1911Forum
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > General > Legal & Political News


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-06-2012, 04:54 PM
MPJMP MPJMP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 136
The Biggest Threat to the 2nd Amendment...




Found this editorial that was published today on-line.

Gun Problem is a First Amendment Issue

Have to say, I think he's dead on.
  #2  
Old 05-06-2012, 05:41 PM
HT77 HT77 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPJMP View Post

Have to say, I think he's dead on.
I don't think he's dead on at all. He just wants to talk about ways to limit guns. Where he is completely wrong is he wants to talk about guns instead of talking about seriously dealing with social problems and criminals. Let's deal with the real issues and make people personally responsible for their criminal activity instead of trying to blame guns. How has limiting guns and trying to keep them out of the hands of the "wrong people" worked for Chicago, Oakland, LA, SF, Washington DC, Baltimore, and all the other places that refuse to deal harshly with crime? Let's deal with the 90% out of wedlock birthrates in those places which ultimately leads to gangs and crime instead of worrying about guns and new gun laws.
  #3  
Old 05-06-2012, 05:46 PM
JohnS JohnS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Depending
Age: 45
Posts: 1,606
HT your last sentence is so spot on.
  #4  
Old 05-06-2012, 06:43 PM
DivePanama DivePanama is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Virginia, surrounded by good folk. Still trying to figure out the rebel flag deal in a state that fought for the Union LOL.
Age: 51
Posts: 5,841
Good post HT.

The whole article clearly was slanted to infer that the guns are the problem, not the the criminal element. I especially found this line humorous;
Quote:
The shootings were, the way the facts now appear, legally justifiable. But that doesn't mean the deaths were not tragic. It is tragic each time a gun is pulled and a deadly chain of events set into motion.
So I guess the gun set the "deadly chain of events in motion", not the criminal's actions whether they be assault, robbery, rape, attempted murder, etc...

Sadly there are those gun owners that fall this verbal clap.

Regards,
__________________
COTEP member
NRA Endowment Life Member
Retired Paratrooper-Master Rated
"Only two things in this world keeps a chickens ass off the ground and its not wings"

Last edited by DivePanama; 05-06-2012 at 06:53 PM.
  #5  
Old 05-06-2012, 06:54 PM
Steelplate45 Steelplate45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 81
I agree with HT.

The problem in the this country is 'Fathering' or lack thereof.
__________________
Currently: Still Shooting Plates and Skiing Black Diamonds.
Formerly: USMC '68-'72 Platoon Honorman, Platoon High Rifle, Range High Rifle, F4 Flight Simulator Instructor, IDPA Match Director, IDPA RSO, NRA Instructor.
  #6  
Old 05-06-2012, 06:56 PM
Choctaw Choctaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: DFW, TEXAS
Posts: 563
I smell an election year troll...

Good post HT!
  #7  
Old 05-06-2012, 07:04 PM
SuHu SuHu is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NM
Posts: 3,850
Sorry, he missed it so bad he's orbiting Saturn. Not interested in sitting down with some lib to hear him pontificate about how we need to all get along and accept reasonable restrictions and more government requirements, when the truth is staring them in the face, and has been for the past 225 years.
__________________
“It is not a crime to be here illegally,” -B. Loewe, Spokesman for the National Day Laborers Organizing Network.
"I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel.... It is physically impossible." — Rosie O’Donnell
  #8  
Old 05-06-2012, 07:11 PM
ope135 ope135 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 893
No, it's a responsibility issue. We don't need to all get along. We all need to leave each other alone. Failing that, responsible and sane individuals must resort to whatever means our Creator endowed us with to defend ourselves. The Founders recognized this and memorialized it in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
NRA Endowment Member
USAR - Ordnance Corps
  #9  
Old 05-06-2012, 08:33 PM
NonHyphenAmerican NonHyphenAmerican is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hooterville in S.C. Kansas
Posts: 1,834
My wife and I were just talking about this issue today.

The Constitutional Freedom of Speech is under fire when you cannot make true accurate statements without a Govt. Official punishing you for doing so.
Specifically, Wikipedia ordered and required to remove their entry regarding the definition of "Forward" and it's use by the Obama/Biden Campaign. Or, peruse this: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/201...rebels-126061/

The Constitutional Freedom to Peaceably Assemble is now under fire by Executive order when you are prohibited to protest in proximity of the President and are then subject to arrest and prosecution. The Exeutive Order: http://rt.com/usa/news/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/


The Constitional Freedom of Religion is under fire when a Religious entity is required by law to provide items free of charge to employees that they consider to be wrong by Government fiat and are subject to millions of dollars in fines if they don't comply. Peruse: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pr...20120120a.html

The Constitutional Freedom that prohibits Seizure of Life or Property without "Due Process of Law" is under fire when an Executive Branch fiat deprives American Citizens of the property and even their lives without even being charged or brought to trial. Specifically, GM and Chrysler stockholders and bondholders were deprived of their property without due process when they became "Government Motors" and "Fix It Again Taxpayers" Motors. Or, peruse: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-ga...b_1370819.html

And....Our 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is under fire when you have an insidious campaign by the Executive Branch and its supporters such as Soro's to deprive American Citizens of the ability to purchase, own, and use firearms and ammunition.
http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/obamas-gungate-attempting-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-obama-and-holder-agent-provocateurs-operation-fast-and-furious-videos/

So, I don't think we have a gun problem.

I think we have a problem with an Executive Branch of Our American Government that is engaging in a battle to destroy the Constitution of The United States of America.
__________________
"I hope and pray that none may kill me, Nor I kill any, with woundings grim But if ever any should think to kill me I pray thee, God, let me first kill him"

Keeping That In Mind, It Is "WE THE PEOPLE, not You The Government".
  #10  
Old 05-06-2012, 09:08 PM
jeffbird jeffbird is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 56
Worry about all of the Bill of Rights.

They are all under assault, and have been from both political parties.

Last edited by jeffbird; 05-06-2012 at 09:39 PM.
  #11  
Old 05-06-2012, 09:15 PM
MPJMP MPJMP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT77 View Post
I don't think he's dead on at all. He just wants to talk about ways to limit guns. Where he is completely wrong is he wants to talk about guns instead of talking about seriously dealing with social problems and criminals. Let's deal with the real issues and make people personally responsible for their criminal activity instead of trying to blame guns.
I agree with your points, but I came away from that article with an entirely different take on what the author was trying to say.

The problem isn't guns, it's the "idiots" who chose to use them irresponsibly-- mostly, criminals who could care less about responsible ownership or safety, They are the ones who provide political ammo for the liberal left who wish to erode our 2A rights.

I read the article as trying to focus the debate not on the tools themselves, but back on the people who use them for evil (which is exactly what your post was about, if I read it correctly).
  #12  
Old 05-06-2012, 09:27 PM
ArnieS ArnieS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Colorado
Age: 59
Posts: 255
The biggest threat to gun ownership is bloated government and the statists running it.
  #13  
Old 05-06-2012, 09:32 PM
WobbleZone WobbleZone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 987
The columnist who wrote this is with the Birmingham News, and clear, rational thought is not his strong suit. In a way, this column was a welcome change from his standard piece of " I am deploring _____________________
(crime, black on black violence, truancy, hunger, mumps, rickets, athletes' foot - just fill in the blanks with the topic of the day) today and it is somehow all our fault and we must come together to correct it, preferably by confessing our common guilt and taxing more and throwing copious amounts of money at it to give me a warm fuzzy feeling."

This guy once wrote a piece in which he criticized a local law enforcement officer for writing a investigation report in which phrases which were not complete sentences were used. When I wrote to him that I had counted no less than three phrases in his article that were not sentences but which were punctuated as such, he replied with some lame excuse that such practice was OK according to the N.Y. Times style manual. Apparently he didn't deign the LEO worthy of such consideration as he claimed for himself.
  #14  
Old 05-06-2012, 09:55 PM
MPJMP MPJMP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbird View Post
The finishing blow to "due process" is that if someone is charged with a crime, most judges are a second prosecutor, and the jury wants to make their community "safer" to they do whatever the prosecutor and police say. Guilty until proven otherwise is the reality, and very hard to do.
You make a lot of good points, but the above is not accurate in my experience. Judges are often former defense attorneys whose political support base comes primarily from the criminal defense bar. Hardly "second prosecutors."

And while most people like to talk tough about crime and what should be done about it, put those same folks on a jury where suddenly they have the power to change lives forever with their verdict and they become extremely cautious in their use of the "guilty" word.
  #15  
Old 05-06-2012, 10:02 PM
Chas3 Chas3 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 22
Right on NonHyphenated...well thought-out and eloquently presented!
chas3
  #16  
Old 05-06-2012, 10:13 PM
jeffbird jeffbird is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 56
Guess it depends on the venue.

Here in Texas, almost all criminal judges were prosecutors and once on the bench see it as their job to be "tough on crime."

That makes a better campaign slogan, than protect the rights of all citizens.

Anyway, I edited my post down not to sidetrack the discussion too much.
  #17  
Old 05-06-2012, 10:14 PM
HT77 HT77 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPJMP View Post
I agree with your points, but I came away from that article with an entirely different take on what the author was trying to say.

The problem isn't guns, it's the "idiots" who chose to use them irresponsibly-- mostly, criminals who could care less about responsible ownership or safety, They are the ones who provide political ammo for the liberal left who wish to erode our 2A rights.

I read the article as trying to focus the debate not on the tools themselves, but back on the people who use them for evil (which is exactly what your post was about, if I read it correctly).
Every time I read the article I see the same thing. I see carefully crafted words arguing for more gun control. All of his points are related to controlling guns, not criminals. Here is his summary at the end of the article:

We do have a gun problem. But it's not a Second Amendment issue. It's a First Amendment issue.

We need to learn again to talk about guns in realistic, honest ways, without all the knee-jerk political baggage. We need to talk safety, and consequences. We need to discuss ways of limiting gun supplies to criminals without threatening the rights of responsible owners.

Liberals like him are not really serious about dealing with crime and criminals. They would never engage in a real conversation about the factors that actually cause crime. They think they can somehow keep guns out of the hands of criminals and everything will be fine. How is that any different than the strict gun control we see in most of our major cities that has done nothing to reduce crime or gun violence? If I told him the number one controlling factor for someone going to prison is lack of a father at home, therefore to reduce crime we need to deal with that, he would completely dismiss it. Bottom line is his article is either completely disingenuous or childishly delusional.
  #18  
Old 05-06-2012, 10:48 PM
spinks spinks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,463
As much as Archibald is a bit of a d-bag I do like the idea of making the gun issue a 1A issue.

The NRA, or maybe the new ACA, should air ads with the 4 basic safety rules in large city markets. Markets where the libs live. This would be a kind of "killing them with kindness" approach.
  #19  
Old 05-07-2012, 08:19 AM
Hunter Customs Hunter Customs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Osborn, Missouri 64474
Posts: 3,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT77 View Post
I don't think he's dead on at all. He just wants to talk about ways to limit guns. Where he is completely wrong is he wants to talk about guns instead of talking about seriously dealing with social problems and criminals. Let's deal with the real issues and make people personally responsible for their criminal activity instead of trying to blame guns. How has limiting guns and trying to keep them out of the hands of the "wrong people" worked for Chicago, Oakland, LA, SF, Washington DC, Baltimore, and all the other places that refuse to deal harshly with crime? Let's deal with the 90% out of wedlock birthrates in those places which ultimately leads to gangs and crime instead of worrying about guns and new gun laws.
HT77,
Excellent post, very well said and I agree 100%.

If you don't mind I would like to add Kansas City and St.Louis to the cities you have listed.

The other day the KC mayor was flapping his lips about the reason they have so many killings in KC is not a people problem, it's a gun problem.

In the part of Missouri that I live in I would say most everyone owns or has access to a gun and the people are not being killed by them.
I guess we have better educated guns in our part of the state.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
  #20  
Old 05-07-2012, 08:31 AM
LeatherFace LeatherFace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ope135 View Post
No, it's a responsibility issue.
Don't forget common sense and maturity.
  #21  
Old 05-07-2012, 12:24 PM
MPJMP MPJMP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT77 View Post
Every time I read the article I see the same thing. I see carefully crafted words arguing for more gun control. All of his points are related to controlling guns, not criminals.
Perhaps you are right. Nevertheless, recognizing that the problem originates with irresponsible individuals who have no desire to behave responsibly is where I think the article is "dead on."

That, and the idea that people need to talk and identify the real issues, one of which, I agree, is a breakdown of the traditional social and family structure in the inner cities which has created a sub-culture of irresponsibility where there is no concept of future consequence, only the here and now. How can you expect someone to see the benefit of staying in school, working hard, respecting others and obeying the law when they have no concept of where they will be this time next year or ten years from now? Thinking ahead to where they will be tonight is as far as many seem able to go.
  #22  
Old 05-07-2012, 01:56 PM
enjr44 enjr44 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Renton, WA
Age: 70
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Customs View Post
HT77,
Excellent post, very well said and I agree 100%.
The other day the KC mayor was flapping his lips about the reason they have so many killings in KC is not a people problem, it's a gun problem.

In the part of Missouri that I live in I would say most everyone owns or has access to a gun and the people are not being killed by them.
I guess we have better educated guns in our part of the state.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
Love the, ". . . better educated guns . . ."
  #23  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:56 PM
USMM guy USMM guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rural VA
Posts: 7,977
The biggest threat to the second amendment.

As well as the biggest threat to the rest of the freedoms that we hold dear are one and the same.
Anytime you have an increasingly ignorant population that retains voting powers yet is reliant on an increasingly subsidized existance. They become very easily manipulated to the point where they become tools of the powers that be just by sheer numbers.

The Roman leaders figured this out in the late years of their empire. It worked for them in the short term. "Bread and Circuses"
But ultimately it lead to their downfall.

Anybody out there ever watch an episode of Jersey shore?
  #24  
Old 05-07-2012, 11:43 PM
sonicrete sonicrete is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 82
Do a little searching to find some nice new "laws" signed into effect concerning the UN. This was like over the weekend.

Something about sharing the revenue from oil wells out 200 miles with the world. No aggression. Only launch sattelittes with UN approval. Of course weapons. These sleasy b@stards are selling the USA down the river just sneaking stuff in when no one is looking. The press,cough,cough,is in on this.
  #25  
Old 05-08-2012, 12:53 AM
Kodadek Kodadek is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The frozen reaches of the North
Age: 31
Posts: 7,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPJMP View Post
Perhaps you are right. Nevertheless, recognizing that the problem originates with irresponsible individuals who have no desire to behave responsibly is where I think the article is "dead on."

That, and the idea that people need to talk and identify the real issues, one of which, I agree, is a breakdown of the traditional social and family structure in the inner cities which has created a sub-culture of irresponsibility where there is no concept of future consequence, only the here and now. How can you expect someone to see the benefit of staying in school, working hard, respecting others and obeying the law when they have no concept of where they will be this time next year or ten years from now? Thinking ahead to where they will be tonight is as far as many seem able to go.
No, the problem stems from knee-jerk sissies that dislike conflict, dislike guns, and really think that you can somehow "keep" weapons out of the hands of criminals. Even England, with all its laws believes there are some 2-3 million illegal arms within their nation, mind you that's the conservative estimate. These people really think they can bury human will, vice, and desire under a mountain of rules. regulations and laws.

The guy that wrote that article doesn't want to talk about it. Hell, his mind is all made up. He just wants to help make your mind up for you. He's also an idiot or a grand fabricator of the truth. Most of the so coined idiots with guns came by them quite legally. No dishonesty, no trickery, no laws broken in acquiring the weapons in question. Reminds me of my brother-in-law that wants registration for rifles over a certain caliber and tries to call anything black, evil, with a detachable mag and a pistol grip in rifle length as a "non-sporting-sportsman's-rifle". He tries to come off as "pro-gun" but he clearly wants limits enforced, he's just two steps shy of wanting all the guns grabbed and he's just articulate enough to fool most folks. Now, call me crazy but I'm not overly fond of namby-pamby, "let's talk about it" folks. When they want to talk what they really mean is, "shut the hell up, listen, let me tell you why I'm right and you're wrong."

You're welcome to agree with them all you like. Me? Well to me folks like that aren't worth the vast quantities of oxygen they steal. I want to form a dialogue with them about as much as they want to form one with me. The point where we differ is I'm honest enough to admit it.
__________________
One man with courage makes a majority. — Andrew Jackson

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2011 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved