presume to break in to my home, putting my loved ones at risk, they will surely be carried out, never to victimize another law abiding citizen!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

blairrob said:


> You won't be surprised to hear I consider that an adage apropos to countries with weak central government, those involved in civil war, and the wild west of yore. There are no more polite societies than the gun controlled societies of Europe (_Paris and Norway excluded_) and, ahem, *Canada*.


You mean that country we (the US) have a huge issue with keeping drugs from crossing the border?

As for Florida. You would find yourself in a world of hurt. Their Concealed Handgun laws are actually on par with VA & TX, and "old people" tend to end a problem "quickly" rather than let some cop sort it out later.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Regarding your point #3, Chouan, you overlook one major difference between home invasions occuring in Great Britain vs in the US. On this side of the pond, should a wayward soul presume to break in to my home, putting my loved ones at risk, they will surely be carried out, never to victimize another law abiding citizen!


I assume, from the firearm supporting membership in this forum that it is, however, a common occurence. Yet in Britain, it is rare enough for it to be national news if it happens.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Point 1 Your Revolution against Britain was won by the Continental Army, and the State forces, aided by the French and Spanish Army and Navy. As has been argued elsewhere in this forum it was emphatically not won by armed civilians. Once the armed civilians realised that the war could only be won by trained soldiers and organised themselves into an army, then the Americans began to win. However, the victory was only acheived through the French Navy rendering British logistical support, and reinforcing it's army, impossible. Hence this argument that "as a Brit you wouldn't understand", is flawed. It relies on myth and emotion, not on fact or reality.
> 
> Point 2. Carjacking in Britain is rare that if it does occur it is national news. If your argument was valid, it would mean that carjackings in Britain would be at epidemic proportions. They aren't.
> 
> ...


As outlined in our constitution, the right to bear arms is fundamental. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, blah blah blah. Right to bear arms. We get them all as a package deal.

As a Brit, you don't understand. You don't think we have the right, therefore any argument we present is moot. Just like as Americans we don't get the entire Royalty thing. It doesn't make sense to us. There is no person "anointed by God" destined to rule our country through heredity. We don't have Kings, you don't have guns.

Because we have guns, we don't have kings. The second amendment is there as a failsafe. It means that the common man (collectively) can overthrow a tyrannical government if needed. Luckily we haven't had to do it. The constitution was only designed to last 20 years. TWENTY YEARS. But it's lasted over 200 because it was built well, and it has clauses in it than allow it to change, and that also specifically outlines INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (like the right to bear arms).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> I assume, from the firearm supporting membership in this forum that it is, however, a common occurence. Yet in Britain, it is rare enough for it to be national news if it happens.


Stories that don't fit agenda driven "news" organizations are frequently supressed here as well while those that do drag on for weeks!!


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Chouan said:


> I assume, from the firearm supporting membership in this forum that it is, however, a common occurence. Yet in Britain, it is rare enough for it to be national news if it happens.


 Home invasions rarely make national news here as well. Local news, yes, but rarely national. Unless it can be spun to the media's advantage.

*edit: WS beat me to it.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> There is no person "anointed by God" destined to rule our country through heredity. We don't have Kings, you don't have guns.
> 
> *Because we have guns, we don't have kings.* The second amendment is there as a failsafe. It means that the common man (collectively) can overthrow a tyrannical government if needed. Luckily we haven't had to do it. The constitution was only designed to last 20 years. TWENTY YEARS. But it's lasted over 200 because it was built well, and it has clauses in it than allow it to change, and that also specifically outlines INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (like the right to bear arms).


The French (among others) have proven that those 2 items are not mutually exclusive. And virtually all of those countries in Europe retaining a monarchy are doing so at the pleasure of the common man.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

blairrob said:


> The French (among others) have proven that those 2 items are not mutually exclusive. And virtually all of those countries in Europe retaining a monarchy are doing so at the pleasure of the common man.


You realize the French are possibly the worst counter example to use? 1) They overthrew their own king wit force of arms. 2) The French Foreign Legion isn't allowed in France for fear of them overthrowing the Government. 3) Four Drunk Canadians with an unloaded Potato Gun could take over the country in about 13 minutes.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Quite well put, Sir, and strategically on point, I might add!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> You realize the French are possibly the worst counter example to use? 1) They overthrew their own king wit force of arms. 2) The French Foreign Legion isn't allowed in France for fear of them overthrowing the Government. 3) Four Drunk Canadians with an unloaded Potato Gun could take over the country in about 13 minutes.


1) Look at the Revolution, rather than beleiving the myth. Reading some books might help.
2) The Depot of the Legion Etrangere is in Castelnaudary. If you look at an atlas you'll find that Castelnaudary is in France. The Legion has always had units within metropolitan France. Where do you get your ideas from?
3) Look at the History of France. Look at the enormous casualties that France suffered in WW1. What impact might this have had in the 1930's? Read some History.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> _Drunk Canadians_


Redundancy. Again proving your ignorance of countries other than your own.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> *... rather than beleiving the myth. ...*.


So says the Anti gun person.

Guns don't cause violent crime. *It's a myth*. Guns are merely a tool. Take away that tool and people will find another tool. But as has been shown countless times, you can't take guns away from Americans. It's been recognized as a fundamental human right of ours. It's also logistically impossible to do.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> So says the Anti gun person.
> 
> Guns don't cause violent crime. *It's a myth*. Guns are merely a tool. Take away that tool and people will find another tool. But as has been shown countless times, you can't take guns away from Americans. It's been recognized as a fundamental human right of ours. It's also logistically impossible to do.


Interesting response to my post!


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Not at all. I value my freedoms, as do many others, but don't feel the need to go on about it every five minutes.


Uh... this is actually YOUR thread, where you chose to take the time to state a "damning indictment" on the freedom of Americans, not Yanks "going on about it every five minutes".



Chouan said:


> My mind isn't closed, it just needs a convincing argument, which it hasn't yet heard.


Wait, let me get this straight. You, as a British citizen, need to be convinced in order to approve of a freedom you don't have, in a foreign country that isn't your own? I hope the Americans here get right on that important service.



Chouan said:


> To reply to your last response first, it isn't "called freedom". That implies that carrying a weapon is, of itself, freedom. *You* might call carrying a firearm freedom. Others may think that freedom is lots of other things. I would suggest that calling the desire to carry a firearm "freedom" rather limits your ability to conceptualise what the vaguie expression "freedom" actually means. I, for example don't think that my own personal freedom is in any way at all limited by my not being allowed to carry a firearm.


Nope. And combining with your other argument, the American right to bear arms does not come from a NEED to carry a weapon. It is simply the freedom to own and/or carry a gun IF YOU CHOOSE.



Chouan said:


> For example, as a mature adult I am able to purchase a bottle of wine to have with my dinner, if I so choose, and have done so since I was 18. I value that freedom more than that of being able to own a (rifled) firearm. I would think it an abuse of my freedom if somebody else, or some "authority" determined that I shouldn't do so, for whatever reason.


Great, and more power to you, whether I have that same right in my own country or not! You cherish your freedom to drink wine. Others cherish their freedom of speech. Others cherish their freedom to own and/or carry weapons. Some cherish their freedom to do drugs in their own country. Question--do you exercise your freedom to drink wine because you have a deep rooted REQUIREMENT to do so? As a private British citizen, did you have to prove your NEED to drink wine to the British government, before you were allowed to do so? Or did a private Frenchman on an internet forum or Russian individual demand that you provide a "convincing argument" for drinking wine, before they gave their approval of your freedom?

Rather interesting, this vitriol towards freedoms in foreign countries that individuals do not have themselves.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> So says the Anti gun person.
> 
> Guns don't cause violent crime. *It's a myth*. Guns are merely a tool. Take away that tool and people will find another tool. But as has been shown countless times, you can't take guns away from Americans. It's been recognized as a fundamental human right of ours. It's also logistically impossible to do.


I'm neither anti-gun nor pro-gun. One can exist without falling into one of two irreconcileable camps. Not everything has to be black and white, or good and evil. There are, I've found, shades of grey in between. I've yet to hear a good argument for the private ownership of firearms, especially firearms designed solely to kill people. 
Just because it is a right, you're not obliged to exercise that right! 
I have the right to own and ride a motorbike. I'm not obliged to ride one, or to own one, so I don't. My freedom to do so isn't diminished by my chossing not to own one.
The argument that Americans own firearms because it is their right to do so is the same. It seems to me, based on the arguments that Americans on this site have offered, that Americans own firearms because they want to, and that the right to do so, and the necessity to do so are merely pretexts to justify what they want to do.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> I'm neither anti-gun nor pro-gun. One can exist without falling into one of two irreconcileable camps. Not everything has to be black and white, or good and evil. There are, I've found, shades of grey in between. I've yet to hear a good argument for the private ownership of firearms, especially firearms designed solely to kill people.
> Just because it is a right, you're not obliged to exercise that right!
> I have the right to own and ride a motorbike. I'm not obliged to ride one, or to own one, so I don't. My freedom to do so isn't diminished by my chossing not to own one.
> The argument that Americans own firearms because it is their right to do so is the same. It seems to me, based on the arguments that Americans on this site have offered, that Americans own firearms because they want to, and that the right to do so, and the necessity to do so are merely pretexts to justify what they want to do.


Aha. Here's the Crux though. Just because you choose not to exercise your right doesn't mean the right should be removed from others. The majority (not necessarily yourself based on this post) of people who are opposed to the private ownership of firearms (Right to bear arms) are asking just that. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the need or desire or not.

People have the right to free speech, and can say some of the most vile things I have ever heard, like the modern military man is nothing but a hired murderer. I don't like it. I don't agree with it. But I wouldn't dare have his right removed from him. The same goes with 2nd Amendment.

I happen to exercise my right(s). I own and carry guns. My former professions made them commonplace. I have never, outside of the Marines had to draw a weapon in need (thank whatever Creator you prescribe to), and I continue to hope that I don't have to. I logically know that, statistically, it is unlikely I will need to as well. But I also know that the more guns that citizens legally own, the harder it is for the government *inefficient and improper** regulation in an attempt to infringe my rights to bear arms.

*Assault weapons ban of 1994 was a "Cosmetic" ban on Rifles which did not actually do anything. It stated (brief synopsis) that any rifle manufactured after 1994 could not have more than 2 of the following features: bayonet lug, flash suppressor, and/or collapsable stock (etc). The idea was that it would ban the manufacture of AR15 (M16 lookalike), but manufactures just removed features to become compliant. The other problem was that these guns were $600-1000 in price, and were actually one of the least likely to be used in crime (shotguns, and small caliber revolvers being most likely based on cost). This is overly simplistic, but this is what happens when you have lawmakers trying to make laws who have no knowledge of guns.

As I've said countless times before, I'm a law abiding citizen, what gives someone else the right to tell me what I am and am not allowed to have? Using your wine example. If you were to walk into a bar, and order a glass, the only thing he should ask for is some proper ID. In the case of guns, we ask for proper ID, and the filling out of forms (fed form 4473, and applicable state form). Background checks are done in conjunction with the forms (NICS checks are part of the state form in VA, and fed form in TX as examples). Guns are regulated.

Laws are on the books for those who violate those regulations, or those who commit normal crimes using guns as a tool. That's the big thing. Who cares if someone died because of gunshot or a knife wound. They still died. The method doesn't matter. They're dead.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Wildblue said:


> Rather interesting, this vitriol towards freedoms in foreign countries that individuals do not have themselves.


That's what makes them so much more sophisticated than us!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Wildblue said:


> Uh... this is actually YOUR thread, where you chose to take the time to state a "damning indictment" on the freedom of Americans, not Yanks "going on about it every five minutes".


No, it was a "damning indictment on the land of the free". And I've never used the expression "yanks", ever. Certainly not here. It is, certainly, Americans who have frequent recourse to expressing their "freedom". Just put the word into search in this forum and see how many times it used by Americans, in contexts that aren't always relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Chouan said:


> I'm neither anti-gun nor pro-gun. One can exist without falling into one of two irreconcileable camps. Not everything has to be black and white, or good and evil. There are, I've found, shades of grey in between. I've yet to hear a good argument for the private ownership of firearms, especially firearms designed solely to kill people.
> Just because it is a right, you're not obliged to exercise that right!
> I have the right to own and ride a motorbike. I'm not obliged to ride one, or to own one, so I don't. My freedom to do so isn't diminished by my chossing not to own one.
> The argument that Americans own firearms because it is their right to do so is the same. It seems to me, based on the arguments that Americans on this site have offered, that Americans own firearms because they want to, and that the right to do so, and the necessity to do so are merely pretexts to justify what they want to do.


One reason for this is that generally people who respond to gun threads are either anti gun, or hard core gun owners. So what you get is only the tip of the iceberg. I'm a hard core gun owner, but I was also a certified practicing firearms personal protection instructor for quite a few years. I have a good understanding of why average Americans make a personal decision to own a firearm.

My students, usually women and first time gun owners, were usually anti-gun or indifferent. Often, they didn't like the idea of owning a gun and were not looking for a "pretext" for exercising their right. Most often they were afraid of crime, or, sadly, had recently become a victim and were determined not to have it happen again. They purchased and trained with guns specifically designed to kill people. Many had high capacity magazines. They took the responsibility very seriously. They learned to use, carry, and store these firearms safely. They learned defensive tactics so that if the firearm was ever used, it would be a last resort and a legal execution of true self defense.

One thing that they understood was that should someone start kicking in their door in the middle of the night, it would be too late to go buy a gun and get training. There are a lot of these tapes, not all end as well as this one. I just went out and grabbed one for you to think about:






I can also reference and document at least one case where a man defended his life and the life of his friend, legally, with a rifle with a 30 round magazine. Personally, I think it's ironic that there are those who wish to deny us civilians 30 round magazines when the police, who have body armor, support, radios, helicopters, armored vehicles, etc., need 30 round magazines when they feel they might have to engage the very same criminals who are already attacking us!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Wildblue said:


> Wait, let me get this straight. You, as a British citizen, need to be convinced in order to approve of a freedom you don't have, in a foreign country that isn't your own? I hope the Americans here get right on that important service.


Oh, "Freedom" again. You have that freedom; good for you. I stated that I haven't yet heard a good argument for private ownership of firearms. I still haven't. Nothing to do with my approval or "freedom" or otherwise. I'm exercising my right to free speech in expressing an opinion. Which is, incidentally, one of the many freedoms which I enjoy, and choose to exercise. 
As I've explained elsewhere, having a freedom doesn't imply that you are obliged to exercise it. Even though I have the freedom to buy a bottle of wine when I want one, unlike citizens of many counties in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas and others (I got bored counting them all, there were so many) it doesn't mean that I buy, or drink, wine everyday. I can enjoy the freedom without needing to exercise it. 
Americans justifying private possession of firearms seem to invoke this "freedom" as a reason. It isn't a reason, in that there is no obligation in the freedom. You can own a firearm if you want to, not because you have to. If you own one, it is because you want to, and because you can. The freedom so to do isn't the reason. I don't enjoy a glass of wine *because* I have that freedom, I enjoy it because I like the taste, the freedom allows me to enjoy it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Wildblue said:


> Nope. And combining with your other argument, the American right to bear arms does not come from a NEED to carry a weapon. It is simply the freedom to own and/or carry a gun IF YOU CHOOSE.


See my above response. You are carrying a gun because you choose to, not because you need to. Your freedom isn't a reason.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Wildblue said:


> Great, and more power to you, whether I have that same right in my own country or not! You cherish your freedom to drink wine. Others cherish their freedom of speech. Others cherish their freedom to own and/or carry weapons. Some cherish their freedom to do drugs in their own country. Question--do you exercise your freedom to drink wine because you have a deep rooted REQUIREMENT to do so? As a private British citizen, did you have to prove your NEED to drink wine to the British government, before you were allowed to do so? Or did a private Frenchman on an internet forum or Russian individual demand that you provide a "convincing argument" for drinking wine, before they gave their approval of your freedom?


To answer your question, I enjoy wine because I enjoy the taste, essentially. My enjoyment of wine has no impact on anybody else. If I have an accident with my wine, I'm unlikely to harm anybody, whereas an accident with a firearm may cause problems. Whether an individual of another country approves of my drinking is irrelevant. My approval of firearms in the US, or otherwise, is also irrelevant. My questioning the need to own firearms that many Americans express is encouraged by the irrational reasons that many Americans have given. If you tell me that you own a gun because you WANT one, then good for you. At least you're being honest and not pretending. Dressing it up as necessity, for protection or self-defence is being dishonest, unless America is a seriously dangerous country. My impression is that it isn't, based on personal experience and the views expressed in this forum. Which suggests, to me, that firearms aren't actually *really* owned for protection, but because it is a good, or at least a reasonable, excuse for justifying a simple desire, but is essentially dishonest. Similarly, dignifying one's desire to own a firearm by describing it as a "freedom" is being equally dishonest.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Wildblue said:


> Rather interesting, this vitriol towards freedoms in foreign countries that individuals do not have themselves.


Where's the vitriol?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

There's a difference between a Right and a Freedom.

You are born with a right, you are granted a freedom. A freedom is nothing more than a privilege, something which can be enjoyed at a whim of yourself or at some other party. A right is something you have have. Choosing to exercise your right is a personal privilege, and that's where the overlap is.

Much like your wine example. You don't have a right to alcohol. You have a privilege to it.

The Government has no Rights. The government is not an entity. It is an organization of People. People have Rights. The government has powers bestowed upon it by the people, and only those powers bestowed upon it by the people. But no person can take away another persons rights. The old "Shouting Fire in a crowded theatre" argument. The government is there to protect the peoples rights.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Liberty Ship said:


> My students, usually women and first time gun owners, were usually anti-gun or indifferent. Often, they didn't like the idea of owning a gun and were not looking for a "pretext" for exercising their right. Most often they were afraid of crime, or, sadly, had recently become a victim and were determined not to have it happen again. They purchased and trained with guns specifically designed to kill people. Many had high capacity magazines. They took the responsibility very seriously. They learned to use, carry, and store these firearms safely. They learned defensive tactics so that if the firearm was ever used, it would be a last resort and a legal execution of true self defense.
> 
> One thing that they understood was that should someone start kicking in their door in the middle of the night, it would be too late to go buy a gun and get training. There are a lot of these tapes, not all end as well as this one. I just went out and grabbed one for you to think about:
> 
> ...


Yet in Britain, where we lack the freedom to own rifled firearms, the kind of violence that you describe is very rare. 
Must I conclude, therefore, that serious violence is endemic in American society? that the frequency of serious life threatening violence is so common in America that it necessitates the carrying of firearms designed to kill people?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Laws are on the books for those who violate those regulations, or those who commit normal crimes using guns as a tool. That's the big thing. Who cares if someone died because of gunshot or a knife wound. They still died. The method doesn't matter. They're dead.


True, but if an individual runs amok with a knife, (or a club, or an axe, or a spear, or a sword) the damage/impact/casualty rate is likely to be far less severe than if the individual uses a firearm, especially a rifled magazine fed firearm.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Yet in Britain, where we lack the freedom to own rifled firearms, the kind of violence that you describe is very rare.
> Must I conclude, therefore, that serious violence is endemic in American society? that the frequency of serious life threatening violence is so common in America that it necessitates the carrying of firearms designed to kill people?


As he outlined in his post,_ for those people_, they felt it was necessary. Just because something was needed for them, doesn't mean it's prevalent.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> True, but if an individual runs amok with a knife, (or a club, or an axe, or a spear, or a sword) the damage/impact/casualty rate is likely to be far less severe than if the individual uses a firearm, especially a rifled magazine fed firearm.


If an individual runs amok with a car, the damage/impact/casualty rate is likely to be far more severe than if the individual uses a firearm. You don't even have to reload it as often. Motor vehicle incidents are far more common than firearm incidents, yet we let people drive at 16 here, and wouldn't think about suggesting a nationwide car-ban.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I have no strong opinions on gun ownership and have read only this page of this thread, but the below stuck out.



Apathetic Views said:


> People have the right to free speech, and can say some of the most vile things I have ever heard, *like the modern military man is nothing but a hired murderer.* I don't like it. I don't agree with it. But I wouldn't dare have his right removed from him. The same goes with 2nd Amendment.


He's talking about me. He thinks I said that in another thread. He said so there. I didn't, there's no evidence that I did, but he carries it here anyway. He carries with him many things that time dictates should be dropped. Like his being a Marine. That's over, like high school, first dates and fast cars. Move on. Nor did I care for his remarks about the French. But I've only read this page and he may have offered wonderment prior. I hope so. I don't like to carry a grudge.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Yet in Britain, where we lack the freedom to own rifled firearms, the kind of violence that you describe is very rare.
> Must I conclude, therefore, that serious violence is endemic in American society? that the frequency of serious life threatening violence is so common in America that it necessitates the carrying of firearms designed to kill people?


The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. 
By JAMES SLACK
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1C9ZYW1fc

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show: 
The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1C9ZszeIS


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Liberty Ship said:


> The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
> By JAMES SLACK
> Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009
> 
> ...


You expect me to take the Daily Mail seriously? Find out more about your sources before you quote them at me!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> I have no strong opinions on gun ownership and have read only this page of this thread, but the below stuck out.
> 
> He's talking about me. He thinks I said that in another thread. He said so there. I didn't, there's no evidence that I did, but he carries it here anyway. He carries with him many things that time dictates should be dropped. Like his being a Marine. That's over, like high school, first dates and fast cars. Move on. Nor did I care for his remarks about the French. But I've only read this page and he may have offered wonderment prior. I hope so. I don't like to carry a grudge.


That's the beautiful thing about free speech. We both have it. You don't have to like mine. I don't have to like yours. The other thing about it, is that speech is an interpretation of what a person means. I know full well you had no intention of calling myself nor anyone on these boards in particular a murder, however the phrasing of your post could very well be interpreted that way. People see what they want to see. People hear what they want to hear. That's why politics is a *job*.

I used your post to highlight free speech, because it was a recent example, on these boards, of something I found personally offensive. Would I take away your right to say it? Not on your life. I'd shout at the top of my lungs how wrong you are, but if someone ever said you weren't allowed to say it, I'd shout at the top of my lungs how wrong they were to try and stop you from saying it.

It doesn't matter what the Right is. You take away one Right, you may as well take them all. Because that's what happens.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Please also read the sources properly before you quote from them:
_"But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured. _
_In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured. _
_There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007. "_

and 
_"Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading. 
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime."_

and this might give you a clue as to the context:
_"The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence." 
_

Just as an example. If I shout at and threaten somebody in the street and, because I won't or can't calm down and need to be restrained, and am thus arrested by the Filth, I am liable to be charged with affray. 
"A person is guilty of affray if he uses or *threatens unlawful violence* towards another and the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety."
This will be recorded as a violent crime, or a crime of violence. 
Similarly, if somebody fears that they are going to be hurt, it is assault "It is committed by a person *who causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence*" although no contact of any kind needs to occur. This will also be recorded as violent crime.
The article wasn't comparing like with like, the statistics are therefore meaningless.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> You expect me to take the Daily Mail seriously? Find out more about your sources before you quote them at me!


Article~


> The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations,


I don't trust the EU or UN either!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I don't trust the EU or UN either!!


Are we supposed to?

Trust People! Not organizations!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> There's a difference between a Right and a Freedom.


Absolute nonsense!


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

I need to go back to the main topic for a moment after which you can all continue with educating England on freedom.

I saw today that Loughner was looking at penalties and defenses prior to the shooting. This is about what I expected. The whole insanity defense is now about to fall apart. This goes to show that waiting a little while can make a big difference in perspective. I now have to wonder if the various news stories which painted him as insane will be retracted.

As you go back to fighting about our rights could you please educate any congressmen, judges and news people who are visiting here while you are at it. The British are not the only ones who sort of miss the point of having a constitution.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> You expect me to take the Daily Mail seriously? Find out more about your sources before you quote them at me!


Seconded! Well said.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> I saw today that Loughner was looking at penalties and defenses prior to the shooting. This is about what I expected. The whole insanity defense is now about to fall apart. This goes to show that waiting a little while can make a big difference in perspective. I now have to wonder if the various news stories which painted him as insane will be retracted.


He is insane. Just not "legally" insane. Sane people don't shoot up other people like that. Maniacs do. Murders do. The difference between "legally" insane and just plain insane (going to prison & possible execution, or going to a padded cell in a hospital) is whether he knew the difference between right and wrong. Since it appears he could conduct research on penalties, it appears that he wasn't legally insane. Doesn't make him any less of a nutjob.

I doubt that the media will "retract" anything. They'll just add new spin to the situation. Most likely using a very similar blurb to what you reported. It's just a new story to them. They don't have to retract anything, they just reported the "updated" story, even if it proves their previous information was wrong. The old "facts as we knew them, at the time."


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> I need to go back to the main topic for a moment after which you can all continue with educating England on freedom.
> 
> I saw today that Loughner was looking at penalties and defenses prior to the shooting. This is about what I expected. The whole insanity defense is now about to fall apart. This goes to show that waiting a little while can make a big difference in perspective. I now have to wonder if the various news stories which painted him as insane will be retracted.
> 
> As you go back to fighting about our rights could you please educate any congressmen, judges and news people who are visiting here while you are at it. The British are not the only ones who sort of miss the point of having a constitution.


I didn't realise that we missed the point. I rather thought that we have a Constitution, only, rather than writing it down as a fixed document, which has to be amended as the conditions, and context, change, ours is an organic, unwritten Constitution, which changes and adapts organically to suit the times. Neither do we need a Bill of Rights, with numerous amendments, because our Rights and "Freedoms" are already enshrined in Common Law. We don't need a seperate document for that, the corpus of Common Law includes anything that a Bill of Rights might think necessary.

Perhaps some of the American membership haven't caught on that the "Americans" who demanded independence did so because they believed that their liberty as free born Englishmen was being denied them by Britain's extant colonial administration. They wanted the right of "No taxation without representation" which their fellow Englishmen in England had. They believed that, as Englishmen, they had the right to be treated as Englishmen. As the administration didn't do so, they decided to rule themselves in order to allow themselves the freedom from oppression that Englishmen in England enjoyed.
This doesn't mean that Englishmen in England had any less rights in 1782 than Americans in 1782. Both countries have developed differently since then, but neither has a monopoly on freedom or rights.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Perhaps some of the American membership haven't caught on that the "Americans" who demanded independence did so because they believed that their liberty as free born Englishmen was being denied them by Britain's extant colonial administration. They wanted the right of "No taxation without representation" which their fellow Englishmen in England had. They believed that, as Englishmen, they had the right to be treated as Englishmen. As the administration didn't do so, they decided to rule themselves in order to allow themselves the freedom from oppression that Englishmen in England enjoyed.


That whole "Royalty" thing and official State Religion was all ginned up nonsense!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That whole "Royalty" thing and official State Religion was all ginned up nonsense!!


There was an intention, originally, to have George Washington as King, and a nobility. The more radical people, like Tom Paine argued against it. I suppose an economic elite is enough of an elite?
In any case, look at the reality of the monarchy by 1776. The concept of the "King reigns but doesn't govern" was well established by then. As far as religion is concerned, are you suggesting that American politicians have the freedom to not be members of an established church?
However, Americans do lack a non-partisan head of state. Your Head of State is your Executive, an elected politician, chosen by their party. The British model is a Head of State chosen by accident of birth, who stands aloof from party politics entirely. Your legislature is an elected body of career politicians, as is the British model. You have a Judiciary appointed by a partisan Head of State, we have a Judiciary appointed by a non-party Head of State, on the advice of an elected government.
Is the British model one that doesn't protect rights and freedoms? Can your Head of State act as a safeguard of the Constitution if the Executive the Legislature and the Judiciary are all controlled by the same party?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> As far as religion is concerned, are you suggesting that American politicians have the freedom to not be members of an established church?


Deliberate obfuscations such as this has grown tiresome.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Is the British model one that doesn't protect rights and freedoms? Can your Head of State act as a safeguard of the Constitution if the Executive the Legislature and the Judiciary are all controlled by the same party?


Our Judiciary are non-Party, in the same way that our military is non-Party. They are not elected, but appointed and confirmed (like ambassadors). They (individually) may have political "leanings" but everyone has political leanings.

As for safeguarding the constitution...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, *preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States*."

It's 35 simple words, which quite simple put means that the President will SAFEGUARD the constitution. *It's his job. It's his only job*. All of his duties are outlined in the document. All of our elected officials have an oath of office with similar wording. Our Judiciary Brach (Supreme Court) sole purpose is to identify laws which are potentially Unconstitutional (Like the DC Gun Ban law), and get rid of them.

As for the Head of the Legislature. We have two branches. Senate and House of Representatives. The President of the Senate is the Vice President. He is the "running mate" of the President, and generally speaking, going to be the same political party as the President (There have been exceptions.. back in 1800....). The House of Representatives is led by the Speaker of the House. If he is of the same political party as the President, it honestly makes little difference, since 45% of the other congressmen aren't. The trick is getting half the people in both branches to agree with you in the first place though (and it not destroying an existing law on the books).

Something Robert Heinlein once wrote "If a law is so unpopular that 35% of the people disagree with it, it should probably be scrapped."

So our system of "Checks & Balances" works pretty well, even when you toss in 535 Congressmen, a President, VP, some Supreme Court Justices who all have political leanings.

It isn't perfect. We have the 4th (Airport security) & 10th amendment (Healthcare insurance) issues going on at the moment, but they're getting squared away pretty quickly, considering we have 300 million people.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> As far as religion is concerned, are you suggesting that American politicians have the freedom to not be members of an established church?


I could care less what church_ if any_ my elected officials go to. I don't care what color he believes the _invisible_ man in the sky is.

American politicians do have the freedom to not be members of an established religion. Whether they choose to exercise that freedom or not is another story.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> I could care less what church_ if any_ my elected officials go to. I don't care what color he believes the _invisible_ man in the sky is.
> 
> American politicians do have the freedom to not be members of an established religion. Whether they choose to exercise that freedom or not is another story.


I suspect his point is reflecting the often held view that voters perception of a candidates religion sometimes do effect election results in the USA, such as Romney's Mormon beliefs and Lieberman's Jewish faith. That's not saying every voter thinks that way but enough do to prevent ones election in some cases, irrespective of their political platform or other factors. I would suspect that holds true in many other countries as well.

Blair


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

blairrob said:


> I would suspect that holds true in many other countries as well.


Perhaps even moreso in countries that have, unlike the US, an Official State Religion.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Perhaps even moreso in countries that have, unlike the US, an Official State Religion.


We have a deputy Prime Minister who is an Atheist, whilst the leader of the Opposition is Jewish. Some members of the house of Lords are Hindu, some are Muslim, some are Jewish, some are Catholic, some are C of E, some are from the other various protestant denominations.
I'm inclined to think that this shows that the comment on state religion is something of a canard. Or,less charitably perhaps, evidence of a lack of understanding about what an Established Church actually is.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> I could care less what church_ if any_ my elected officials go to. I don't care what color he believes the _invisible_ man in the sky is.
> 
> American politicians do have the freedom to not be members of an established religion. Whether they choose to exercise that freedom or not is another story.


Enough American voters do care enough to ensure that all candidates at least endorse sme form of organised religion. admittedly, some forms of organised religion seem to be more acceptable in the US than others. Am I correct in thinking that JFK was the first Catholic holder of the office of President?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Our Judiciary are non-Party, in the same way that our military is non-Party. They are not elected, but appointed and confirmed (like ambassadors). They (individually) may have political "leanings" but everyone has political leanings.
> 
> As for safeguarding the constitution...
> 
> ...


Except that I was under the impression that the President appoints Supreme Court Judges. Is he going to be scrupulously fair and appoint people of a different political persuasion to himself? But, theoretically, if the President, and, let's say 60% of the Legislature are of the same party, and a number of Supreme Court Judges die, and are replaced by the President's nominees, how effective are your checks and balances? Especially as the President is C in C of the armed forces. Montesquiou's ideas were good, but not perfect.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Enough American voters do care enough to ensure that all candidates at least endorse sme form of organised religion. admittedly, some forms of organised religion seem to be more acceptable in the US than others. Am I correct in thinking that JFK was the first Catholic holder of the office of President?


Yes, you are correct. He was a Denominational *Christian*, vice a non-Denominational Christian. Every President we've had has been Christian. But we've had less than 50 of them. However "Christian" is a big "vague" term for the majority of Christianity. There's lots of sects. Catholicism being just one of them.

But here's the thing. Most Americans are religious. The elected officials come from the American people. Hence most elected officials are going to be religious as well. We don't grow officials in a jar. We grow them in the streets (we hope).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> We don't grow officials in a jar.


They aren't sprung from some tarted up Queens womb either!!

USA!! USA!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Except that I was under the impression that the President appoints Supreme Court Judges. Is he going to be scrupulously fair and appoint people of a different political persuasion to himself? But, theoretically, if the President, and, let's say 60% of the Legislature are of the same party, and a number of Supreme Court Judges die, and are replaced by the President's nominees, how effective are your checks and balances? Especially as the President is C in C of the armed forces. Montesquiou's ideas were good, but not perfect.


It's near impossible for the president to have 60% of the legislature in his corner. Right now it's, 51 Republican, 47 Democrats, 2 Independents on the Senate, and 242 Republicans and 192 Democrats in the House. So in practice, we're still looking at less than 55%. This is with the senate changing every 6 years (part of it every 2 years) and the house changing every 2 years.

Supreme court Judges don't die all that often, so we're not seeing shifts in the interpretation of the Constitution as often as one might think. But no, he does indeed nominate people who interpret the Constitution in a similar way as himself (to a degree). He however has to be careful not to push the boundary to the point where the person will not be confirmed by the Senate. Even members of the same political party don't always have the same views when it comes to a particular issue, and if a specific judge is known to interpret a law one way, that can be a deal breaker.

And being the CinC means that President can't be overthrown by his own military. that's why he's CinC.

I've never claimed the Constitution is perfect. The framers didn't think it was perfect (hence the ability to amend). They designed it to last 20 years. 20 years. But right now it is the longing lasting written Constitution in the world. It works. It works well. It works well for the American People. Would it work well for British or the Commonwealth? Who knows. Sure there are things I would love to see things changes about aspects of it.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> They aren't sprung from some tarted up Queens womb either!!
> 
> USA!! USA!!


Thanks a lot, now I have to clean soda off my monitor.

But, I will say this. I have never met the Queen. I have nothing bad to say about her.

However. Prince Philip. The man is Awesome on a Stick. I would like to shake his hand, and follow him around like a puppy dog. I can understand why cargo cults consider him a god.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> *Our Judiciary are non-Party*, in the same way that our military is non-Party.


Wha?



Apatheticviews said:


> He [Kennedy] was a Denominational Christian, *vice a non-Denominational Christian*.


Wha?



Apatheticviews said:


> Right now it's, *51 Republican, 47 Democrats, 2 Independents on the Senate.*..


Wha?

Am only allowed three _wha?_s per post so I cannot continue.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Wha?
> 
> Wha?
> 
> ...


As the Judiciary (Federal) are not elected, they are non-party. They are appointed, and confirmed. I've already stated they have political leanings, but so does everyone. The Executive branch changes hands every 4-8 years, which means that it is fairly random who will be making each selection. Each individual member may be a member of a political party, but as a whole, the Supreme Court is not Republican nor Democrat.

Roman Catholicism is not a Religion. It is a Religious Sect belonging to Christianity as a whole (semantics I know). Every President we've had (less than 50) has been Christian. How is it unusual that Kennedy was Christian, or that he belonged to one specific Religious Sect of Christianity? A lot of people think Catholicism is not Christianity, which is what creates the issue. It's like saying any Christian who isn't Catholic is Protestant. It's not accurate. Just because JFK didn't have the same rituals at his church, didn't mean he didn't worship the same god as most Americans during the 1960's. My initial response was aimed towards the concept that JFK was somehow different than his peers. In reality he wasn't.

Reversed the last one (was typing too fast), my apologies. 51 democrats, 47 Republicans, 2 Independents.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> Roman Catholicism is not a Religion. It is a Religious Sect belonging to Christianity as a whole


Of course it's a religion! Christianity isn't a religion it's a theology.
Theology= divine. Religion = man made. And of course the RC church is Christian, it is the orignal and first Christian church.
A lot of people do NOT think the RC church isn't Christian. Where are you getting this nonsense from?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> I've already stated they [the judiciary] have political leanings, but so does everyone.


Yeah, but_ everyone_ doesn't have the power to overturn the will of the majority of the voting public and put in power a hollow little numb skull that would lead this country into death, destruction and near financial ruin for eight miserable years.

But that nugget aside, how old are you anyway, or how old is it you're trying to be? Your posts read like some sort of Cold War film strip I was forced to sit through in school back in the 50s. I am in awe of the knowledge you think you have and the spin you put upon it.

Go back and read the quotes from you that I lifted to form my _Wha?_ post. Note the emboldened lines. I am referencing Lydon Johnson, as were you, not Kennedy. Johnson was a Desciple Of Christ, a recognized Christian denomination of long standing. The judiciary is _not_ non party in the way that the military is. The military has a Commander and Chief that tells them what to do. The Judiciary tells everybody else what to do. You float past reality when shoving some of the more important points of the American system into almost footnotes. Your posts are long, doctrinaire, and know-it-all. Give it a rest for a day. Bone up. When you've taken a breath, come back and stop telling us how we should fit into your version of America.

(While Chouan's post come off as off-putting to some, maybe even Anti-American, they aren't. I like to hear views of us from intelligent outsiders, am drop-tired of hearing only narcissistic views of us from intelligent insiders.)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I constantly marvel at how widely astray these threads do tend to wander! BTW, how is Gabby and what is going on with the many other victims and their families?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The narcissistic, hypocritical self-congratulatory mantras from some Americans that shout "we are better than everyone else" at the drop of a hat are what make many non-Americans hate America and all it stands for. 
I like many aspects of America (trying not to sound patronising) and I've met many Americans who, as individuals, were people whose friendship I valued. I've never met more genuinely friendly and welcoming people in all my travels. I've had dock workers in Tacoma invite me home for Christmas Dinner when I was there on a ship. I had a taxi driver in Donaldsonville in Louisiana invite into his home to meet his family. I've never seen that level of welcome offered anywhere else in the world.
However, the loud, brash, inconsiderate, arrogant Americans that one meets in Europe and elsewhere in the world, and in online Forums, do your country no service at all. The casual use of expressions like "We won a war/revolution for this" and the mindless use of "Freedom" to mean anything at all, in place of an argument, and finally the assertion that Americans somehow have more freedom/democracy/rights etc than anybody else, apart from being naif and childish in themselves, also serve to alienate people in the rest of the world who also enjoy the freedoms etc that Americans claim to have. Added to that the refusal of many Americans to accept that they've ever, as a Nation, done anything wrong, shows hubris, arrogance and hypocrisy of the highest order. Of course, if anybody points any of these things out, they get accused of being "anti-American" by the same ignorant, arrogant people. 
Actually listening, or reading, and reflecting, rather than shouting how good you are might make America and Americans rather more liked in the rest of the world than they are now. At the moment Americans are despised and disliked in equal measure by most ordinary people in the rest of the world. I've seen the way American tourists are looked as they stand speaking loudly in art galleries in Italy, and France, and in pubs in Ireland and England; the way they are hated throughout the Middle east, with the possible exception of Israel. People will be fine to your faces, as they take your money, but they equally hate and despise your perceived attitude.
The difference between the way that the English were disliked by the rest of the world for their arrogance in the days of Empire, and the reason for the dislike of Americans now, is that Americans are disliked for their arrogance, whilst at the same time being despised for their hypocrisy and ignorance. 
There. Rant over.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The narcissistic, hypocritical self-congratulatory mantras from some Americans that shout "we are better than everyone else" at the drop of a hat are what make many non-Americans hate America and all it stands for.


If you are PO'd and P&P is slobbering over you, then I know my job here is done.

USA!! USA!!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

While it's well-known, to me and my cat, that I don't much like you and your exclamation marks, I did however like that, though I still can't convince the cat.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Now to the slobbering part. I cannot say that I agree with Chouan because I don't have the outside perspective that he does. Nor have I ever been picked up by a longshoreman in Louisiana or what ever that was. But I think I can understand what he's saying and I also think I'm liking what he's saying though I wish I wasn't. And he could pepper a bit of levity in there. Otherwise I wish there wasn't an otherwise; he's probably right on. Damn.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Chouan said:


> The narcissistic, hypocritical self-congratulatory mantras from some Americans that shout "we are better than everyone else" at the drop of a hat are what make many non-Americans hate America and all it stands for...<SNIP>...Rant over.


 Why didn't you just make this your OP instead of thinly veiling it throughout 8 pages of comments loosely related to a recent tragedy? You would've saved everyone a lot of time.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> The narcissistic, hypocritical self-congratulatory mantras from some Americans that shout "*we are better than everyone else*" at the drop of a hat a....


I'm pretty sure we picked that up from the British.  They just stopped saying it a while back. Give us another 50 years, after our colonies rebel and we might as well.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> The narcissistic, hypocritical self-congratulatory mantras from some Americans that shout "we are better than everyone else" at the drop of a hat are what make many non-Americans hate America and all it stands for.


But...But...That's what makes us great!!!! 

(Cue the "I'm Proud To Be An American" song)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> Why didn't you just make this your OP instead of thinly veiling it throughout 8 pages of comments loosely related to a recent tragedy? You would've saved everyone a lot of time.


But it wasn't my intention. Read the posts and you'll see that this is a reaction to the posts on this forum and this thread.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Chouan said:


> But it wasn't my intention. Read the posts and you'll see that this is a reaction to the posts on this forum and this thread.


 I did. Your very first post refers to this tragedy as a "damning indictment of the land of the free." Maybe your intention really was to "understand" and possibly get that one convincing argument that will change your mind (which you claim to be so open to), but that statement smacks of sarcasm and is little more than a moral judgment of our way of life from 3000 miles away.

You got responses that were factual, but didn't support your ideals, so you picked apart the sources or ignored them all together. If reason doesn't work, what else is there besides chest-thumping and verbal abuse?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Of course it's a religion! Christianity isn't a religion it's a theology.
> Theology= divine. Religion = man made. And of course the RC church is Christian, it is the orignal and first Christian church.
> A lot of people do NOT think the RC church isn't Christian. Where are you getting this nonsense from?


Everyone know that Christianity is only real if it agrees with my specific views. Everyone else is an impostor.
That is where he got if from. We each think we have the inside track on what is real. Unfortunately since everyone i know thinks that way, it is hard to be sure which one of us will get to heaven. That is the nature of religion (faith is an entirely different situation).


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"But...But...That's what makes us great!!!!

(Cue the "I'm Proud To Be An American" song) 

My Coupon Page

"It is better to look good than to feel good." Fernando Lamas

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.
Mark Twain

"I hope that after I die, people will say of me: 'That guy sure owed me a lot of money.'" Jack Handey

"Of all the things I've become attached to, The ones I superglued to myself caused the greatest regret. " Daniel Rahe"


What makes us great is that our sig lines are often longer than our messages. ;-)
Other than that we are pretty typical in the world.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> What makes us great is that our sig lines are often longer than our messages. ;-)
> Other than that we are pretty typical in the world.


:icon_smile_big:


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

In regrades to the freedom, rights and American Revolution talk....

Just my 2 cents but does anyone else see the irony that America's best friends in the world are part of the empire that America fought to get out of (UK, Canada, Australia). Yet Americans for the most part have little love for the one country that actually stood up for them during said revolution (France). I appreciate the irony...


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

nosajwols said:


> In regrades to the freedom, rights and American Revolution talk....
> 
> Just my 2 cents but does anyone else see the irony that America's best friends in the world are part of the empire that America fought to get out of (UK, Canada, Australia). Yet Americans for the most part have little love for the one country that actually stood up for them during said revolution (France). I appreciate the irony...


It is probably a good thing for France. They have their problems but they don't need to add ours to their agenda.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

This might be best as a separate thread but with the talk of freedom and rights it might fit in here.

Has anyone heard that our most blatantly Unamerican law is set to expire soon but a bill has been introduced to extend it? Yes I am talking about the Patriot Act, the infringement which should have made all of us cringe. Amazingly Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) has supposedly introduced a bill to extend it. Now where is our freedom and rights when that bit of information is brought up?


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I would be sorry to see the "Patriot" Act extended. Furthermore, I would be happy to see the Department of Homeland Security dismantled. They were both extraordinarily bad ideas. 

DHS, in my opinion, spends too much time and money on efforts outside what any reasonable person viewed their initial charge to be. Like being the first on TV after an oil spill. And not enough time doing what you would think they should be doing. Like securing US borders!

But, then, I was never in favor of changing the name of the War Department to The Department of Defense.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> This might be best as a separate thread but with the talk of freedom and rights it might fit in here.
> 
> Has anyone heard that our most blatantly Unamerican law is set to expire soon but a bill has been introduced to extend it? Yes I am talking about the Patriot Act, the infringement which should have made all of us cringe. Amazingly Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) has supposedly introduced a bill to extend it. Now where is our freedom and rights when that bit of information is brought up?


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - B. Franklin

The Patriot act really should just go away. It, much like a lot Airport Security is designed to make people feel safe without actually doing it. All it does is actually infringe on peoples rights.

The problem we have with our system is the latency of review. Unfortunately, one of the justices can't just go "whoa, whoa, whoa.... this is jacked up" of his own volition and put the kibosh on it. It has to be routed up the chain, so that all the other checks & balances can take place first (a good thing really).


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Liberty Ship said:


> Furthermore, I would be happy to see the Department of Homeland Security dismantled. They were both extraordinarily bad ideas.
> 
> DHS, in my opinion, spends too much time and money on efforts outside what any reasonable person viewed their initial charge to be. Like being the first on TV after an oil spill. And not enough time doing what you would think they should be doing. Like securing US borders!.


DHS was a "magic trick." It moved a bunch of federal agencies out from departments that had congressional oversight to one that didn't. Essentially giving the executive branch back a lot of power over its own agencies (making it the 3rd largest department). Not calling it right, just saying what happened. You had organizations like USBP, Customs & Immigrations, US Secret Service, *FEMA*, & USCG all get merged into this monster. DHS is so much more than just "securing US borders" now (like being in charge of national emergencies).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

My agency the MSB works closely with the DHS and my former agency the SRSA worked closely with Fema. In Sweden, ministry/department steering (or interference depending on your outlook) of agencies is unlawful. 
DHS has gone that way.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My agency the MSB works closely with the DHS and my former agency the SRSA worked closely with Fema. In Sweden, ministry/department steering (or interference depending on your outlook) of agencies is unlawful.
> DHS has gone that way.


By the letter of the law, it was legitimate. It was a "reorganization." Congress allowed it, without realizing what was really happening. They moved the US Secret Service (Law Enforcement branch of the Treasury Dept) and the USCG (Dept of Trans/Dept of Navy depending on War status) to the DHS. Both became full blown Law Enforcement Agencies within their own right (vice departmental specific components). Since FEMA is part of the DHS, it's hard to call it interference or steering.

Should FEMA be part of a different Dept, like Interior, some other, or possibly even it's own? Possibly. But as everything is organized right now, it's hard to say there was anything illegal done. Done with trickery sure. I'll willing to bet not everyone was "following the queen" as they say, but I was a Government Contractor during that era, and I was looking at it from a "Presidential Discretionary Funds" perspective. Congress could set the budget for DHS, but really couldn't do much about how the money was spent inside it, unlike the other departments. The President also had the ability to dump large amounts of funds towards the end of the fiscal year as he saw fit.

As they say.. follow the cash. That will normally give you a reason. But hindsight is 20/20. I doubt the current regime is going to dismantle the beast, either though.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Chouan said:


> The difference between the way that the English were disliked by the rest of the world for their arrogance in the days of Empire, and the reason for the dislike of Americans now, is that Americans are disliked for their arrogance..........


I think Americans got their arrogance and _"we are better than everyone else"_ attitude was when Texas annexed the USA in 1845.....

:cool2:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> By the letter of the law, it was legitimate. It was a "reorganization." Congress allowed it,


By your reply and looking back at what I wrote I realise I was a bit ambiguous. What I mean is this, that since 9/11 some countries are granting their executive agencies a lot more power and a much wider mandate, and removing interference with said agencies by ministries. My agency the MSB (Swedish Cviil Contingencies Agency) comes under the Minsitry of Defence, however NO ONE from the Swedish MoD can tell anyone in the MSB how to work or what to do.

This has been an aspect of Foundation Legislation in Sweden for decades, "non-involvement of ministries with agencies"

But only now, with the world a much more threatening place, are other countries realising they also have to give their executive agencies the tools to do the job without them being interfered with and hampered by poltiicians and central govt civil servants.

So I don't think yout trickery theory is a fair call. I think the DHS was created with the best of intentions, from what I've heard anyway from former Fema officers.

Agencies MUST be autonomous to function in my experience.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> By your reply and looking back at what I wrote I reaiise I was a bit ambiguous. What I mean is this, that since 9/11 some countries are granting their executive agencies a lot more power and a much wider mandate, and removing interference with said agencies by ministries. My agency the MSB (Swedish Cviil Contingencies Agency) comes under the Minsitry of Defence, however NO ONE from the Swedish MoD can tell anyone in the MSB how to work or what to do.
> 
> This has been an aspect of Foundation Legislation in Sweden for decades, "non-involvement of ministries with agencies"
> 
> ...


By default, FEMA falls under DHS, which is just a big umbrella of a name. For us, it doesn't exactly mean the same thing as MoD or DoD. For example military personnel don't report to DoD personnel (except through SecDef, or if assigned to specific DoD sub-dept). When you look at DHS however, every Agency head (FEMA, CBP, USBP, etc) is also a DHS employee. It's an overlapping chain of command, very similar to how the military units (of different types) are organized. I worked with them for a couple years, selling gear and equipment, visiting the Reagan building a few times. It took a while to wrap my head around it, but they actually have HUGE org-charts hanging all over the place, so that anyone can figure it out, at a glance.

I agree agencies must be autonomous to function. However... I also think *congress* should be able to _audit the books_.

I've seen first hand how the US government spends money. "Use it or lose it" is the philosophy of the budget, which means comes the last month of the fiscal year, every federal agency is "burning" as much funding as they can, so they don't lose it the following year. You're not rewarded for saving money. The finance departments actually feel they have an obligation to spend every cent.

I don't think it was blatant trickery, as though the executive intended to trick the legislative branch. I do think they didn't explain how all this power would be consolidated back into one cabinet. DHS as a whole makes sense. Not every agency within DHS does (USSS for example). Like you said, best of intentions, but I do think it went slightly astray when the powers that be realized that oversight could be bypassed using the new structure.

I think some of this conversation results from the difference between a Cabinet & a Ministry position. I don't know how other countries handle their executive powers. For the US, Cabinet heads are much like staff officers in the military, and agency heads are much like command officers. They all report to the President.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I read several of Steven Hunter's books; but his is just one more perspective.



> Why 33 rounds makes sense in a defensive weapon
> 
> ...Particularly in rural Arizona, given the upsurge in border violence, it's likely that residents feel the need to defend themselves against drug predators, coyote gunmen or others. Yes, they can use semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, protected by the Second Amendment and unlikely to be banned by local law, but women generally don't care to put in the training needed to master them. Nor can the elderly handle them adeptly.
> For them, the Glock with a 33-round magazine is the weapon of maximum utility. You can load it on Sunday and shoot it all month. (Nobody wants to reload a gun while being shot at.) It's light and easy to control. You don't have to carry it or conceal it; it's under the bed or in the drawer until needed. When the question arises of who needs an extended magazine, the answer is: the most defenseless of the defenseless.
> Those who would ban extended magazines, will say that although hundreds of thousands are in circulation and thousands more will surely be sold before a ban is enacted, it will be worth it if it saves just one life. But the other half of that question must be asked, too: Is it worth it if it costs just one life?


----------

