Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumProbably the best 2nd Amendment speech ever.
An Iraq Veteran and a Cop. Not some wannabe or poser. I certainly would have liked to see the face of those politicians.
Best line of all "My right trumps your dead."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)My right trumps your dead? It isn't even good grammer.
On edit.
I fought in Vietnam and not for your fucking rights but to stay alive.
No war in your life time was fought for your rights. It's fought for to grow the wealth of the 1%.
That fought for your rights shit is for people like you so you won't ask the right questions.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)This part is interesting: "
“First off, why is ‘dead children’ your battle cry?” Weiss asked passionately. “You didn’t say anything about the hundreds of Chicago children being killed and for some reason you only screamed when it happens to wealthy white ones.”"
“I heard some shocking things from some people and some legislators,” Weiss said of the previous meeting. “They said it took a lot of courage to pass the SAFE Act. Apparently, my definition of courage differs from yours.”
“You see,” Weiss continued, “if it was really so courageous a bill, and it took so much courage to pass it, then why was it done in the middle of the night when no one could see it or read it? That’s not courage. That’s a mafia style sit-down to divvy up what’s good for the bosses.”
“Courage,” he added, “is taking the right and true course of action, not the politically expedient one and anyone who is proud of this law must also be proud of the PATRIOT Act, the TSA (Transportation Security Agency), imprisoning Japanese citizens in World War II, since all these actions were spurred on by emotional fear and rammed through in the name of public safety.”
He then took a direct shot at all the anti-Second Amendment politicians who used the tragedy of Sandy Hook to advance their agendas.
“Another issue is the insistence of certain people to stand on the graves of dead children and challenge those that disagree to say it to the parent’s faces,” he blasted. “Well, I, for one, will pick up that gauntlet.”
“First off, why is ‘dead children’ your battle cry?” Weiss asked passionately. “You didn’t say anything about the hundreds of Chicago children being killed and for some reason you only screamed when it happens to wealthy white ones.”
“And yes, I’ll say to anyone’s face,” Weiss added, “my right is more important than your dead, because I fought for it first hand. I washed the blood of my friends out of my Humvee and I picked up their mangled bodies and I fought day in and day out.”
Weiss was visibly emotional recalling his military service and the deaths of fellow soldiers on the battlefield.
“I did more things than people can imagine,” he said. “So, yeah, my right trumps your dead.”
“I earned it in blood!” Weiss proclaimed. “I gave up a lot for this country, including my youth, and better men than me gave up a whole lot more so that all of you, myself included, could enjoy the rights that are guaranteed to us in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.”
“We didn’t go through all of that to come back home and watch you surrender what we fought for happen based on the demented acts of a couple of mad men,” he chided.
He then closed out his comments by addressing the legislators who were specifically going to vote against the repeal resolution. He said that he understood that they would vote based on “some misguided sense of the public good.” However, he questioned, as a law enforcement officer, their true resolve.
In Weiss’ words, “Since voting to take away someone’s rights is totally different than being asked to enforce it, I want you to consider this. If you support the SAFE Act so whole heartedly, are you willing to stand with law enforcement members who lead from the front to enforcement? What I mean by that is if a constituent of yours feels so alienated by this law and the manner in which it was passed and they refuse to comply with it, are you willing to stack up on their front door and go in first?”
“I bet if a clause was in this bill that required you, the elected leadership, our elected leaders to go in the door first, I bet you would not be so steadfast,” he said in a forceful conclusion.
Those listening erupted in applause as a call came up, “Can we have some quiet in the chambers please so that we may continue on.”
This is what it’s going to take, more people not being silent or just sitting behind the keyboard griping, but going before their legislatures and giving voice to your grievances against them for their tyrannical moves. Aaron Weiss is taking the stand that patriots of the past have taken. Will you?
Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost and a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline.
Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook
http://dcclothesline.com/2013/07/02/iraq-vet-slams-legislators-over-ny-safe-act-my-right-trumps-your-dead-i-earned-it-in-blood/
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)The second amendment is about being prepared for war in 1776. That's about is far as it goes.
The whole speach is emotional bull shit IMHO.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)No need to fret about unjust searches, quartering of soldiers, or free speech, the King of England is no longer a threat, right?
Thanks for playing, please try again.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)1/2 of the amendment.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)according to the Supreme Court...
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Boils down to IMLHO.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)We both have one.
premium
(3,731 posts)Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)Did you?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Really?
"assault weapon¹"
"who needs an assault weapon¹?"
"there is no need for anybody to have an assault weapon¹"
"assault magazine"
"gun-hugger"
"gun fetishist"
"reasonable restriction"
"common-sense gun laws"
"you believe that dead children are less important than your gun"
"you gun owners had better being policing yourselves"
¹arbitrarily defined, subject to arbitrary expansion at any time
Martin Eden
(12,873 posts)Aaron Weiss is a FOOL is he thinks he fought and his friends died in Iraq for the Constitutional rights of American citizens, or to protect our safety for that matter.
And whether or not the NY SAFE law infringes on Constititutional rights is for the courts to decide. When an opinion piece uses the phrase "anti-2nd Amendment" to label people who support more effective gun control laws, their argument is based an an unproven presupposition.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Martin Eden
(12,873 posts)Aaron Weiss decried the emotionalism of those who cite dead children in the gun control debate, but his speech relied even more on emotion than substance -- which is also lacking in your post to me.
True, it would be rude and disrespectful to call a war veteran a FOOL to his face. I'd prefer to show him exactly how and why the war in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with defending our Constititional rights.
But I'm curious ... do YOU think that's what the war in Iraq was about?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)U.S. Wars was about. But that was how he viewed it. Why are you so concerned about regarding his proposed response? My gripe he touched on: Please see my post re DU's fixation with racism, a most peculiar institution in light of the innercity slaughter.
Martin Eden
(12,873 posts)Not sure I understand your question, but I'll respond anyway.
One of the major themes in Weiss' speech was that he and his friends fought/died in Iraq protecting our Constitutional rights, only to see those rights taken away when he returned to his country. He's definitely wrong on the first count, and I think he's wrong on the 2nd as well (double entendre' with 2nd Amendment).
When responding to an argument, it's rather essential to point out the flaws in that argument. I think you're just miffed at my use of the word FOOL. Well, he was passionate and so am I. I am outraged that our soldiers were sacrificed for the lies and greed of those who used the flag and "Support Our Troops!" as shields against valid criticism of a corrupt war, and it sickens me when those soldiers heartily embrace the lies and serve as role models for the next wave of young citizens to step forward and be sacrificed for the greed & ambition of the 1%. Aaron Weiss is a grown man and supposedly a very tough one; if he's going to loudly express his opinions on a critically important issue with the lives of children in the balance, he should be tough enough to hear his opinion shot down in harsh terms.
If he's so concerned about the lives of minority children being killed on the streets of Chicago (my home town), he should passionately argue for a nationwide system of background checks and tough laws against straw purchasers for criminals and gangbangers. Chicago has some strict gun control laws, but all they have to do is go across the border into Indiana to pick up the Saturday night specials used for killing the children Weiss pretended to care about. But since he's admanat that his "rights" trump dead children, it's quite obvious that was a red herring race card to smear gun control advocates.
Do you or don't you think children should be protected from the flood of easily obtainable guns on our streets and in the hands of criminals or lunatics by making those guns at least a little bit harder to obtain? If so, and Sandy Hook was the straw that finally broke the back of public compacency, do you think it's reasonable to cite the dead minority children in an effort to PREVENT legislation that would protect those children??!!!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that's not how it works. Many of those SNS s are made by companies that went out of business 30 years ago, no straw purchasing there. Since interstate sales without a license is illegal under the 1968 Gun Control Act, someone buys handguns for $300-$600 drives to Chicago and sells them for $100. Poor business model.
Martin Eden
(12,873 posts)When I used the term "Saturday Night Special" I wasn't referring to a specific type of weapon, I was just using it as a metephor.
Straw purchases of guns from outside Chicago's borders IS a part of the problem:
At least 23 of those guns have been traced to Indiana, and 13 have been traced to one Indiana firearms dealer. Some were purchased at gun shows, including the sprawling Indy 1500 Gun & Knife Show at the Indianapolis state fairgrounds. Some were bought in the parking lot of a McDonald's restaurant on the outskirts of Indianapolis.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-16/opinion/ct-edit-gun-20130116_1_gun-knife-show-guns-last-year-firearms-violence
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it would be nice if the op ed cited its source. Did the US attorney file charges against the sellers? They were violating 1968 Gun Control Act.
Generally, the guns are bought from fences or stolen directly. That is why the plurality, if not the majority, is traced to the requesting state with a few exceptions like DC.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)1 Jailing for long terms repeat violent thugs. And keep them in there.
2 Institute a universal BG test system on all transfers which is not tied to a registration system, and excepts immediate family members.
3 Concentrate job/education programs within inner city areas.
4 Federally-fund school (about 100k institutions) security programs, up to and including trained armed personnel in schools, but not the Barbara Boxer send-in-the-guard approach.
5 I have reservations in this, but suspend gun sales for those voluntarily committing themselves for mental health services. All NICS-record mental health adjudications should be speeded up, with increased funding.
6 Legalizing & regulating all now-illegal drugs
Some ideas to address 2 distinct problems, only 1 of which gets a lot of attention.
You made a qualifier question re Sandy Hook concerning public complacency. IMO, the effective moves toward finding solutions will increasingly come from 2A activist groups and indivuduals. For now they will have to: Gun controllers/banners have shown a complete inflexibility in changing their media & elite-reliant strategies of demonizing their "opposition," and calling for bans. Hopefully, that will change, but new groups like the IFOA aren't willing to wait around till the next event so folks can respond in the same way.
Martin Eden
(12,873 posts)I generally agree, though I take issue with this sentence:
Gun controllers/banners have shown a complete inflexibility in changing their media & elite-reliant strategies of demonizing their "opposition," and calling for bans.
I think the opposite is much more true; many who cite 2A (NRA in particular) refuse to budge on any new gun control laws, including the universal BG test you support. And what kind of "ban" are you talking about? Even the NY SAFE law (among the most stringent) only bans large clip magazines. All too often the gun crowd turns every debate into a strawman argument about banning guns, but very rarely is that ever on the table -- a gun ban doesn't pass muster with the majority of voters and I doubt with the SCOTUS either.
There is plenty of emotionalism & intransigence on both sides of the debate, but I see those who view the current laws & enforcement as inadequate are much more willing to compromise.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)We can differ on the relative flexibilities of the "two sides," but I would only point out that the first measures advocated after Sandy Hook were calls for bans of both rifles and bulk ammunition purchases, the same-as-it-ever-was approach for over 2 decades. Personally, I don't see the extended mag measure as anything more than symbolism, and unworkable for the many reasons posted here over the last half year, but it might stand constitutional scrutiny, I just don't know.
The NRA is not the only show in town. Referencing the mental health proposals, Governor Scott (FL) very recently backed a measure supported by the NRA, but vigorously opposed by the GOA and even more aggressive gun groups. And there is the IFOA which supports Manchen-Toomey, and the legalization of pot, if for no other reason than its prominent Catch-22 role in Form 4473.
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)crackpot for opposing this bill.. I have posted the items in the bill elsewhere on this thread..They are common sense reforms that only a nut would oppose..and yes I will tell him to his face!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)for taking the time to say this..even if you disagree with me..
Response to Vietnameravet (Reply #59)
Name removed Message auto-removed
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I respect your opinion, I may not agree, but I do respect it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)proper grammar, like cursive penmanship and privacy, is dead.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)But seriously, that statement couldn't be more correct. My wife retired from teaching a few years ago and when I asked her about the Travon Martin witness that couldn't even read her own statement because she couldn't read cursive, she said they just don't teach it anymore. It's all about teaching to the standardized tests, nothing more.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)That's the truth.
I never believed for a second that Iraq was a threat to my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." I never believed for a second that Saddam was a threat to my constitutional rights.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
That's his perception and he's entitled to it.
How can you be so presumptuous as to imply that you speak for other Viet Nam vets and that no one has fought for such rights.
The Viet Nam war was more complicated than what you make it out to be. Before Tet, morale was high in many units. Not everyone knew or even suspected that the government was lying to us. Not everyone was an unwilling draftee, and especially not everyone was an unwilling draftee before Tet.
Patriotism was high in many units before Tet, and there were true believers. To say or imply that no one went to Viet Nam under the belief that they were fighting for the United States, or fighting for the rights that we enjoyed under the Constitution and the rule of law, is untrue.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)they help perpetuate the myth that lets us go on and on fighting useless wars and killing our kids.
Many of us who were in the Vietnam war thought that we could teach people what these wars were really about but we learned that people like you want to hold on to you myths about glory and honor and fighting for rights. Yea it's about me and all the other vets whose lives are screwed up so you can have you myths.
On edit
this macho shit about guns and wars is a mental problem and just maybe it is one of the mental issues that should be brought up when someone wznts to buy a new assult rifle.
premium
(3,731 posts)I fought in Vietnam also with the 25th ID and I believed then that I was fighting for our country and it's way of life, and I will never apologize for fighting for, what I thought at the time, our country's honor and my honor.
And I did serve with honor, as I'm positive you did too.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Just tell me the history of Vietnam from the time the French occupied it until we did.
I have no feeling of honor for being in that war.
on edit:
I read a lot about that war because I can't get it out of my head.
Recently I read many books about Linebacker II by various authors and in doing that you really get a good perspective on want took place.
premium
(3,731 posts)but you don't speak for all Vietnam Vets, a lot of us have a far different opinion than you.
Not to say that I don't have bitter feelings now, but back then, it was different.
I still say that I served with honor and I will never apologize for my participation in that war.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)but back in 68 you sure as hell weren't in the majority.
BainsBane
(53,038 posts)It means your children are not nearly as important as my guns. You have no right to press for political change in your children's name because my guns are more important. Mourning for the dead makes you emotional. I don't care about anyone's life but my own, so I'm not emotional. (Even though he's agitated through the entire speech.) Emotion is defined as concern for slain love ones. Rationality is worship of guns above human life.
This is exactly what gunners deny their believe all the time. Here they are cheering that someone says it.
They will claim I've twisted their words. I haven't twisted them. I've pointed them out. "My rights trump your dead," means your children's right to life isn't worth shit. All that matters is my right to guns. He couldn't be clearer, and the ten recs for this thread show that those DUers feel exactly the same way.
Thanks for exposing yourselves. Obviously I always knew this, but I have you all red handed admitting to what matters to you in life, and it sure as hell isn't children slain by gun violence. So don't any of the gunners dare get pissed off the next time someone accuses you all of not caring about dead children. You made the fact you do not perfectly clear in this thread. BUSTED.
So that I have this for my permanent record, the ten recommenders of MicaelS's OP are:
NYC_SK
Pavebury
geckosfeet
mr_liberal
AnotherMcIntosh
CokeMachine
SlipperySlope
discntnt_irny_srcsm
bakpakr
appal_jack
So let's dispense with the pretense shall we? Here we can see quite plainly where you stand.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)As you noted, his speech is emotional:
[center]"My rights trump your dead,"[/center]
What most people believe in, who accept that government is preferred to anarchy, is the idea of a system. A system that doesn't depend on the wisdom or benevolence of its leaders. Although those qualities should undoubtedly be sought, the goals of government and processes for their attainment have been articulated and interpreted in light of the people's existing priorities and values. There is in the Declaration of Independence an explanation:
It is this group of words that expresses the people's belief in a system. One that provides for the people to be viewed as equals and treated impartially. It is my belief that a system best protects and respects everyone. The expression used by Mr Weiss isn't the one I would use.
The fact is that rights trump consequences. As distasteful as it is to phrase this idea as it was in the video, everyone has a right to a means of self-defense.
BainsBane
(53,038 posts)He cites the blood of his fallen army buddies as the reason why his rights mean more than those of the parents of the dead. HE is more important than the rest of Americans. That sentiment seems to be widespread among gun proponents.
Those children had a right to live. Why is it that you all care so little about that right? One even came out and told me I had no right to life. The only right isn't guns. Rights must be balanced against one another. The gunner view of rights is for white men only, which is why they push SYG laws that make prey out of African American men. The entire ideology is based on entitlement and disregard for the basic rights of the unarmed. No one believes your rights argument because it's clear gunners only support rights for themselves. Their right to have any and every gun any and everywhere. Their right to kill unarmed teenagers. Their right to suppress research and criminalize speech. Their right to deny citizens due process through the legal system. Their right to be armed and kill over the rest of our rights to live. The Zimmerman verdict displays that perfectly, as does the racist application of SYG wherever it has been enacted. I have no doubt you believe the rights argument, but no one does who is not enmeshed in gun propaganda. When you fight only for your own interests, that is entitlement, not rights.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)BTW, what should self defense laws be? Should someone larger and stronger than you be able to pound your head in the sidewalk until someone calls the cops and they get there? That is what Martin family lawyer told Piers Morgan what Zimmerman should have done. I was completely disgusted when he said that.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)An example of indirect reasoning at best. The need for a military to act at the disposal of its civil authorities is long established. This country owes a lot to those who acted in its service. His defense of his rights citing his fallen comrades is, IMHO, no more on target than those who cite murder victims as a defense for laws against gun ownership.
---------------------------
Not what I said and, at best, your inference of what he meant.
---------------------------
Absolutely. Without equivocation I grant that everyone has a right to life and that this right should be protected equally under the law. The law does not exist as a tool for social experiments or as flag for a politician to write and wave as a means to his/her reelection. I have yet to hear of a law, current or proposed, that would have prevented Adam Lanza from doing what he did.
---------------------------
I didn't say that and that is the opposite of what I believe.
---------------------------
I think I made it clear that a system which treats everyone equally under the law is the best protection of all. What we have is not perfect; discarding the right to use a tool in self-defense will not make the system better.
Please explain why you see a right to use a tool in self-defense as entitlement.
BainsBane
(53,038 posts)More important that the Sandyhook children. He said it explicitly and directly. None of my comments were about you. They were a commentary on Weiss speech. The comment about my not having a right to live was from another member of the gungeon.
We have no system that treats everyone equally. We have a system that priviledges white men above others, including women, and values black men the least. To pretend we have some sort of system that treats people equally is absurd. It's more than absurd. It's disconnected from reality. That is not only true of the policing and judicial system but of the application of laws and constitutional rights. The prevailing definition of rights in this gungeon puts the interests of propertied gun owners above everyone else, especially the victims of gun violence. That is exactly what Weiss was saying, and what you all are applauding here. Many of you have made explicit that you do not value our rights, and that the lives of us and our children are less important than your guns. I have always been aware of that shocking sense of entitlement, but this thread confirms it explicitly. Celebrating "my rights trump your dead" says exactly that.
As for GE Johnston's incessant refrain about Zimmerman and SYG, I never said the defense invoked SYG in that case. He needs to get off that, or at least bother reading first. He's been saying that non-stop in all kinds of places where the point doesn't make sense. The racist application of SYG laws is clear. It is used 11 to 1 by whites over blacks, which is why the office of Civil Rights is investigating the laws.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)Of course we don't. We have one that works better than what we had 100 years ago and that one worked better than the one of 200 years ago. It's obvious that equality is not and can never be attained. Equality is a goal and, like other forms of perfection, in spite of gradual improvements it will likely remain unattainable.
It is clear to most people I know that that the Zimmerman verdict was not reflective of justice. I lack the evidence and the knowledge of the law to say whether he should have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder, aggravated manslaughter or some other crime which possibly should be but is not defined under the law. I know for sure that he was carrying concealed, that he left his vehicle and pursued someone who he eventually engaged. He did this not on his property nor the property of a relative/friend. He did this in public or on the property of strangers where he had no professional or personal business. I don't know it that qualifies as stalking or some similar crime but it should.
You haven't explained why using a tool in self-defense is wrong or why it is entitlement.
BainsBane
(53,038 posts)and unnecessary killing. I don't deny anyone's right to defend his or her life, if it truly is imminent danger. Looking for trouble, however, is something entirely different. Zimmerman's was an unnecessary killing, as you yourself have said. Some other DU gun proponents have justified Zimmerman's actions and portrayed Martin as the threat. They imagine using a gun as he did. That is what disturbs me. The problem, I fear, with carrying a gun is people look for a chance to use it. That won't be true with everyone, but it's clear from my conversations with some members of this site and that their notion of what constitutes a threat is more similar to Zimmermrans--far too broad, too paranoid, and potentially lethal. More guns is not a solution to violence. It only begets more killing.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If someone is pounding your head in the sidewalk for 40 seconds while you scream for help, is he a threat? Or do you do what Martin family lawyer Daryl Parks told Piers Morgan that "he didn't need to shoot because he knew the cops would be there in a few minutes."? As in, he could endure getting the shit beat out of him for just a little longer. While there is little or no evidence to show who started it, at least not presented at trial. Maybe Zimmerman did or did not. I do know that what Mr. Parks said was pretty fucking disgusting. The one time I go to the gym and they had PM on, and I caught that.
BainsBane
(53,038 posts)then find yourself losing the fight, you do not have a moral right to kill. Zimmerman committed murder. The state could not prove their case, but that doesn't make him any less of a killer.
You do not know that Trayvon started the fight. Rachel clearly testified that she heard Zimmerman start it. The only other person who gave evidence on the start of the fight was Zimmerman through his constantly changing story to the police. You choose to believe a killer over a witness whose story remained the same. Why is that? Is it possible that you are as influenced by the stereotype of the dangerous black male as Zimmerman was?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Cop 101: as the investigator said, variances in the story indicate that it isn't rehearsed. If you tell the same thing the same way, it comes across rehearsed and dishonest. Trees, bushes, etc. doesn't matter. So, not a valid point. There is no evidence that the overall story was a lie.
She did? Given that cops never interviewed her, who knows?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/26/223210/512/crimenews/-Rachel-Jeantel-Court-Antics-and-How-Martin-Profiled-Zimmerman
I didn't say he started it. Given the timeline and his violence issues at school...
One admitted to lying under oath twice, and was caught in lies on the stand. One didn't.
Short answer to your question: being in a family of cops, I learned it the hard way as a kid.
Even if someone is walking behind you, or you think someone is following you doesn't give you the right to attack them.
That still doesn't excuse Mr. Park's disgusting statement.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)"They imagine using a gun as he did. That is what disturbs me. The problem, I fear, with carrying a gun is people look for a chance to use it."
Those who choose to carry take on a great responsibility in that their mistakes and even unwise or careless decisions can have life changing/ending consequences. I can't pretend to know the mind or abilities of another but anything less than very regular training and practice (which IMHO is more often than once a month) including at least 2 days per year of a tactical school and 4 hours per year of classroom work to update yourself on changes to the law from your state and local governments is not responsible. That plus range time of at least 4-6 hours per month and not spent only in one session. (My skills with a rifle would become slightly degraded after not practicing for 4-5 days.)
Most important: "Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation." (#26, unofficial USMC gun fighting rules)
earthside
(6,960 posts)This is the kind of guy who thinks that exercising his freedom of choice to join the military (and survive) gives him the privilege of superior opinions.
Sorry, pal but in the U.S. your notions have no more weight than anyone else's.
I feel sorry for the people of Poughkeepsie who will have to endure this law enforcement officer's giant inflated view of himself.
Frankly, this guy is so arrogant that this probably ranks as one of the worst 2nd Amendment speeches ever made.
Really? "My rights trump your dead."????
Maybe this fellow has some PSTD issues that he ought to resolve.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)how does that compare to "you are responsible because you happen to own one" even though the listener was a thousand miles away and did not take part?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Because they knew or know someone that was somehow touched by gun violence.
What gives them the "privlege of superior opinion"?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
krispos42
(49,445 posts)For example, you're expected to be able to lead people, to have a "can-do" attitude, respect the layers of organization in a company, push yourself beyond normal limitations, etc.
And of course, as a nation we have to take care of our injured military personnel during and after service.
But being a vet doesn't cure you of being: an asshole, a drunk, rude, inconsiderate, arrogance, hubris, prickish, or ignorant. Nor does being a vet magically gift you with a degree in social work, child-rearing, political science, US and world history, constitutional law, engineering, medicine, psychology, or criminal law.
Professional sports players also work very hard at physically demanding tasks, pushing themselves and their teammates to the ragged edge of their capability. They are gifted, talented, hard-working, aggressive people in the peak of physical health. And yet, the respect the public has for their achievements and abilities dot not cure them of being an asshole, either. Nor does it give them some kind of special knowledge of poli-sci.
Contempt for an individual, vet or otherwise, is perfectly reasonable provided it is based on the individual's actions. If I was store owner who threw a black teenager out of my store or shoplifting or foul language or whatever, that would be perfectly reasonable. If I threw EVERY black teenager out of my store, that would be bigotry.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)The psychos got their asses kicked by the Jewish community for making that comparison.
premium
(3,731 posts)despite the negative responses here. Very passionate about his beliefs.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)Correct.....No.
If the NY bill is over the top it is only because of the absolute uncompromising attitude of the NRA. This is what happens when people don't bend.
And yes...I am a gun owner with a carry permit in CT....which I choose not to do.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Can't blame the NRA for that.
While passionate, I have seen better "pro" speeches.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)one party wouldn't bend and the carnage out weighed all benefit to either side.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)who were killed in Sandy Hook because those that do don't like having all those guns around.
Why didn't he just cut to the chase and leave the emotional bull shit and that "I fought for your rights" shit out of it?
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)Because no one is taking away the guns he needs.
Frankly he is a sick pup and shouldn't be a cop. IMHO
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)By those who want to restrict freedom in the name of Society, the Public Commons, the Greater Good, or whatever the slogan of the moment is. It is just another manipulative form of the Moral Panic that American falls into every 20 years or so.
"Doing it for the children" got us Alcohol Prohibition, the Hays Code, Seduction of the Innocent, the War on Drugs, The Parents Music Resource Center, the myth of Satanic ritual abuse, the drive to regulate Video Games and so on.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)to be reduced. That "freedom" meme used in this context is just so fucked up it's hard to come up with words for it. It's such a me myself and I thought that it doesn't belong in a decent discussion of guns!
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)And no new ones were every built, then people who wanted to hurt others would return to edged weapons. And the same exact people crying about guns would be crying about knives. Just like they did in the "switchblade" moral panic of the 50s and the 60s.
Some people simply refuse to accept the fact that it isn't guns or knives or clubs or whatever weapon is available that is the problem. It is bad, and yes EVIL, people that are the problem. People who want to hurt others with anything that comes to hand, including their fists. It's much easier to blame and condemn an inanimate object, rather than accept the fact that all human beings are not inherently good and who just happen to be corrupted by a brainless, heartless, soulless object.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)in Britain is twice as high as in the US. UK Peace Index: Exploring the fabric of peace in the UK from 2003 to 2012 56-57 Inst. for Econ. & Peace (2013).
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)that will fix things.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)except to throw out a red herring when presented with facts you don't like and can't refute.
Don't worry though. Your gun control ship should have lifeboats.
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)Show us where your freedoms have been taken away in this bill?
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Also, why is it only the children. IIRC there were a few adults killed there also 
I feel sorry for all loss of innocent life regardless of where it is lost. YMMV though.
Happy Independence Day!! 
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)countries while stripping the factories from Chicago and other large cities is causing unnecessary dispair for those who do not have normal job opportunities.
Economic reform to bring back meaningful employment would reduce unnecessary gun violence. Those who seem to want to take away firearms from law-abiding citizens and others "for the children" never seem to address that issue. Have you ever seen any of them pushing for such economic reform? I haven't.
It should be known that it's wrong to exploit the deaths of the children to gain publicity and push for cosmetic changes to firearms. Or use it to conceal an agenda that goes way beyond just developing a national registry. Very few, other than the speaker in the video, have even touched upon that.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)It's easier to blame an inanimate object or its owners then it is to address the actual problems. 
Take Care
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)But the day & night carnage in the inner cities (and who is causing it)seems perplexing to the controller/banners. Afterall, they speak so little of it.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)
Hypocritical self-promoting BS!
When is this guy going to announce his candidacy as a Republican teabagger for some political position?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)Or the right to put extra "freedom berries" on his jingoistic BS?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)HOW DID YOUR DUTY IN IRAQ SAVE OUR FREEDOMS IN THE USA?!!!!! 
You are one confused dumbass!
Let me guess....... you are planning to run for some political office as a teabagging Republican.
Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)Nothing in the safe act bans weapons,in fact the only ban in the safe act is on high capacity clips so all this guy is saying is my right to be irrational and have more ammo then i will ever need and to not be properly registered trumps your dead children and all those dead children in the future. I say to him fuck you,Serving your country gives you no right to endanger it and ignore parts of amendments you claim to champion.
What part of Well regulated in the 2nd amendment do you gun nuts not understand, It was put in there to protect us from people like you.
Nothing wrong with gun ownership or practicing your right to bare arms,but be fucking reasonable and get rid of gun show loop holes and account for every weapon.
SlipperySlope
(2,751 posts)It does not mean "heavily legislated".
I don't know if we are disagreeing, I'm just adding clarification.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)I don't know, nor did the founders, of another truly acceptable way to become 'well-functioning" then to be armed and organized, and disciplined / trained often, according to (federal) uniform regulations - with the training to those guidelines conducted under the authority of the states.
SlipperySlope
(2,751 posts)I've seen that argument made elsewhere. I'll paraphrase it as "just because the congress neglects it's duties to maintain a well regulated militia, doesn't mean the militia isn't an integral part of the constitutional scheme of self defense."
There are even statements contemporaneous with the early days of the nation that considered this outcome. Example:
"If a regular army is admitted, will not the militia be neglected and gradually dwindle into contempt?" - Elbridge Gerry
It would be quite the shift in current policy if the federal government were to begin actively engage the unorganized militia.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)To be the well organized well regulated militia, and to serve the constitutional role (along with the armed forces) once filled by the state militias.
Apparently we the people prefer it that way- no duty to serve...the constitutional militias are no longer thought necessary.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And shame on all who buy into his bullshit.
Truly disgusting speech. 
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)yet I bet weiss wouldn't say boo to this: .. for ordinary citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.. wanted Michigan to join the growing number of states where carrying a concealed gun is the right -- sneaked the legislation through in a lame duck session (and managed to immunize it from potential referendum)
repeat Weiss: .. was really so courageous a bill, and it took so much courage to pass it, then why was it done in the middle of the night when no one could see it or read it? That’s not courage. That’s a mafia style sit-down to divvy up what’s good for the bosses
I think one difference is that the NY Safe Act had the votes to pass it regardless of a 3 day wait period, whereas the michigan ccw bill was more, debateable, & actually went against the ubiquitous yet ubiquitously tread upon 'will of the people'.
“Courage,”{weiss} added, “is taking the right and true course of action, not the politically expedient one and anyone who is proud of this law must also be proud of .. imprisoning Japanese citizens in World War II, since all these actions were spurred on by emotional fear and rammed through in the name of public safety.”
Japanese citizens were not really 'imprisoned' but rather relocated to an equivalent of past 'reservations' for native americans. Post war, many jap-ams stayed on in their internment camps since they'd grown accustomed to them & actually enjoyed them (or had no better places to go), so weiss should not label them 'prisons'.
Japanese Americans then were surely safer in those internment camps than not, & surely hundreds of Japanese American lives were 'saved' thereby. War hysteria & all.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Japanese Americans then were surely safer in those internment camps than not, & surely hundreds of Japanese American lives were 'saved' thereby. War hysteria & all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#Conditions_in_the_camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment#Camp_conditions
DWC
(911 posts)and historical accuracy.
It is rare that anyone can raise my ire to the point of vulgarity but the individual to whom you responded has done just that.
Gross violations of our individual civil rights in the name of the "Greater Good" has been the bane of our Nation.
Semper Fi,
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)gejohnston .. for real? Actually they were not always Japanese citizens. Many if not all were either naturalized or native born Americans and Canadians.
Then your 'for real' argument is with the vietnam vet/cop Weiss, since he first put it this way: {weiss} added “.. imprisoning Japanese citizens in World War II..”
I put it as 'jap ams' & 'japanese americans' when I wrote, why'd you ignore that, mr fair (cough) & balanced (cough). I believe true japanese citz were allowed option to return to japan, iirc. Japan perhaps faced similar problems in accepting 'americanized' sons of returning citizens, perhaps disallowed some, dunno.
johnston:FDR labeled them as concentration camps.
You relate half the story, which was prior to knowledge of what concentration camps were: FDRoosevelt, Eisenhower and Harold Ickes each referred to the American camps as "concentration camps," at the time. When the nature of the Nazi concentration camps became clear to the world, and the phrase "concentration camp" came to signify a Nazi death camp, most historians turned to other terms to describe Japanese internment.
We can presume FDR changed his tune, imo. Actually wiki is half off as well, since concentration camps were indeed different from death camps. Prisoners died in concentration camps for sure (generally due to medical 'experiments' or disobedience/punishment) but not to the extent of death camps, which were dedicated to mass killing. Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz, Belsen(or belzac,slt), Maidanek, Chelmo, & Matthausen were death camps, while ravensbruck was a concentration camp.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I'm not saying that US and Canadian governments did anything like the SS. I was simply pointing out that the internment camps were not exactly lands of milk and honey you seem to think they were.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)johnston: The Nazis did not have a monopoly on concentration camps
You didn't mention that when you wrote that FDR initially called them concentration camps, implying a sinister nazi connection. It seemed you wanted to imply I was playing nice with them while FDR was aghast in horror or something. But I'll give you the benny of the doubt, what diff anyway.
I'm not saying that US and Canadian governments did anything like the SS. I was simply pointing out that the internment camps were not exactly lands of milk and honey you seem to think they were.
Comparatively over the course of history this could be considered wartime tolerance, & compared to nazi concentration camps they were relative safe havens. War was hell.
I remarked about weiss saying they were 'imprisoned' & I think this too harsh a description for it, if simply for the connotation that prisons are for wrongdoers. Weiss, a big stretch: anyone who is proud of this law must also be proud of .. imprisoning Japanese citizens in World War II,
I am not proud of the internment camps, only look back at the thought process. The japanese people in japan did not want wwII, neither really did hirohito, it was tojo & the military which forced it upon both. Dropping two atomic bombs onto civilians was far worse than japanese internment camps.
.. It was an infringement upon japanese americans rights - using today's standards, but world wars didn't come along every year, & pearl harbor was a pretty low blow which initiated war hysteria, especially on the west coast. That, is what I meant when I wrote jap-ams were safer in the camps than walking about mean western streets esp at night.
I bet if weiss, or you or semper fi guy had been of age in 1942 you'd've been amongst the most vociferous to shoo them in there, or give it a shoulder shrug. Let's have a shout out for the record how you'd've stood up for japanese americans in 1942, protesting. It could even be considered, retroactively, bush doctrine - preemptive maneuver.
your link: American public opinion initially stood by the large population of Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast" Many Americans believed that their loyalty was unquestionable. However, 6 weeks after the attack, public opinion turned against Japanese Americans living in on the West Coast, as the press and other Americans became nervous about the potential for fifth column activity. Though FDR administration dismissed all rumors of Japanese-American espionage on behalf of the Japanese War effort, pressure mounted as the tide of public opinion turned against Japanese-Americans.Bush would've argued it was 'for their own protection', I bet.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)It was greed because white and Hispanic farmers wanted their farm land in California. It was also racism. When it comes to racism, California wasn't any better than Florida.
In Canada it was 100 percent racism. Yamamoto was not going to invade British Columbia. While New York rounded up German and Italian Americans, was there a national effort in either country? Trying to give it legitimacy by comparing it to the equally disgusting "Bush Doctrine" is beyond sicking and despicable. Propaganda and fear sways public opinion, so I really don't care what most people thought back then.
The BoR is supposed to protect the minority from mob rule. In this case it failed.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)(many naturalized citizens and even more American born citizens) 'enjoyed' their prison camps??? You mean like the slaves 'enjoyed' their plantation life?
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)johnston: Trying to give it {japanese internment wwII} legitimacy by comparing it to the equally disgusting "Bush Doctrine" is beyond sicking and despicable.
I wasn't trying thereby to give the camps legitimacy, I said it could be likened to bush doctrine which I agree was a problem - I opposed gwbush's iraq war & am on record against it.
PS: What is your opinion of the hiro-naga bombings? justified or despicable? for the record.
While New York rounded up German and Italian Americans, was there a national effort in either country?
You'd needed have rounded up a quarter of americans, with german blood to some degree. German Navy was considered inadequate for large scale invasion (due british navy) & Italian navy similar & inferior as well to american east coast fleet. The IJN otoh, ruled the pacific for half a year - & only by a small miracle was it confined to only half a year.
In retrospect it's easy to condemn the internment of japanese americans in wwII, I don't argue that it was 'right' to do it, I just note the thought processes which lead up to it in the mid 20th century; & note also that subsequent treatment wasn't as bad as retrospective pejorative transmogrification of the camps, either. Here is a military opinion:
military reasons leading to the internment camps: The US is very poorly armed at the start of WWII, so men and equipment are in extremely short supply. The main battleships that were crucial to the defense of the west coast are at the bottom of Pearl Harbor.. The US has 5 carriers surviving in the Pacific, but the Japanese fleet has 10 carriers, and plenty of other ships, some of which can outgun any American battleship anywhere. The American military has a track record of nothing but humiliation and defeat in the Philippines, Pearl Harbor, and elsewhere. The Japanese military has an excellent track record of victory after victory, against the US..
.. it is ridiculous to assert that none of those 120,000 ethnic Japanese, 50,000 of them Japanese nationals, would have aided the Japanese through acts of espionage and sabotage if the Japanese govt had asked them to (like al qaeda encouraging terrorism/jihad in US).. refusal of such an order by a Japanese national would probably have been seen as an act of treason by Japanese law. (He then estimates 100 perhaps doing sabatoge of american installations).
.. the constitution allowed for people being locked up without due process in wartime. Article I, section 9 says... The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. ... Note that at the time of internment, the US territories of Guam and the Philippines, along with other islands, had been successfully invaded and their people much abused, the attempted invasion of Hawaii at Midway was imminent, and the possible invasion of California was much feared, justifiably or not. http://www.ww2pacific.com/relocation.html
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Casualty estimates for OLYMPIC CORONET were in the millions. Plus there was a chance we would use chemical weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)jenoch: The Japanese-Americans (many naturalized citizens and even more American born citizens) 'enjoyed' their prison camps??? You mean like the slaves 'enjoyed' their plantation life?
This is what I mean by pejorative transmogrification - comparing jap/am internment camps with southern cotton plantations & slavery. Yes, some japanese americans did stay on after the war, either because they'd grown accustomed to them or had no better place to go (as I previously wrote). Or they could go eastward US & relocate away from west coast hysteria, as some did.
Many, especially the old (most of the Japanese citizens were quite old), having lost nearly everything in the disruption and fearing war hostility outside, remained in the camps voluntarily until after the end of the war. In general, the camps were so different from the camps of Nazi Germany that it is extremely misleading to refer to them as "concentration camps".
Tulelake Relocation Center, was opened on May 27 1942, ten miles from Tulelake, Calif, just south of Oregon border. On a clear day, prisoners could see 14,000-foot Mt. Shasta to the south. Located on a dry lake bed, winters at Tulelake are long and cold and the summers hot and dry, but the weather is relatively mild compared with the other camp locations.
Residents lived among 66 blocks at Tulelake and, as difficult as it was, did their best to maintain a normal day-to-day life. Each block had multi-purpose recreation buildings used for offices, stores, canteens, a beauty parlor, a barber shop, and judo halls. The Christian, Buddhist and Catholic churches held worship services in these buildings. There were 3 fire stations, an outdoor stage, a funeral parlor and cemetery. Sports venues included 31 baseball fields and a sumo wrestling pit. The community staff organized cultural programs, recreation sports and youth activities. Performances were given by the
Tulelake Symphony and the Downbeats, a popular dance band.
Most students attended Japanese school for half a day and American school for the other half of the day. The school was not completed until Feb 1944, and it was used for both high school and elementary school classes. It included an auditorium/gym, a shop, a science and crafts building, a library and an administration building. 3,000 acres were used for the farm operations known as the "colony." Internees produced barley, potatoes, onions, carrots, grains, rutabagas and other vegetables. Hogs and chickens were also raised. http://www.siskiyou-county-online.com/Japanese_Internment_Camp.html Jobs in the camp paid from 12 (for women) to $19 per month.
{note you could leave the camps & relocate east, just not to west coast): My oldest brother left camp to work in a factory in Cleveland, Ohio. My two sisters moved to St. Paul, Minnesota to work as maids in a private home. All my brothers eventually moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota. The rest of us joined them when the camp was closed in 1945. http://www.uwec.edu/geography/ivogeler/w188/life.htm
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)proves the Japanese-Americans were pleased to have lost most of their belongings and property and be relocated to the camps.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)jenoch: Nothing you have posted proves the Japanese-Americans were pleased to have lost most of their belongings and property and be relocated to the camps.
Ridiculous remark; nothing I ever posted suggested that, DUH. I countered weiss talk about imprisonment & your talk about plantation slavery, so post some pejorative transmogrification about that, then.
Oh so johnston, let me get this straight; the bombings of hiroshima & nagasaki were to be accepted as the 'lesser of evils', while the internment of japanese ams was despicable?
.. approx a quarter million japanese were killed at hiro & nagasaki, many lingering deaths, while I'd guess 98% of 100,000 japams survived those despicable camps.
.. In retrospect, of course the camps were a violation of civil rights, so was american slavery when the constitution was written; in those times they weren't given the insight of hindsight when they developed those policies.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)They see the widows and orphans and actually study public policy before lobbying on policy, unlike this clown who only recites bumper sticker slogans. good morning
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)Police are overwhelmingly against gun control.
Try checking your facts instead of reciting bumper sticker slogans.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)kolesar: .. prosecutors and law enforcement want regulations on guns
ExCop-LawStudent Police are overwhelmingly against gun control.
Try checking your facts instead of reciting bumper sticker slogans.
Practice what you preach & don't rely on a bought & paid for biased unscientific study.
Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) supported Obama's recent 2013 guncontrol measures, while Major Country Sheriffs Assoc tended to oppose them.
FACTCHECK: a reference to a March survey by a group called PoliceOne.com, a news and resource site for law enforcement officers. The survey wasn’t a scientific poll that aimed to gather responses from a random sample of the nation’s police officers. Rather, it was a self-selected Internet poll, in which more than 15,000 of PoliceOne.com’s 400,000 registered members chose to respond, either because of email solicitation or a link to the survey on the PoliceOne.com website. http://factcheck.org/2013/04/nra-misrepresents-police-survey-legislation/
Barf, so evidently the 15,000 'verified law enforcement officials' claimed some link to law enforcement & subscribed to policeone website; makes it an unscientific internet poll, not random, aka GARBAGE.
FactCheck: Online ads from the NRA wrongly claimed that “80% of police say background checks will have no effect” on violent crime. The survey cited in the ads by the NRA says nothing of the sort.
... the survey methodology says that a question on criminal background checks was removed “due to flaws with the question details, highlighted by a handful of users.” We spoke with.. vice president of content for the Praetorian Group, which owns PoliceOne.com, about the NRA ads’ claim. He told us he was “unclear where that came from specifically.” He said that the question that was dropped — because of “an error in how it was phrased” — couldn’t be the source either, as the data didn’t match the claim.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)San Diego Police Assoc. survey - 82% against assault weapon ban, 82% against hi-cap magazine ban, 84% support CCW, 94% gun control doesn't reduce violent crime, 87% private gun ownership increases public safety, 92% additional gun control won't work, 98% gun buy-backs don't work, and 92% support mandatory sentencing for gun violence.
Police Magazine survey - 88% addition gun control won't work, 65% would not assist in confiscation
National Assoc. of Chiefs of Police surveys - 79% support nationwide recognition of carry permits, 74% armed citizens help reduce violent crime, 95% citizens should be able to buy firearms
There other studies out there that say the same thing, and what you are forgetting is that police chiefs, appointed officials, parrot the gun control line of their bosses.
You may as well save your tirades for the Bansalot group, no one here is buying it.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)excoplawstudent: Yet the PoliceOne survey matches the data from past police surveys .. You may as well save your tirades for the Bansalot group, no one here is buying it.
I'll post where I choose. You cite other slanted surveys, unscientific. Suggestion, go back to being a cop, you'll never make an honest lawyer. If you cannot recognize rightwing propaganda & rather aggrandize it, if you believe those skewed figures in the polls you cite, you have no honest future at the american bar nor do you have the comprehensive skills to qualify for it.
excop cites: San Diego Police Assoc. survey - 82% against assault weapon ban, 82% against hi-cap magazine ban, 84% support CCW, 94% gun control doesn't reduce violent crime, 87% private gun ownership increases public safety, 92% additional gun control won't work, 98% gun buy-backs don't work..
Here's another question from that very SanDiego survey: Do you believe in the death penalty? YES 99.2% NO 0.7% http://www.largo.org/lawEnforce.html
Only a shyster would not see the significance as to what a sham this is. Were you born yday? you believe this is valid & scientifically representative? If you're gonna post rightwing surveys, try a rightwing republican gun board why dontcha?
excop cites NACOP: Nat Assoc Chiefs of Police {NACOP} survey - 79% support nationwide recognition of carry permits,74% armed citizens help reduce violent crime
NACOP criticized by former Congressman Feighan (D-OH), questioned the organization's polling methods in the 1991 CNN special "It is a dangerous organization because it operates and disseminates wrongful information under a very legitimate-sounding name."
2010 survey of 20,000 police chiefs and sheriffs conducted by Nat Assoc of Chiefs of Police (NACOP). The number of officers that actually responded is unknown because NACOP did not release any methodology other than to say that the survey was conducted by mail. NACOP used the same mail methodology in its 2010 survey to claim that law enforcement officers largely opposed the Brady Bill. In a 1991 CNN special, pollster Robt Miller, who had examined NACOP's methods "The results would not be considered accurate by any scholarly or recognized body that evaluates polls."
Dewey Stokes, the then-president of the Fraternal Order of Police "I believe Mr. Arenberg {NACOP} represents a concoction of individuals, in some cases, none of them even associated with law enforcement. And, in my opinion those people could not possibly speak for law enforcement because they do not understand law enforcement."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/03/gun-researcher-pushes-sham-statistics-in-the-wa/189120
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)1. excoplawstudent cited: SanDiegoPoliceAssoc survey
link: The {SanDiegoPolice} survey.. was also released with very limited methodology. What is known is that the survey was published in a 1997 edition of The Informant, a magazine published by the San Diego Police Officers Association (SDPOS). What is unknown is the rate that Informant subscribers completed and returned the survey. It is also impossible to say whether the views of police officers in the SDPOS in any way represent the views of police officers as a whole.
2 excop cited a 'NACOP' survey: Nat Assoc. of Chiefs of Police -NACOP has also been criticized by former Congressman Ed Feighan (D-OH), who questioned the organization's polling methods in the 1991 CNN special by stating, "It is a dangerous organization because it operates and disseminates wrongful information under a very legitimate-sounding name."
3 excop cited Police Magazine: a 2007 survey conducted by Police Magazine, also suffers from flawed methodology.. explanation of survey methodology shows a profound miscomprehension about what constitutes a representative sample.. What {Police Magazine} fails to appreciate is that Nielsen {polls} carefully controls the demographics of its survey population to be representative of the general population. A survey directed towards individuals who choose to subscribe to Police Magazine does nothing of the sort.
All 3 of the {EXCOPLAWSTUDENT} surveys are obviously unscientific. But John Lott, a professional statistician, cited them because they confirmed his pre-existing belief about gun regulation. Lott's desire to confirm his own biases also likely led him to ignore a study examining what police chiefs think about gun violence regulations that actually produced statistically significant results. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/03/gun-researcher-pushes-sham-statistics-in-the-wa/189120
2006 mail survey, which appeared in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, was conducted by actual academics who put measures in place to ensure the internal validity of their survey. 93.5% of police chiefs supported requiring a background check to purchase a handgun. 73.4% of police chiefs were in favor of child access laws. 69.4% of police chiefs supported mandatory handgun registration. 58.4% of police chiefs believed civilians should not carry firearms in public places
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)All you can pull up are police chiefs.
Nothing on what officers think. Gee, why is that?
It's probably because officers, the ones on the streets, know that guns aren't the problem.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)excoplawstudent: Again, nothing on what officers think.. All you can pull up are police chiefs. Nothing on what officers think. Gee, why is that?
You evidently don't understand the rules, a bad sign for someone wanting to be a lawyer.
I don't have to prove anything. I rebutted what you contended as being false & emanating from fraudulent rightwing sources.
You have failed to demonstrate as true, with reputable sources, what you said below:
excopLS: Police are overwhelmingly against gun control.
You put up several rightwing sham sources from DISreputable sources - that slams you to the mat right there.
Now, if you're really serious about becoming a lawyer not just a professional 'law student', you have to realize that it's incumbent upon YOU, NOT ME, to produce reputable evidence to show that police are overwhelmingly against gun control, as per what you said.
.. The last I saw of it was that cops were split near parity as to supporting guncontrol measures in general (or opposing), close to general public. But I have never, ever, ever, seen a reputable poll where police 'overwhelmingly' are against gun control.
Definition of SHYSTER: a person who is professionally unscrupulous especially in the practice of law or politics : pettifogger
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)No one made you an authority on what can and cannot be used to show support, nor do I accept that these polls are inaccurate.
When you have multiple polls showing the same thing, from different locations, that alone indicates that it is on the right track.
Again, if you wish to show a poll that states the opposite, I will consider it. Otherwise, your position is not relevant.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)excopLS: No one made you an authority on what can and cannot be used to show support, nor do I accept that these polls are inaccurate.
I'm authority that you posted rightwing sources with skewed rightwing poll results; - in one, 99.3% supported the death penalty - no one in their right unbiased mind would consider that a representative sample for a proper poll.
'Media Matters' exposed the 3 rightwing polls you cited, media matters said they were fraudulent &/or unscientific. You above discard the liberal democratic view proferred by media matters, & accept the 3 biased right polls. No true democrat would do that.
wiki: Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". Media Matters for America defines "conservative misinformation" as "news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda
I have a lot in common with media matters in that regard, I also like correcting rightwing misinformation.
So for the record Mr ExCop Law Student, do you dispute Media Matters appraisal of the 3 conservative polls you cited? & do you still stand by the 3 polls as being 'not inaccurate'.
By doing either you are rejecting the democratic view & subscribing to the rightwing republican view.
excopLS: When you have multiple polls showing the same thing, from different locations, that alone indicates that it is on the right track.
If they are reputable polls using scientific methods they tend to corroborate each other, certainly; but the 3 polls you cited are NOT reputable polls, they were done unscientifically - some were internet polls or biased right push polls with leading questions.
excopLS: Again, if you wish to show a poll that states the opposite, I will consider it. Otherwise, your position is not relevant.
Again, I don't have to prove anything, I've already disproved you.
I'm not posting for 'your consideration' either, disabuse yourself of that stupid notion.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)To make these charges is outrageous considering the bill he is so opposed to:
Bans possession of any "high-capacity magazines" regardless of when they were made or sold.
Ammunition dealers are required to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers.
Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons.
Requires designated mental health professionals who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director,
Stolen guns are required be reported within 24 hours. Failure to report can result in a misdemeanor.
Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private sellers - except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family. Private sale background checks began March 15, 2013.[10]
Guns must be "safely stored" from any household member who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection.[10] Unsafe storage of assault weapons is a misdemeanor.
Bans the Internet sale of assault weapons.
Increases sentences for gun crimes, including upgrading the offense for taking a gun on school property from a misdemeanor to a felony.[11]
Increases penalties for shooting first responders (Webster provision) to life in prison without parole.
TO MAKE SUCH AN IMPASSIONED speech claiming against common sense gun control, claiming "My right trumps your dead" and to be greeted by applause for this shows how truly crazy these people are..
Of course if you think, as the Edward Snowden defenders do that the government is tyrannical and you need unrestricted access to guns to defend your liberty, then this guy is your hero Personally, I think he is a fucking asshole!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)My father fought in WW2 and I served in the Vietnam Era actually helping to save lives.
Contrary to you, we did not serve so anyone anywhere can get any kind of gun they want with no background checks and no controls or regulations whatsoever. No one I know nor my father, fought for the likes of you to flood the country and terrorize our communities with weapons designed for war. We did not fight so you can carry large ammunition clips and heavy assault rifles to live out your "big-man, patriot" fantasies at the expense of our safety.
We have rights too and if you are repulsed at the thought of victims being shown as reasons for greater gun control, then too fucking bad! And your remarks about "my rights trump your dead" is a sickening display of arrogance and stupidity all wrapped in a flag!
And yes given the chance I would say this right to your face! (Somebody copy this and send it to him!)
I am so pissed!
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #77)
Post removed
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #77)
Post removed
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Imagine had someone wanting an abortion had said that.
.. how apoplectic the right would've become.
Suddenly, pride turned to righteous indignation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)hansberrym
(1,571 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)They should be set in stone, no compromise.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)"My rights trump your dead."
In other words, "My right to firearms is more important than your dead children." The incredible selfishness of RKBA advocates summoned up in just one sentence.
If gun ownership would be outlawed tomorrow, would there be an increase in deaths or a decrease? Obviously a decrease. But they'll keep arguing anyway, their wet dreams about fighting off government forces and the military trump everyone else's right to life.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)Cops that shoot unarmed teens?
Domestic abusers that bought a gun on the street?
Bloomberg's armed security?
Drug dealing gang members?
Or just the regular folks that respect the law and their neighbors?
GayPleb
(10 posts)A wonderful example of the selfishness of RKBA advocates
"My rights trump your dead."
I know. So selfish. Just like all the DU'ER and and libertarians complaining about the Patriot Act I paraphrase:
"My Right in the 4th Amendment TRUMPS the 9/11 victims."
Or perhaps:
"My Right to not be sabotaged or attacked by Japanese Americans TRUMPS their Right to the 14th Amendment, namely liberty"
If gun ownership would be outlawed tomorrow, would there be an increase in deaths or a decrease? Obviously a decrease. But they'll keep arguing anyway, their wet dreams about fighting off government forces and the military trump everyone else's right to life.
Given that 2/3 are suicides and a gun ban would probably save less that 1000 people that commit suicide and a substantial pertinent of homicides are committed by criminals I doubt it would go down.
In fact, I would venture that the first few years will be extremely bloody for the cops you send in to seize guns, if Bundy Ranch taught anything.
P.S. As a matter of logic please explain how I owning a gun proximally denies your right to life. Heck, I would venture that the "liberty" of young black men threatens everyone else's right to life more than licensed concealed weapons holders.
But under your logic, of your right to life superseding other Constitutional and Human rights I guess we can just jail all the Black "youths".
beevul
(12,194 posts)Another member of the gun control pusher club...which continually seeks to at best, to burden 100 million people who aren't committing gun violence, and at worst, eliminate privately owned firearms in America entirely, because of the actions of ten thousandish people who would be unaffected by those burdens, and would ignore your words on paper, like they have with restraining orders for ages.
You guys are the ones that are selfish.
Conflating suicides with homicides in an effort to hoodwink people? Selfish.
Trying to ban a class of weapons which are almost never used in murder or suicide? Selfish.
Claiming about self defense with a firearm "that never happens"? Selfish.
I could go on...
If that's what you really think, then you are lost.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)The comments by each name ("Gun Troll", etc) are from their Transparency pages.
PPR http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=278444&sub=trans Gun troll.
CokeMachine
PPR http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=279126&sub=trans Troll
ExCop-LawStudent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=304266&sub=trans RW gun troll
premium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302085&sub=trans troll
Vietnameravet
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=286597 Flagged for review
rl6214
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=121292&sub=trans Troll
DWC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=252442&sub=trans Gun Troll/Sketchy comments on race.