Mayors Against Illegal guns TV ad...

[zanne]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dwzaivgpaDk

It's about time.

[virginia mountainman]

1. LOL yea, their running it in KENTUCKY?!?!?!

LOL!!! You know ads can backfire...

[silverojo]

2. I thought this comment was kind of funny:

"I propose we close the 'political loophole' and require that every politician undergo a background check, training on the limitations of gov't in our Constitution, and have a 5 day waiting period before exercising their 1st Amendment right to say stupid stuff about everyone else's constitutionally protected rights."

That would've stopped the Bush presidency before it even started! :rofl:

[zanne]

3. The point of this video is that...

All Three candidates support closing the gun show loophole, which nullifies the argument made by some here that "gun contol" will lose votes for Democrats. In other words, if you're thinking of voting for McCain because the big bad Democrats support closing the loopholes, you're out of luck.

[pipoman]

8. We hear "fix the loophole" every election cycle

the problem arises when that pesky Constitution and BOR is considered. Both parties have had plenty of opportunities to close it and never have. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that the feds have absolutely no authority to interfere in intrastate private property transfers? I think so. Have you heard any of the candidates plan for closing the so called loophole? I didn't think so...so much lip service.

[zanne]

4. The ad can't "backfire"...

Because both Democrats and Republicans support banning the loophole, including all three presidential candidates. Dems can't lose votes to McCain, because McCain and the Dems agree on this subject.

[virginia mountainman]

5. Yea...BUT...

Your forgetting the Congress, they must get Congress to sign off on it...and ...Congress is the most pro gun in MANY years, and looks only to get even MORE pro gun in the future.

And not only that...the loophole is a figment of YOURS and a few others...imagination.

And your forgetting one small fact, The republican primary is basicly OVER, it only still on between the two democrats..

McCain is just waiting on the anointing, he is a lock for the rethugs.

[iverglas]

11. how hard do you have to work to miss a point?

One can see how hard you work to avoid acknowledging it.

Yeesh. I'm worn out just from watching you.

[zanne]

6. Some people won't accept reality until it smacks them in the face. nt

[virginia mountainman]

7. Yep..How many lost elections..

How many lost seats....How many smacks do we need?

Took us 12 years to BEGIN to undo the damage that one stupid gun ban did.... AND THE BAN DOES NOT EVEN EXIST ANYMORE.

We need to tell Repuke pied pipers, like Hemike, Brady, and Bloomberg, to go to hell, instead of fawning over every word they speak.

[Wcross]

9. The "gun show loophole" is a myth.

It is actually the private sale of personal firearms that you want to ban. Why not call it the "penny saver loophole" or the "flea market loophole" or the "family & friends sale loophole"?

The majority of guns sold at a gun show are sold by firearms dealers. They are required to do a background check for every sale. An individual is permitted to sell his or her personal firearm without performing a background check. It may be while walking the floor at the gun show or it may be to a friend or relative. They may even advertise it in the local for sale pages.

How do you propose to enforce this law Zanne? How do you ensure all firearm transfers are background checked? I own 5 firearms which were purchased anywhere from 5 years ago to 30 years ago. How would you ensure I couldn't sell one of them without a background check? Are you planning "sting" operations to lock up otherwise innocent gun owners who want to sell a firearm? I assume this background check service is going to be free of charge, right?

They only way to enforce this law would be to register all firearms. I will not register ANYTHING with the government. Our government should be trusted with a gun REGISTRATION list? Do you trust our government that much? Really trust them? Trust them enough not to use that information for evil?

"I am the decider".

Minister of "gun safety".

Sorry, the gun show loophole is insignificant. It would just become another on of the 20,000 gun laws on the books that aren't enforced.

[zanne]

10. Then you should tell all three presidential candidates...

And all those mayors that they're wrong. After all, who knows better? Presidential candidates or Wcross from DU?

[Wcross]

12. They AREN'T wrong.

They are just not explaining what closing the "Gun show loophole" will cost. It is the "private sale loophole" which will require closing the "Registration loophole". I guess we should JUST trust the politicians? Surely they would honest about the requirements to implement their plans, right? As soon as our government can find the wmd's in Iraq we should get right on your plan to remove the second amendment from our "pesky" bill of rights. :woohoo:

[iverglas]

13. "I will not register ANYTHING with the government."

So ... you don't own a car ... or you drive one illegally.

You don't own real property ... or you have no enforceable claim to it if you do.

You don't have children ... you aren't married ... you don't have a social security number ... or pay taxes? Heaven help you if your parents registered your birth before you could scream at them to put down that pen.

You won't register ANYTHING with the government. What a farce.

[Wcross]

14. I will not register any FIREARM with the government.

Sorry I didn't make it clear enough for you sparky.

[iverglas]

15. oh well alrighty then

You'll register your car and your real property and your children and your marriage and your self ... how are you on that military draft thing? ... but not your gunz.

And apparently you think it's all clear now.

[Wcross]

20. You probably don't understand being a Canadian & all.

We have something called the Bill of Rights. It specifically states that the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. Registration of all firearms would be an infringement.

I do find it curious that you spend so much time debating gun laws in our country.

[zanne]

21. That kind of smear IS NOT ALLOWED ON DU!

That's an ethnic insult and not allowed here. I'm of French-Canadian heritage and had to alert the mods last week. Cut it out. You can call me a bitch if you want, but leave my heritage out of it. And listen up, genius--Canada has its own consitution and bill of rights.

[Wcross]

26. It's a "smear"? An ETHNIC insult? LOL

It is just a FACT that he is a Canadian. I didn't know that "Canadian" was a race of people, I always thought it was a nationality. (silly me)
Just to make you feel better, my paternal grandmother was from PEI so I am of "mixed ethnicity" myself.

To CLARIFY (I am typing slow so you can understand better)- What business is it of his to be trying to change laws in a foreign country? He is not subject to the rules he is advocating.

Zanne, I would never call you anything but misinformed.

[Tejas]

38. Excellent answer to the lame whining. n/t

[iverglas]

49. uh

It is just a FACT that he is a Canadian.

Actually, it isn't.

Misinformed?



What business is it of his to be trying to change laws in a foreign country? He is not subject to the rules he is advocating.

Leaving aside the idiotic misinformation, and assuming you're talking about me -- what business is it of yours to make false statements about me?

If you can't come up with an example, immediately, of me "trying to change laws in a foreign country", then you will retract that falsehood.

I can't think of the slightest thing wrong with someone trying to change laws in a foreign country, frankly, unless s/he happens to be doing it contrary to the interests of the people of the country and in his/her own interests. But that's not the point. The point is that your statement is false, and that a decent and honourable person would retract it immediately. I'll wait to see what kind of person you might be.

[Wcross]

51. Oh, so you have become an American citizen iverglas?

In our past debates when I brought up the fact you are posting from Canada you didn't object. Now I noticed you have removed that information from your user profile. Have you become a citizen of the United States?

[iverglas]

53. sad

In our past debates when I brought up the fact you are posting from Canada you didn't object.

And I don't object now.


Now I noticed you have removed that information from your user profile.

You notice no such thing. You falsely state that I have done something I have not done. Kind of a habit? That information was never on my user profile.


Have you become a citizen of the United States?

Nopers.

Have you not yet received a PM informing you of your silliness?

Not my job.

[Wcross]

55. What is truly sad is that you are incapable of anything but cryptic postings.

I believe I am finished trying to figure out what you are saying. You seem incapable of communicating effectively, good day.

[iverglas]

59. I see no retraction

and I see no example. So I see admission of falsehood without apology. Let me just check in the mirror ... nope, I'm not seeing a surprised look on my face.

[Wcross]

69. You will get no retraction.

You are a Canadian, you have no business advocating any laws in the United States just as I have no business advocating new laws for you to abide by. There is nothing "false" to retract.

[iverglas]

71. no shit

You are what you are, but you still have no business making the false statement that I have advocated laws in the United States. That's what's false, and the fact that you made it in the first place was sufficient evidence of your bad faith. You're just piling it on, now.


Oh, of course, with the disclaimer: that I have not advocated laws in the United States UNLESS the situation under existing laws plainly affects people outside the United States.

And if you don't like that, you can lump it.

[Wcross]

72. You just happen to post in almost EVERY topic started here?

You sure do spend a LOT of time here in the gun dungeon for an innocent party who is not advocating any changes to our laws. I guess you "could" be trying to improve your creative writing skills but I suspect you have an agenda. I have one. I want democrats to understand that gun control will lose elections.

[iverglas]

73. is that substantiation I see???

Oh. No.

[maxidivine]

81. U.S. gun laws affect Canadians how?

"Oh, of course, with the disclaimer: that I have not advocated laws in the United States UNLESS the situation under existing laws plainly affects people outside the United States."

You do post on nearly every thread that appears in the gungeon, so please explain to me how our laws affect Canadians like you. And please, post some facts.

[iverglas]

85. do your own homework

Seriously. I really just don't have an obligation to repeat everything I have ever said in this forum for every johnny come lately who wanders by.

[maxidivine]

132. Support your claims

If you are so ready to claim that U.S. gun laws in any way affect Canadians outside of the U.S., then it seems like you might have access to some information the rest of us don't. Please Share.

[iverglas]

135. support your own claims

If you are so ready to claim that U.S. gun laws in any way affect Canadians outside of the U.S. ...

If wishes were horses, pigs would fly.

Here is what I said:

I have not advocated laws in the United States UNLESS the situation under existing laws plainly affects people outside the United States.

It doesn't even really look like what you've said, to start with.

But -- you seeing a claim there? Maybe you could put up a big sign pointing to it for me.

What you can always do is find somewhere that I might have done what I referred to -- advocate laws in the US where the situation under existing laws affects people outside the US -- and see whether I have failed to support any claim I made about the situation under US laws affecting people outside the US.

Meanwhile, you can go suck a lemon.

[gorfle]

83. And more.

From what I've uncovered, it seems Iverglas is a Canadian, has studied law, is female, and was a victim of sexual assault some 30 years ago.

[iverglas]

87. why, congratulations!

You have "uncovered" several facts that I have stated repeatedly in this very forum!

I can understand that the fact that I have "studied law" (you seem not to have "uncovered" the fact that I spent considerable time in the practice of law, and that a focus of my work during that period and since was and is constitutional and human rights law) might seem relevant here, since constitutional law is the subject under discussion.

I can even see what the relevance of my being female would be here, since our little friend has been assuming the contrary (that certainly is a fascinating and consistently observed phenomenon).

I do wonder what the relevance of my history as a victim of crime (not my history as a victim of psychological abuse by religious/medical authorities as a child? not my history as an anti-war activist during the Vietnam era ... oh, and the Iraq era? not my history as a tenant organizer? not my history as an adviser to gay/lesbian organizations, immigrants' rights organizations, women's rights organizations? not my history as a party political activist?) might be in this particular discussion ...

So many wonderful facts to "uncover" about moi. And so easily "uncovered".

[gorfle]

90. Just trying to be helpful.

Just trying to help old WCross out is all. I wish more people would just use Google but alas.

[maxidivine]

80. It isn't a smear or a slur or an insult

Just saying that iverglas is canadian and so doesn't have our bill of rights is not an ethnic slur. It is not a slur to state what country someone is from.

I suggest you take some meds, cause you just got REALLY heated over someone using the word canadian.

And as far as Canada having its own bill of rights and constitution, it sure does, but it doesn't have ours.

[iverglas]

84. actually

To suggest that someone does not understand something and that the reason for this is his/her nationality/ethnicity ... well, it isn't exactly civil discourse.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are people in the US who know more about the fish species in Manitoba lakes than I do (hello to TX Rat, should he look in). Or who know more about the mean temperature and average annual snowfall in Iqaluit than I do. Or who know more about the construction of the CN Tower than I do. I have absolutely no doubt that there are people in the US who know loads more things about loads more things in Canada than I do.

And I would simply never dream of claiming to know more about those things than they do, or claiming that they knew less about those things than I do, because they are not Canadian. That wouldn't just be incivil, it would be really really dumb.

If I were to point to someone's nationality/ethnicity and assert it as a reason not to listen to what s/he had to say about anything ... well, that would be even lower. It would be anti-democratic demagoguery.

I don't know much of anything about the construction of the CN Tower because I am not an engineer and I have not otherwise investigated the matter. I assume that an engineer in the US would have relevant general knowledge, and might even have quite specific knowledge from having investigated the construction of the CN Tower as a matter of interest to engineers.

Why anyone would think that I, with decades of experience in researching constitutional and human rights law, would not have at least relevant general knowledge about the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and quite specific knowledge about at least some aspects of them, I couldn't guess.

And I'll refrain from guessing why someone would point to anyone's nationality/ethnicity as support for an allegation that s/he "probably doesn't understand".

What such a person might not understand, of course, is that there are people in the world who simply take an interest in things outside their own backyard and enjoy researching and discussing them. Sometimes because of the impact such things may or do have in their own backyard, and sometimes just because it's fun.

[SteveM]

133. Jeez, I'm a Florida Cracker, but I've heard worse about Plain Folk in this forum.

Want me to call for the censorship of those using "rednecks," "white trash," "trailer trash," "cedar chopper," "Klan-sympathizer," etc.?

[maxidivine]

134. how about

alcohol-dependent, subnormal intelligence, spouse-abusing, chequebook-unbalancing, bridge-design-screwing-up, dumb-as-a0bag-of-hammers?

[iverglas]

136. so, whom

have you just characterized that way?

Or are you maybe alleging that someone else characterized someone that way?

Who would have done that, and whom was s/he characterizing?

[iverglas]

48. being a Canadian is one reason I do understand

I haven't been inculcated with nonsense, and deprived of an education.

We have something called the Bill of Rights.

No! I can't tell you what a surprise it is to me to learn this. Can you tell me more?

It specifically states that the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

And it specifically states -- here, let me quote it for you; I believe you call it the FIRST amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

And yet ... you've heard about laws against telling lies in court? advertising snake oil to cure cancer? threatening the life of the head of state? Got any of them?

How about federal laws requiring broadcasters to have licences? municipal bylaws requiring newspaper publishers to pay business taxes? Got any of them?

Know nothing about about anything, do you? If so, why not inform yourself?

Know something, but prefer to keep up the jibber jabber as if you knew nothing? If so, what explanation for such anti-democratic conduct might you have?


I do find it curious that you spend so much time debating gun laws in our country.

I don't find it at all curious that you would say something like this, even if it is completely, uh, inaccurate.


I do find it curious, though, how nobody can ever offer anything rational and informed to back up the nonsense statement that requiring a licence to exercise a right is an IMPERMISSIBLE interference in the exercise of the right. That being the true question.

[Wcross]

52. Thats what I love about you big guy.

So many words to say so little.

[iverglas]

54. and I'm ever so fond

of people who won't answer straightforward questions.

And, of course, of people who make silly assumptions and act on them so sillily.



typo ...

[avenger64]

68. Ha! Good one.

n/t

[zanne]

16. Of course it's about private sales.

Private sales of gun at gunshows, via newspaper ads and from friend to friend. I've even seen ads by people on gun forums trying to sell their guns.

Enforcement is easy IF you want to be serious about it. It's ironic, don't you think, that you have such a "can-do" attitude about keeping our streets safe by owning and carrying a gun, but you're a defeatist when it comes to enforcing gun laws? "NO, NO---IT CAN'T BE DONE"! Yet, supposedly you claim that people walking around with guns won't be prone to using them when they're angry, or drunk, or mentally ill.

What school of logic does that come from? You just contradict yourself all the time.

Enforcement of gun laws comes from the same source as all other law enforcement; vigilance, the police force and investigation. The cops stop people who aren't wearing a seatbelt. They can stop people from unregulated sales, too.

Tell me, what gun laws DO you approve of?

[virginia mountainman]

17. Than stop bullshitting..and call it what it is..

The Private Transfer Ban....


Problem is...if you call it what it is....NO ONE except vehement anti-civil rights people will go for it.

BTW, Honestly, I don't know ANYONE, who would "comply"....

[Wcross]

18. You don't have a clue why people carry, do you?

It has nothing to do with "keeping our streets safe". It is about PERSONAL protection. As far as my "school of logic", I noticed that there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books INCLUDING laws that restrict gun ownership by felons. If the police & justice system did their jobs in regard to those laws maybe we wouldn't need new ones. The only reason to register guns is to make it easier to confiscate them.

We all understand that your ultimate goal is a complete ban on civilian gun ownership in the United States. There is no need to hide it, the head of handgun control stated this years ago. When the gun grabbers met a little resistance they figured out it would be easier to ban them incrementally. It became a game of nibbling around the edges of gun rights. That gun is too small, that gun is too big, that gun can be used by terrorists, that gun is too evil looking ect. It would be a major victory for the gun grabbers if they could get a registration law passed. It isn't going to happen.

[zanne]

19. You didn't answer my question. What gun controls DO you approve of? nt

[Wcross]

22. Uh, the 20,000 laws already on the books?

We already have enough laws on the books. When was the last time you heard of a prohibited person who attempted to purchase a firearm being sent to prison? Why aren't convicted felons being sent to prison for the full ten years when they are caught with a gun? You want to get serious about gun violence? How about pushing for the laws we already have being enforced?

[zanne]

24. So you're against closing the gun show loophole.

You finally answered my question.

[Wcross]

27. I thought that was pretty obvious a few posts ago. n/t

[zanne]

29. Here's one of many tragedies caused by gunsale loopholes...

Newspaper Classified Ad Source for Gun Used by Florida Man to Kill Estranged Wife



Mark Williams and newspaper ad for gun (insert) used by Williams to kill his estranged wife

Mark Williams of Bradenton, Florida was involved in a contentious divorce and child custody dispute. A custody hearing was scheduled for April 28, 2003 and a divorce hearing on May 2. But neither hearing would be held.

On the morning of April 27, one day before the scheduled custody hearing, Williams bought a CZ-52 – 7.62x25mm Tokarev semiautomatic handgun from an unlicensed seller through a classified ad in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Later on the same day that he bought the gun, he shot and killed his estranged wife, Raquel Soliz-Williams, in front of her nine-year-old daughter from a previous
relationship.

---And there are many, many more tragedies that have resulted from gun show loopholes, newspaper ad loopholes and private sale loopholes.


http://www.gunloophole.com/ I know you won't visit the site, but it's there in case you get brave enough to face up to reality.

[Wcross]

31. So, if not for the gun the murder wouldn't have happened?

You don't suppose he could have beaten her to death?

[rdenney]

35. The fact is that many people want a "click and bang" device like a gun to kill, so no..............,

he probably would not have committed the murder if he hadn't had the gun that he went out of his way to purchase.

[Wcross]

37. Perhaps you should read this link?

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

The use of guns in intimate murders is almost equal to non-gun murders. You will see that the lack of a gun does not prevent murder.

[rdenney]

77. Your data indicates that gun laws DO WORK as most of those drops in rates are the result of 30...

years of gun-control laws and taking the firearms away from people who have a history of family violence or abuse, before they can use them to kill a family member.

Thanks for proving my points for me. Gun control laws DO WORK !!

[Wcross]

78. What gun control laws in particular do you attribute the drop to?

If you can twist the data to attribute the drop to increased gun control laws, which law do you attribute it to? I thought you were complaining about "easy access to guns" ? Thank you for agreeing that no further gun laws are necessary.

[beevul]

45. A 5 year old ancedote? Thats the best you can do? N/T

[virginia mountainman]

56. YES, that IS the best she can do...LOL N/T

[maxidivine]

86. Was he under a restraining order?

or any other court order?

Was he a prohibited person in any way?

because if not, than it makes no difference that he bought in in a private sale, because a background check from a dealer would not show him as a prohibited person, and his sale would have been approved, because this is not "Minority Report" and we don't have thought police. Should people involved in a divorce fall under prohibited status in regards to firearms possession?

[iverglas]

89. should divorce proceedings be a bar? yup, in some cases

edited to clarify subject line

Should people involved in a divorce fall under prohibited status in regards to firearms possession?

Women who have suffered abuse at the hands of intimate partners are at elevated risk of harm during the period following separation.

And men involved in custody disputes (as this one was) do harm their children with some regularity.

A divorce where there has been spousal abuse, or a custody dispute, is not a good context for firearms possession. It might also be mentioned that the risk of suicide is elevated for some people in these situations (and murder-suicide is also observed).

That's why the application for a firearms licence in Canada asks:

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/online-en_ligne/form-assistance/PDFs/921_e.pdf

If you answer YES to any of the questions in this section, you MUST provide details on a separate page. Add your name at the top of each page you attach. If details are not provided, your application cannot be processed.
A YES answer does not mean your application will be refused but it may lead to further examination.

... d) During the past five (5) years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you suffered from or been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for: depression; alcohol, drug or substance abuse; behavioural problems; or emotional problems?

e) During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?

and includes:

Please provide information on your conjugal partner.
... If the signature of your current spouse, common-law or other conjugal partner is not provided,
the Chief Firearms Officer has a duty to notify them of your application.
IF YOU HAVE ANY SAFETY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE CALL 1 800 xxx-xxxx.
Signature of spouse, common-law or other conjugal partner ...

and why police will investigate any calls made to them or that line reporting safety concerns relating to someone who is in possession of firearms.


Women are at risk of injury and death when they leave abusive partners. An abusive partner with a firearm has greater opportunity to harm his former partner, since they are able to do so in public, from a distance, at low risk to themselves, etc.

Some people think public policies that can reduce the risk to women and children in those situations are a good thing.



But hey, to answer your other questions:

Was he under a restraining order?
or any other court order?
Was he a prohibited person in any way?

http://www.gunloophole.com/page2.htm

Williams was a convicted felon and domestic abuser. In 1987 he served 6 months in prison of an 18-month sentence for aggravated battery (stalking another woman). In 1994 he was convicted of engaging in organized crime in Texas and was sentenced to 5 years probation. Four months before the shooting, a judge issued a restraining order against Williams requested by his wife. Five weeks later, she asked the judge to vacate the order to make the situation less contentious. At the time of the shooting, Williams was also subject to a court restraining order secured by his first wife, Estella Martinez, who now lives in Illinois.

I guess that would be a YES, a YES, and a YES YES YES. eh?

And yet he was able to acquire a firearm about as easily as he could have acquired a pack of gum.

And that's a good thing, do we have that right?

[iverglas]

98. whatsamatter? didn't like the answer?

Dang, eh?

[maxidivine]

99. Wasn't a bad answer

It wasn't clear in the OP that he was under a restraining order, or that he was a felon, or that he had a history of terrorizing his significant others, if that is what the woman from 1987 was.

It is sad that he murdered her, but I am not so sure that he needed a gun to kill her. I don't think her fate would have been any less certain if he had used a knife, since he had clearly premeditated murdering her.

And honestly, with his history, I have to wonder if it crossed her mind to maybe take her safety and the safety of their child a little more seriously. A restraining order only works if the subject follows it or doesn't cause decisive harm (death, crippling injuries, other permanent wounds) quickly. Since police can't respond in time to stop or prevent most crimes, she really should have armed herself.

[iverglas]

100. yes, she failed to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY

so it's her own fucking fault she's dead.

Of course, you apparently know nothing about the circumstances of the homicide, so you have no idea whether anything at all could have prevented it ... other than him not having a firearm, if the homicide happened to have taken place in public, say, and he happened to have fired from a distance. Scum like him not uncommonly do exactly that.

Hell, you don't even know that she didn't have firearms in every room of her house and in every pocket, do you?

But she's obviously to blame. Thanks for enlightening us on that.

[maxidivine]

115. It isn't her fault he murdered her

But protecting herself was her responsibility, no one elses, and if she had been armed she would have had the ability to fight back. The supreme court has ruled multiple times that the government has no responsibility to protect any one person, which means that protecting your life is in your own hands. If she did not acquire the training and equipment to meaningfully protect herself, then she didn't do everything she could to protect her daughter and herself.


"and he happened to have fired from a distance. Scum like him not uncommonly do exactly that."

It says she was shot in front of their daughter, which to me implies that they were all in the same room. And most shootings do not occur from any significant distance.

Why are you so adamant about her inability to have protected herself from him and his gun even if she were armed herself?

If the event DID happen at her home, then if she had been armed and had seen her husband coming towards the house she could have held him off, and if she had killed him in the process she wouldn't have been charged with anything, since he was in violation of so many laws at once and obviously intended harm.

[iverglas]

120. oh all-knowing all-seeing smart one

if she had been armed she would have had the ability to fight back

... do share your knowledge with us. You know ... what? and you know it ... how?

Myself, I haven't been able to determine the circumstances in which this occurred.

I could find you any number of such cases, however, where the man in question shot and killed his estranged partner in public, from a distance, without warning. Seems to me that carrying a garbage can lid would be better protection in that case than carrying a firearm. Whaddayou think?

It says she was shot in front of their daughter, which to me implies that they were all in the same room. And most shootings do not occur from any significant distance.

Yada yada blah blah blah. C'mon, don't keep secrets. Tell us what happened. You must know, or you wouldn't have said she would have had the ability to fight back.

Why are you so adamant about her inability to have protected herself from him and his gun even if she were armed herself?

Why are you making a false statement?

If the event DID happen at her home, then if she had been armed and had seen her husband coming towards the house she could have held him off, and if she had killed him in the process she wouldn't have been charged with anything, ...

If wishes were horses, pigs would fly.

If you care to address reality, I'll be waiting.

[maxidivine]

123. Then find some. I'll be waiting.

":I could find you any number of such cases, however, where the man in question shot and killed his estranged partner in public, from a distance, without warning. Seems to me that carrying a garbage can lid would be better protection in that case than carrying a firearm. Whaddayou think?"

Do it. Find "any number of cases".

[iverglas]

126. we'll start with one

and you can respond one by one, how's that?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1102703042932_98112242/?hub=Canada

The teacher shot in the head outside a high school in the Toronto suburb of Brampton has died.

Aysegul Candir, a 47-year-old Grade 10 teacher at the school, was shot several times in the parking lot outside Bramalea Secondary School Friday morning. She later died in hospital.

Police have arrested the woman's husband, 62 year-old Erhun Candir, and charged him with murder. He will appear in court Saturday.

Police believe the shooting was part of a domestic dispute, and that the gunman never intended to harm any students.

He "ambushed" her, according to reports.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/198297

In returning their verdict, the seven women and five men on the jury believed Candir was the person who twice shot Aysegul, once in her head, and once in her hip, as she got out of her parked car about 11:11 a.m. that December morning, just seconds after she returned to her high school after an errand.

Over to you.

[maxidivine]

130. "ambushed" does not imply a long shot

Nor does anything in the story. Your ball.

[iverglas]

131. god, you're pathetic

[maxidivine]

82. Weaver, Isoceles, prone unsupported, kneeling,

benchrest, prone supported, bipod-enhanced, using both hands, I support lots of gun control methods.

I don't support any gun-banning methods though, including registration.

[iverglas]

91. let's look at Mr. Williams again

I don't support any gun-banning methods though, including registration.

We'll disregard the incoherency there, and read it as if it said "I don't support registration".

http://www.gunloophole.com/page2.htm

On the morning of April 27, one day before the scheduled custody hearing, Williams bought a CZ-52 – 7.62x25mm Tokarev semiautomatic handgun from an unlicensed seller through a classified ad in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Later on the same day that he bought the gun, he shot and killed his estranged wife, Raquel Soliz-Williams, in front of her nine-year-old daughter from a previous relationship.

As a convicted felon and a person subject to a court restraining order for domestic violence, Williams was a prohibited purchaser. As such, he could not buy a gun from a licensed firearms dealer because he could not pass a criminal background check mandated by the Brady Law on all gun store sales.

If the owner of that firearm had had to register it, and if he were prohibited from selling it to anyone who did not have a licence to possess it, and without registering the transfer, what's the chance s/he would have sold it to Mr. Williams?

Are a lot of people that stupid / careless about their own best interests?

I'd think that most people have more regard for their own self-interest than you apparently have for the interests of the victims of people like Mr. Williams.

[S_B_Jackson]

104. Why do you think that private sales are a problem?

Private sales of gun at gunshows, via newspaper ads and from friend to friend. I've even seen ads by people on gun forums trying to sell their guns.

Why is this objectionable? People privately sell all manner of items. And in those ads on gun forums, the laws still must be obeyed with the parties to the transaction who live in different states required to have the seller only able to ship to a federally licenced dealer who requires that the buyer fill out a Form 4473, and subject to an NICS background check. Often it's the best way to locate a firearm that may no longer be in production, or at least offered for sale in the US, and often at a much more reasonable price than is available at a store-front operation. I've purchase several firearms in this manner...a Sig P228 two-tone, a Sig P225 Electroless Nickel, & Sig P245 Ilaflon finish pistol, a Savage Model 99 in .300 Savage, & 1941 Winchester Model 12 Skeet-grade.

So long as the law is followed (and it was scrupulously followed in all instances), why should you be unduly frightened?

As for gun laws I approve of,
- I support the NFA, which restricts firearms to those that one would normally associate with an infantryman in the US armed forces.
- I support restricting the sale of firearms to those who have been convicted of a felony, those who have been adjudicated mentally unfit, and those who's actions are constrained by a protective order (provided that a means exists for vacating all of these restrictions once the prohibitive issue has been alleviated.)
- I support the instant criminal background check system as it currently stands.
- I support state-by-state issuance of concealed carry permits.
- I support the removal of restrictions of legal concealed carry on university campus
- I support state-to-state reciprocity agreements which allow CCW holders to legally carry in other states (assuming that they do so legally in whatever state they are in...).
- I support Castle Doctrine laws, as well as "Stand Your Ground" legislation.

Off the top of my head, that pretty well covers it...

[iverglas]

106. why don't you try reading the thread?

Right directly above your post: the excellent Mr. Williams. Poster child for why private firearms sales are a problem.

I support restricting the sale of firearms to those who have been convicted of a felony, those who have been adjudicated mentally unfit, and those who's actions are constrained by a protective order

He managed to hit two out of three. And also to purchase a firearm via a classified ad as easily as he would have purchased a used washing machine.

Makes you feel warm and fuzzy, does it?

[S_B_Jackson]

107. Actually, iverglas, I did read through the entire thread...

and found his reasoning wanting, thus my question.

Yes, indeed, I have purchased firearms via classified ads...it did not mean that those sales did not get run through a FEDERALLY LICENCED DEALER, the law regarding the proper transport and sale of firearms was scrupulously observed on all occasions. Given that, why should it be a problem?

[iverglas]

108. feel free to join the conversation

Yes, indeed, I have purchased firearms via classified ads...it did not mean that those sales did not get run through a FEDERALLY LICENCED DEALER, the law regarding the proper transport and sale of firearms was scrupulously observed on all occasions.

Good for you.

What has this got to do with private sales by non-dealers?

[S_B_Jackson]

110. Quite a bit, actually...

The seller in all instances was a private individual...the FFL only involved in physical transfer of the firearms to my possession.

[iverglas]

114. excellent; now if you'd like to stop avoiding the question

What does this have to do with NON-INTERSTATE private sales by individuals, who are free to transact without the intervention of any dealer and who are UNABLE to perform background checks on purchasers if no dealer is involved?

[maxidivine]

117. They can use a dealer to perform the background check

If they want to and are willing to pay for it, in fact many people selling their firearms via classified in my state will refuse to sell to someone without going through an FFL.


And why does it matter whether or not they go through the NICS system to sell their own private possessions? If someone sold a prohibited person a set of Cutco knives and the person slashed up a bunch of people, would anyone be crying about how "effortless" it is for people to get weapoins?

[iverglas]

119. ah, c'mon; you aren't this stupid

Are you?

They can use a dealer to perform the background check

And a person with a felony conviction and an outstanding restraining order would ask for / agree to have a private seller do that before completing the transaction because ...?

in fact many people selling their firearms via classified in my state will refuse to sell to someone without going through an FFL.

How lovely! And some newspapers no longer accept classified ads for firearms.

So ...?

And why does it matter whether or not they go through the NICS system to sell their own private possessions?

Now, you g'won back to the beginning here, and read about Mr. Williams and the person he murdered with the firearm he bought via a classified ad in a newspaper, although he was at the time ineligible to purchase a firearm for more than one reason.

And then tell us what the answer to your question is.

'k?

If someone sold a prohibited person a set of Cutco knives and the person slashed up a bunch of people, would anyone be crying about how "effortless" it is for people to get weapoins?

And feel free to let us know when that happens.

[maxidivine]

122. When what happens, someone is killed with a knife?

"If someone sold a prohibited person a set of Cutco knives and the person slashed up a bunch of people, would anyone be crying about how "effortless" it is for people to get weapoins?

And feel free to let us know when that happens."

People are killed with knives all the time. Maybe they aren't the weapon of choice for most criminals, but they are used quite often.

"They can use a dealer to perform the background check

And a person with a felony conviction and an outstanding restraining order would ask for / agree to have a private seller do that before completing the transaction because ...?"

In that case the seller is free to refuse to sell to them, we aren't talking about shops that can not discriminate at will against customers (actually gun shops are under no obligation to sell to anyone, it is perfectly legal for a clerk at a gun store to refuse a sale to someone, even if they are approved by NICS, if they feel that the individual may be intending on committing a crime), we are talking about private sales of personal property. No special restrictions for selling washing machines, cars, knives, tools, bats, what have you, why would any other private property be any different?



Ultimately it doesn't matter, because it is none of the governments business what an individual does with their private property provided they are breaking no laws. The onus is on the buyer to be in the clear for firearms possession, not the seller.

[iverglas]

128. maybe you are ...

In that case the seller is free to refuse to sell to them

Indeed. And you are free to jump off a bridge. Funny how people sometimes don't do things they're free to do, isn't it just?


Ultimately it doesn't matter, because it is none of the governments business what an individual does with their private property provided they are breaking no laws. The onus is on the buyer to be in the clear for firearms possession, not the seller.

Yes, we get it already. You don't give a shit about people who are harmed or killed by people who had firearms who shouldn't have.

[maxidivine]

116. wow, you nailed it!

Spot-on!

And I don't think she realizes that those "internet sales" are handled exactly the same as sales from a licensed dealer.

[iverglas]

121. I know what I do realize

I don't think she realizes that those "internet sales" are handled exactly the same as sales from a licensed dealer.

I realize that nobody was talking about "internet sales". If somebody had been, I might have had occasion to make it plain that I am perfectly aware of how "internet sales" are handled.

We happen to be talking about "classified ad" sales.

Funny how nobody seems to want to talk about the subject of the discussion, ain't it?

[maxidivine]

124. Funny how this subthread IS about private sales

"Private sales of gun at gunshows, via newspaper ads and from friend to friend. I've even seen ads by people on gun forums trying to sell their guns.

Enforcement is easy IF you want to be serious about it. It's ironic, don't you think, that you have such a "can-do" attitude about keeping our streets safe by owning and carrying a gun, but you're a defeatist when it comes to enforcing gun laws? "NO, NO---IT CAN'T BE DONE"! Yet, supposedly you claim that people walking around with guns won't be prone to using them when they're angry, or drunk, or mentally ill.

What school of logic does that come from? You just contradict yourself all the time.

Enforcement of gun laws comes from the same source as all other law enforcement; vigilance, the police force and investigation. The cops stop people who aren't wearing a seatbelt. They can stop people from unregulated sales, too."

SO apparently when a group of us are talking about private sales, whether classified, from one acquaintance to another, or from an internet ad, you feel like you can hijack and disrupt the dialogue like a three year old who wants to be held. Congratulations iverglas, I am nominating you for the "Most Worthless Poster" award for 2008.

[iverglas]

125. alrighty then

Private sales of gun at gunshows, via newspaper ads and from friend to friend.
I've even seen ads by people on gun forums trying to sell their guns.

Bring on the responses to the main statement made.

Or continue pretending it isn't there and dancing on the head of the subsidiary statement.

Everybody else knows



the Emperor has no clothes.

[maxidivine]

127. Classified ad sales

Classified ad sales. I am responding to the main subject of discussion now, per your request.

Classified ad sales are none of the governments business, provided that nothing illegal is being sold.

[iverglas]

129. yes, we really do get it already.

You don't give a shit about people who are harmed or killed by people who had firearms who shouldn't have.

[avenger64]

23. Thank god someone is taking on the constitution ...

... that brave Michael Bloomberg! Freedom haters across America should rejoice, and thank this man!

[zanne]

25. The Constitution belongs to ALL Americans, not just gun nuts.

Every American has the right to feel safe from fanatical gun nuts who carry wherever they want to. You guys seem to think you own the constitution. Well, here's the news; you don't. You can talk like bullies all you want, and you might think you have more power than the rest of us because you carry guns, but you don't. You're in the minority in this country, and we all have the polls to express our decisions about guns. It isn't all about YOU.

[Wcross]

28. The "right to feel safe"?

Where does it say that in the Bill of Rights? Your feelings are not my concern. When was the last time a legal concealed carry permit holder threatened you with a gun? Am I supposed to give of my rights to make YOU "feel" better? What other rights should I give up in order to make you "feel" better? Maybe my fourth amendment rights? I am sure you would "feel" better if the police searched for guns door to door?

It must be terrible to go through life with such an unhealthy obsession & fear of firearms. To me they are just a useful tool.

[zanne]

30. That post just said it all.

"Your feelings are not my concern". Yeah--no kidding. Nobody else's safety is your concern either. It's all about YOU again. You don't give a rat's ass about your fellow citizens. How selfish and self involved.

[Wcross]

My safety doesn't seem to concern you at all zanne.

You seek to disarm law abiding citizens. Believe it or not there are criminals on our streets who would LOVE your plan to make everyone an unarmed victim. It would be SO much safer for them.

Because YOU have an unhealthy fear of firearms you seek to disarm everyone. How selfish & self involved you are.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maxidivine]

88. She's in Vermont, no permit required

Isn't that sweet? her very own home state does not require permits to carry any way you please, and instead of taking advantage of that, she thinks carriers are bullies and freaks.


Zanne, I am willing to bet that there are people you interact with on a daily or weekly basis who carry 24/7 and you will never find out who they are unless they need to use it. Then, having known a law-abiding citizen who had to use their gun in a justified shoot, you may very well statr to question your feelings towards all us evil bogeymen who like to shoot.

[iverglas]

92. not real up on your Democratic traditions, are you?

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want--which, translated into universal terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

— Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the Annual Message to the Congress, January 6, 1941



And translated into local community terms, means restrictions on access to the weapons that individuals use to cause harm to other individuals and their communities, in order to reduce the risk and incidence of those harms -- and allow individuals and communities to prosper and develop, which they can't do when they live in fear, let alone when they live surrounded by violence.

[iverglas]

94. freedom from fear

The all-American ideal:




The all-American reality:

http://www.leadercall.com/homepage/local_story_209113050.html?keyword=leadpicturestory

July 28, 2006

Girl shot, killed while sleeping
Suspect in murder case in custody

A burst of gunfire from an assault rifle early Thursday morning claimed the life of a 5-year-old girl as she slept in her bed next to her 9-year-old sister.

Jones County Sheriff’s Office investigators aren’t releasing the name of the victim or her family.

The shooting occurred at 2 a.m. at apartment 75 in Lone Oak Apartments located on Hoy Road north of Laurel. JCSO Investigator Mike Sumrall said Desmond Keys, 27, of 24 R.J. Evans Rd. in Jones County, turned himself in to authorities at about 10:30 a.m. Thursday. He is being charged with murder with other charges pending.

“There were 40 or more shots fired into this unit of four apartments at the complex,” said Sumrall. “One apartment was apparently the target, but the rounds entered other apartments as well. No one else was injured.”

... Authorities later said the girl had been struck once in the head by a stray bullet as she lay sleeping. A colorful set of drapes hung in the window of the room where the little girl and her sister were said to have been sleeping. Several bullet holes could be seen in the window, but one bullet hole, below the window sill, at about the height of a child’s bed, could be clearly seen.

And you can bet the people affected don't actually give a shit whether the weapon was an "assault rifle" or not ...

[Wcross]

105. Are we to accommodate all fear?

If people have an irrational fear of being shot should I give up my right to keep & bear arms to "ease" their fear? I fear being killed by a drunk driver, shouldn't my fears be "eased"? Did you know MORE people are killed in alcohol related traffic collisions in the United States than are murdered or accidentally killed by criminals & idiots who pull the trigger of a gun? What about MY fears? Drunken driving isn't even included in the bill of rights! Should we let those "booze nuts" have their way with us?

Save me from MY fears big guy!

[iverglas]

109. hey there

If you're afraid of drunk drivers, feel free to stay home.

What advice would you offer to children to avoid getting shot while they're sleeping in their beds?

[Wcross]

111. I could possibly stay home 24/7.

Drivers are licensed which must be renewed periodically. The vehicles they drive are registered & licensed. Law enforcement can stop & inspect the vehicle & the condition of the driver at any time they are using the vehicle. STILL more people die in alcohol related crashes than are killed by firearms (excluding suicides).

What makes anyone think that licensing & registering firearms will make people safer?

[rdenney]

34. The nuts have proudly bragged how they carry illegally into private property that is clearly marked.

" NO GUNS ALLOWED". Do they care about private property rights? Nope !

So why should we care about their "right" to own a gun when they disobey and flaunt the laws?

A: we shouldn't.

[pipoman]

79. Kindly provide a link to such bragging as I have seen no such statements on DU...N/T

[pipoman]

113. No link? I didn't think so. More lies trying to defend the indefensible? N/T

[avenger64]

36. God, that's absolutely awesome, you just put the proof ...

... to the phrase tyranny of the majority. You actually believe in it!

You've got it completely wrong, in the logical/philosophical sense. Constitutional rights are there to guarantee freedoms to citizens, whether they may be in the minority or not. In fact, the bill of rights was put into place to protect the rights of said individuals from the tyranny of the majority. I guess I should remind you that the 2nd amendment is one of those rights.

So, to consider the statement: "You guys seem to think you own the constitution." Well, apparently, some of us seem to understand it a little better than you, and that's a shame. We need better civics education in this country, to avoid embarrassing misunderstandings like the ones in your post.

"Every American has the right to feel safe from fanatical gun nuts who carry wherever they want to." With all due respect, I think gang-bangers carrying illegally is a bit more of a problem than CCW 'gun nuts'.

[Tejas]

39. but .........

gang-bangers carrying illegally is a bit more of a problem than CCW 'gun nuts'.

.......CCW gun nuts are easier targets for the antis. Hence the total lack of effort by antis towards combatting much less solving the real problem. Much easier to scream and shout at an inanimate object.


They are pretty much as useless as criminals.

[avenger64]

40. yes.

"Hence the total lack of effort by antis towards combating much less solving the real problem."

I haven't seen many guns singing rap songs celebrating criminality and violence. Haven't seen any guns out on the corner pimping and running crack, either. Never seen a gun jump out of my safe and shoot anybody, while I'm at it.

I don't think guns are responsible for bad behavior and screwed-up priorities.

[iverglas]

60. my goodness

And there are some who say firearms control advocates are racists ...

[avenger64]

62. Hmm, did I mention race in there anywere?

And there are some who say gungrabbers are prone to jump to conclusions.

[iverglas]

64. snork

Lame.

[maxidivine]

93. What was racist about it?

This is his statement. Where does it appear to have racist innuendo?

"I haven't seen many guns singing rap songs celebrating criminality and violence. Haven't seen any guns out on the corner pimping and running crack, either. Never seen a gun jump out of my safe and shoot anybody, while I'm at it.

I don't think guns are responsible for bad behavior and screwed-up priorities."

[iverglas]

95. snork

Lame.

[maxidivine]

96. Why don't you just answer the question?

Or let me know what is so lame about it?

Gangbangers singing songs about selling crack and doing drive-bys are quite popular these dayshe was just saying that none of his guns have ever launched into songs about killing competing drug dealers, so why all the alarm over legal guns? Why not try doing something about the gang violence that is rampant in some areas of the country?

[iverglas]

97. snork snork

Dumb and dumber.

The posts, of course.

[Tejas]

101. There isn't (your fan club wishes there were though LOL!) n/t

[maxidivine]

118. Oh I know!

[iverglas]

50. interesting

In fact, the bill of rights was put into place to protect the rights of said individuals from the tyranny of the majority. I guess I should remind you that the 2nd amendment is one of those rights.

Actually, no; what you should do is explain how the second amendment protects anyone from the tyranny of any majority. Or what right it is protecting from the tyranny of the majority. Or whatever. Anything at all that you can think of that might make a stitch of sense.

[avenger64]

57. Well, ok, ...

... 'tyranny of the majority' is a phrase invoked by guys like John Locke and John Stuart Mill. You may or may not recognize these names. John Locke was an advocate of The Social Contract, a sort of philosophical precursor to our own constitution. Now, I'll break down the sentence above that you (laughably) said makes no sense into smaller conceptual bites. Pay attention, now. Here we go:

(1) When we say rights are 'inalienable', or that they should be protected from the 'tyranny of the majority', we are saying that each citizen should have them, and that they should not be taken away. Not even if a (possibly fleeting) consensus has been reached, among his fellow citizens, that he shouldn't have those rights. Alexander Hamilton, for example, thought there could arise the possibility of 'mob rule' in a democracy that didn't protect individual freedoms.

(2) The constitution and it's amendments guarantee these individual rights. These freedoms didn't come straight out of the blue, a last-minute thought. They were meant to address the concerns that Jefferson and others had about the power the state might exert over individual citizens.

You with me so far?

(3) The 2nd amendment grants the freedom to keep and bear arms. That means the founders meant to protect that right from the state itself, if necessary.

Ok, now. Try to hold on juuust a couple seconds longer, m-kay? Go back and look at the sentences of mine you quoted.

"In fact, the bill of rights was put into place to protect the rights of said individuals from the tyranny of the majority. " - see (1) and (2)

"I guess I should remind you that the 2nd amendment is one of those rights." see (3)

If this didn't make sense to you, that's sad, because these concepts - inalienable rights, the protection of the individual from the state, the 2nd amendment - are ones that every American should be familiar with through proper civics education. Your teachers have failed you. I hope this helped.

[iverglas]

58. oh dear me

'tyranny of the majority' is a phrase invoked by guys like John Locke and John Stuart Mill. You may or may not recognize these names.

No, up here in Canada, people like me who did their undergraduate degrees in philosophy (and a later major in political science, and much later courses in public finance ... John Stuart Mill coming out every orifice of one's body, one might think, anywhere but Canada ...) were never allowed to hear those names.

We did, however, learn to recognize bumph when we saw it.

If you thought that what you said made sense, maybe you should actually take a course or two yourself. Autodidactism may be better than nothing when it comes to, oh, plumbing, but it seems to be a case of a little learning being a very bad thing in the case of philosophy, constitutional law, and like that.

[avenger64]

61. Well, now, let's see ...

.... what exactly is so hard to grasp? I mean, I did my m.s. in math, so we actually use logic, instead of just teach it.
Let me try and break it down to the most essential elements:
(1) Some individual rights are protected by the constitution.
(2) They can't be undone by consensus (or any 'tyranny of the majority'), unless the constitution is changed.
(3) Right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is one of the rights protected by the constitution.

So, let's see what we have:

RKBA is a right protected by the constitution, thus cannot be undone by consensus.

Now, what could I possibly mean by consensus? I didn't think I'd have to explain everything - but here goes. Maybe local gun laws in, say, D.C. or Chicago take away people's rights to own handguns. We have: Consensus=Law in this case. It seems like these municipalities are pre-empting the constitutional individual right to bear arms of people who live in these cities. In fact, there has been a recent challenge (D.C. vs. Heller) to one of these laws, and all indications are that it will be struck down as unconstitutional.

If you can't follow that, it would be difficult to believe you did well when studying, say, Heidegger's deconstruction of the onto-theological grounding of presence in Western philosophy. Or what Derrida means when he describes the 'double gesture'. Or what Nietzsche meant when he said "love they neighbor comes from fear they neighbor". I took a couple of PHIL courses myself. Needed the easy A's.

[iverglas]

66. let's not bother and say we did

A math major attempting to talk down to me is just kinda boring me.

Like I did say, git yrself some constitutional law larnin'.

When you have, you could maybe practise on post 50 in this thread.


Your constitution specifically states -- here, let me quote it for you; I believe you call it the FIRST amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.


And yet ... you've heard about laws against telling lies in court? advertising snake oil to cure cancer? threatening the life of the head of state? Got any of them?

How about federal laws requiring broadcasters to have licences? municipal bylaws requiring newspaper publishers to pay business taxes? Got any of them?

How 'bout those laws against convicted criminals, the mentally ill and children possessing firearms? I guess they aren't "people".


One fuck of a lot of tyrannizing by somebody going on, it seems.

[avenger64]

67. Well, you've conceded my original point ...

... there was no way of getting around it, I guess. Mysteriously, it all of a sudden 'makes sense' to you, and you're opening another front. I believe you're now resorting to:

(1) The old 'yelling fire in the theater argument'. You have free speech, but that doesn't mean that you can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. And I believe the answer lies in the concept of 'liability'. You see, you can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater if you want - give it a try sometime. But then you're liable for the consequences - someone could get hurt, the theater would incur monetary losses, yada yada. I hear snake oil advertisements on the radio all of the time - for hair loss, diet pills, all kinds of stuff. These people could, I gather, be taken to court any time if they are making false claims. Happens a lot. You'll notice that drug companies place lengthy verbal disclaimers in their ads to defray liability (and I think the makers of Vioxx were sued mightily a couple of years ago). As far as threatening the life of someone, I've always thought it was a bogus charge - but we do have a venue for challenging it called appellate courts. One of those is called the Supreme court, and they decide on constitutionality in such cases. So eventually, all of these rules and regulations may be required to pass constitutional muster.

(2)"How about federal laws requiring broadcasters to have licences?" I believe that's because the government owns the airwaves. There is some competition for the frequencies or whatever the hell they're called. And that's 'licenses', I think.

(3) "municipal bylaws requiring newspaper publishers to pay business taxes? " Well, if they're taking in revenue from advertisements and subscriptions, they're businesses, non? Did you think Freedom of the press mean they get to operate for free?

(4) "How 'bout those laws against convicted criminals, the mentally ill and children possessing firearms? I guess they aren't "people".
That one's tricky - I don't know the basis for enforcing that one. In the general sense, it comes from some notion that you forfeit rights when you break the social contract (convicts).

[iverglas]

70. no, I didn't

Your original post was a dog's breakfast.


You have free speech, but that doesn't mean that you can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Really? Sez who? You? Some tyrannical majority?

And I believe the answer lies in the concept of 'liability'.

You believe wrong.

You see, you can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater if you want - give it a try sometime. But then you're liable for the consequences - someone could get hurt, the theater would incur monetary losses, yada yada.

And meanwhile, you can be charged with a CRIME, which has bugger all to do with "liability".

Criminalizing conduct is how a state interferes in the exercise of a right or freedom, you see.

I hear snake oil advertisements on the radio all of the time - for hair loss, diet pills, all kinds of stuff. These people could, I gather, be taken to court any time if they are making false claims. Happens a lot.

That's nice, whatever "taken to court" is. You mean: there are laws criminalizing that conduct? I think you'll find there are such laws, albeit weak ones where you're at. They come under the consumer protection rubric: you might call it interfering in someone's freedom of speech to protect stupid people.

As far as threatening the life of someone, I've always thought it was a bogus charge - but we do have a venue for challenging it called appellate courts.

Good for you. And does this mean it isn't an offence, and people are not charged with it and convicted of it and punished for it?

I believe that's because the government owns the airwaves.

So? The government owns Yellowstone Park, too; does that mean it may prohibit you from holding a conversation there?

Well, if they're taking in revenue from advertisements and subscriptions, they're businesses, non? Did you think Freedom of the press mean they get to operate for free?

I give up; if it's a right, it can't be subject to a licence requirement, isn't that how it goes?


So eventually, all of these rules and regulations may be required to pass constitutional muster.

Indeed. And bleeding amazingly, THEY DO. How can that be? When your constitution says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS?


That one's tricky - I don't know the basis for enforcing that one. In the general sense, it comes from some notion that you forfeit rights when you break the social contract (convicts).

Yes, I always do like to hear about societies in the 21st century where people "forfeit rights" and suffer civil death.

It reminds me of how lucky I am not to be living in the 18th century ... or the USofA ... it being so hard to tell them apart, sometimes.

[avenger64]

74. Jeez. You're not a good student.

"Really? Sez who? You? Some tyrannical majority?"

That was a statement of the principle in question - the sentences following clearly explain that you can yell 'fire', and the pitfalls of doing so.

"You believe wrong."

What? Civil liability doesn't apply to the Vioxx case? And the fire-shouter's rights have to be balanced against the property owner's. Freedom of speech is not the only right, and may conflict with others that may override them. Our constitution mentions 'life, liberty, and property' as fundamental, btw. There's a take on this here.

(snip)
Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, a libertarian think tank, has stated <1> that in most cases free speech issues in the U.S. depend upon whose property one is on at the time. If someone falsely shouted "fire" and created a stampede which was clearly against the wishes of a theatre owner's policy of conduct, then the theatre owner would be within his rights to prepare charges against the agitator. If, however, the theatre owner decided it would be good for business to have patrons yell "Fire! Fire!" whenever they felt like it, then he would be within his rights to do so.
(/snip)

example: You're certainly not free to violate my property rights by walking in to my house and start blathering (and if you did, you'd be quickly subdued, though I certainly wouldn't shoot you, since you're scared of guns and I would know you're unarmed - little joke, there, bro).

"That's nice, whatever "taken to court" is. You mean: there are laws criminalizing that conduct? I think you'll find there are such laws, albeit weak ones where you're at. They come under the consumer protection rubric: you might call it interfering in someone's freedom of speech to protect stupid people."

I don't think there are laws criminalizing Squibb's conduct in the Vioxx case, as corporations can only be held monetarily liable, and can't be tried as persons. It's a matter of liability - at least that's what they said on CNBC as their stock was tanking. And I wouldn't be calling anyone 'stupid' if I were you.

"So? The government owns Yellowstone Park, too; does that mean it may prohibit you from holding a conversation there?"
I think Yellowstone is an actual physical space, right? The airwaves are certainly not. But once a company gets the right to have conversations there, they seem to be in no way restricted in the inanity of said conversations. Think FOX news. But I will concede that this could be contentious - there were no airwaves in 1787, and so it's one of those questions that might be more difficult to assess, constitutionally.

"Good for you. And does this mean it isn't an offence, and people are not charged with it and convicted of it and punished for it?" Again, this and your last objection would go to 'constitutional muster', and the prevention of a case where one person's rights supersede those of others.

"I give up; if it's a right, it can't be subject to a licence requirement, isn't that how it goes?"

You're tripping over yourself - you can start a print operation (which is what I was talking about w/ 'advertisements and subscriptions') any time you want without a license requirement. You're back to talking about broadcasters. You didn't discuss the 'business' aspect at all.

Look, just study this - you could stand to do some learnin'.

[iverglas]

75. could be; but I prefer to teach

Hell, *I* get paid when I do.

That was a statement of the principle in question - the sentences following clearly explain that you can yell 'fire', and the pitfalls of doing so.

No, sweetums. The main "pitfall" of doing so is that YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

Here's a nice little intro for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Making it up as you go along isn't really an acceptable approach.

What? Civil liability doesn't apply to the Vioxx case?

What? Did somebody say that?

I thought you were talking about individual rights and freedoms vis-à-vis a government. Is a government involved in civil liability? I surely didn't think so.

We're talking about the CRIMINALIZATION of conduct, and specifically of conduct protected by rights that your constitution says your congress MAY NOT MAKE LAWS ABRIDGING.

You have laws criminalizing speech; you do know that, right?

And the fire-shouter's rights have to be balanced against the property owner's.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

The criminalization of conduct like falsely shouting "fire" in a public place has precisely bugger all to do with any property owner's rights. Here's a hint: it has to do with public safety.

If, however, the theatre owner decided it would be good for business to have patrons yell "Fire! Fire!" whenever they felt like it, then he would be within his rights to do so.

Jacob Hornberger is plainly a moron. Is some random loonytarian ordinarily a good source for authoritative opinion?

I don't think there are laws criminalizing Squibb's conduct in the Vioxx case

I don't think anyone said there were. Can you not follow a conversation?

If I had meant to be replying to your Vioxx example (which was wholly irrelevant because NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT CIVIL LIABILITY), I wonder why I would have reproduced something else you said before saying what you have quoted me as saying:

you: I hear snake oil advertisements on the radio all of the time - for hair loss, diet pills, all kinds of stuff. These people could, I gather, be taken to court any time if they are making false claims. Happens a lot.

me: That's nice, whatever "taken to court" is. You mean: there are laws criminalizing that conduct? I think you'll find there are such laws, albeit weak ones where you're at. They come under the consumer protection rubric: you might call it interfering in someone's freedom of speech to protect stupid people.

See how this "discussion" thing works?

I think Yellowstone is an actual physical space, right? The airwaves are certainly not.

So? Really, who appointed you dictator?

But once a company gets the right to have conversations there, they seem to be in no way restricted in the inanity of said conversations.

So? Somebody does seem to be restricting them in other aspects of those conversations, don't they? Heard anybody say "fuck" on prime time network teevee in the US recently? (It happens all the time here in Canada, and in the UK and in Australia and such like places. The gummint broadcasters themselves are the most enthusiastic in that regard, in the dramas they produce. We're just not as free as you are.)

Again, this and your last objection would go to 'constitutional muster', and the prevention of a case where one person's rights supersede those of others.

Talk about inanity.

No, "a case where one person's rights 'supersede' those of others" really just doesn't come into it most of the time. Really. Truly. Very few cases that are argued involving constitutional rights have anything at all to do with conflicts between two individuals' rights. Sincerely.

You're tripping over yourself...

Actually, I tripped on you. Here's how this one went:

me: How about federal laws requiring broadcasters to have licences? municipal bylaws requiring newspaper publishers to pay business taxes? Got any of them?

you: "municipal bylaws requiring newspaper publishers to pay business taxes? " Well, if they're taking in revenue from advertisements and subscriptions, they're businesses, non? Did you think Freedom of the press mean they get to operate for free?

me (neglecting to pay attention to the fact that you were addressing taxes rather than licences): I give up; if it's a right, it can't be subject to a licence requirement, isn't that how it goes?

Shoot me. I still don't know how the exercise of a right can be either licensed OR TAXED.

You didn't discuss the 'business' aspect at all.

There. Now I have.


I'm still kicking myself for even reading what a math major types about constitutional law. It's mildly amusing, though. No, really, it isn't. It's deeply saddening that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter, and so deeply uninterested in learning the minimum necessary to have an opinion of even minimal value.

[beevul]

47. When is the last time...

When is the last time "feeling safe" saved a life?


Lets see...I would just bet that people in columbine, and vt, and even the colorado church shooting, "felt safe".

And lives saved from "feeling safe" there?

Nope.

But there WERE lives saved at the colorado church shooting by *gasp* someone defensively using a gun.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[aikoaiko]

41. double tap. nt

[Wcross]

43. Delete.

[aikoaiko]

42. Non FFL person to person sales of previously owned guns.

Is it only at gun shows where you wish to ban private person to person sales of previously owned guns or also at flea markets, through newspaper ads, or the kitchen table of two friends also?

I'm not two sure how the federal government could regulate such sales, but if they could, would it be narrow to include just gun shows or expansive to include all private person to person sales?

eta: What current gun control would you be willing to give up if we traded on background checks at gun shows between two people without FFLs?

[Wcross]

44. The only way to regulate private sales in registration.

That isn't going to sit well with the OVER 80 million gun owners in the United States. The overwhelming majority of gun owners will fail to understand how registering their firearms will reduce criminal homicide. I don't know why my firearms should be put into a government database unless at some point there is a plan to confiscate them.

[aikoaiko]

46. a gun registration would be difficult to sell to gun owners, I agree.

[Tejas]

103. Might as well try and regulate METH sales between individuals

Oh wait, there for a moment I had this vision of antis actually wanting to go after the already-existing criminals instead of regulating law-abiding gunowners even more than they are a;ready.

my bad :sarcasm:

[iiibbb]

63. Just remember that the "loophole" is a misnomer...

The "loophole" is really private party sales... although there is the possibility to make a slightly more anonymous purchase at a gun show... but you're not going to be picking Glocks... usually it's old shotguns or hunting rifles. I've rarely seen something that I would consider desirable for a crime.

I don't think you can ban private part sales... I am ambivalent about banning non-dealer sales at gun shows. I don't really care about them, but I also think that closing the "loophole" will have an almost zero effect on gun crime. You're kidding yourself if you think this would be a high impact law.

[virginia mountainman]

65. It would be "high impact"

At the voting booth...

[Tejas]

102. hmm - status of the felony case by the ATF against Bloomberg? n/t

[slackmaster]

112. Pure appeal to emotion and ignorance

Typical gun-grabber appeasement. Yes, all three "top tier" candidates are guilty of it.

The devil is in the details when it comes to regulating sales at gun shows. Any federal bill to do that has to include a definition of "gun show" that reasonably invokes the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. It cannot simply be applied to all private sales of used firearms.

The obvious unintended consequence will be an increase in yard sale, flea market, and newspaper classified ad sales; and a proliferation of not-quite-a-gun-show events where the law would not apply.