I believe that we have a right to bear arms. I'm a little on the fence with assault rifles but I have the right to own a gun if I choose to do so. I've heard many people say "If the shooter in Colorado didn't have an assault rifle then he would have killed less people" and that may be true but what if the poor innocent people in that theater could have had a gun? I would feel much safer if I could carry a gun with me so I would have a better advantage of protecting myself. Whether or not they are banned guns will always end up in the wrong person's hands.
And Damn you Rick, I feel like I'm back in College having to research and cite my papers! Great rivalry and while Yes it is soon after a horrible event it does need to be discussed and the facts need to be laid out. Thank you by the way, it's been entirely too long since I've read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Section 8
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
…
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
…
United States Bill of Rights
Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
My day has been entirely too crazy to even stand a chance of rebutting every claim in Rick’s well thought out response and would love for some other JealousBrother members to pick up what I’m starting with here. Since my time has been limited today I’m going to focus on my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and attempt to answer the question that is posed in the title of this rivalry.
I intentionally cited Section 8 of the Constitution for simple fact that the precursor to the Bill of Rights (Constitution) clearly lays out that the power the Congress has to “..provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia…”. Why is this significant? Why would there be any question of militia members being armed if the government itself was responsible for arming them? They had to emphasize this so the government wouldn’t send them to war with their bare hands?
Amendment II to the Bill of Rights is cited because it’s the underlying issue being discussed right now and it’s important to point out that while a well regulated militia is mentioned when it comes to mentioning the right to keep and bear arms the word “People” is specifically used, not Militia members but people. How does the constitution start again? “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…”. That’s right it’s “We the People” not “We the Militia”. Strange, it’s almost like they meant to address the right to bear arms to the masses not just those in the militias. Odd..
I cite Amendment III for a specific reason as well, it clearly distinguishes a difference between, the People, the Militia, and the Soldiers (Land and sea).
Now let’s pretend we’re back in the gentlemens war for a second and someone drops off a crate of AR-15 or the military brother M-16 assault rifles. Do you think they would have used it to shoot the idiots lining up waiting to be shot? Uhhmm Yup! Now when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and ratified do you think they would have said, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon except for the rapid fire assault rifles”.
I was fairly confident about the weaponry used in the revolutionary war but looked it up just to be sure; included are Muskets, Cannons, Flintlock Pistols, Swords and Sabres. Out of curiosity does it mention anywhere in the bill of rights or Constitution that The People can own weapons but not canons? I mean, canons are military weapons and if The People couldn’t own them then it might have been a good idea to mention that kind of thing.
I understand a lot of people think it’s irrational to want a assault rifle and I think it’s irrational for grown adults to own thousands of cabbage patch kids, name them all, and treat them like real children but guess what if they want to be a couple of dumb ass mother @&%*#% and spend thousands of dollars raising cabbage kids(Keeping them in HVAC climate controlled buildings) as children guess what that’s fine as long as they don’t send them off to conduct any kind of attack that hurts or kills others.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/my-crazy-obsession-cabbage-patch-kids-video_n_1331140.html (Frankly I’m surprised I’m sourcing something from the Huffington Post but even Hell freezes over apparently.)
As I get more time I’ll try and address more of Rick’s points but hope some other members step in and help me out. I’m mean come on folks, someone has to keep coding these sweet ass features!
I apologize for any typos. I was up late, and although I used spellcheck it unfortunately did not catch the two or three mistakes I found later, but I'm certain you will all get the gist of it.
Hello, fellow Jealousbrother.com fans. I’m sure this rivalry will no doubt incite much argument, but I hope that it will at least leave some of you with a few thoughts with which to ponder. I know this response is quite lengthy, but please read the entirety before responding so that you may understand my full position. I am aware that a previous rivalry concerning this subject took place on this site a few years ago, but in light of recent events I am curious what some will think now. I would be remiss to claim that this has nothing to do with the events of the Aurora, CO massacre over the weekend. In fact, it has everything to do with this new rivalry. First, let me state that I mean no disrespect for the victims or their families in starting this rivalry. It is an awful tragedy. I am starting this rivalry while the events of last weekend are still fresh in our minds not to sway people’s opinions, but because it should be discussed now. I am certain there will be differing opinions. This is and has been a subject of very heated debate before, which I welcome, but please remember that we all mean well. That being said, here we go.
Despite what some of you may think of me personally, I do love my country. I loved it enough to serve in the armed forces, and love it still. I would fight for this country even to ensure the rights of those to speak heavily against me in defense of their own beliefs. I have, and would gladly continue doing so because I have a deeper love for this country I believe than most who would rather censor and deprive me of that right purely because it conflicts with their own beliefs. I am not stating that any of you would behave this way. So, please, do not assume that my previous statement is meant to identify anyone in particular on this website.
From the Bill or Rights
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I know we’ve all discussed the Bill of Rights at some point, but rarely has someone actually published the entire text of the Second Amendment on this website during a rivalry. I think it important that we all see it. Many times we all see the latter text of the amendment. We rarely see the beginning text of the Second Amendment. I wonder if there is a reason for this. Notice the very first four words: “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA”. Is there a reason why so few rarely see this text? Is it because our forefathers had sense enough to realize that an armed citizenry was somewhat dangerous, and that perhaps regulation might be the sensible thing? Of course, as I’ve stated myself in many arguments like these, a well regulated militia at the time of our forefathers was sought in order to protect a fledgling nation from foreign enemies. I know many would argue that it was also to protect the people from tyranny of the government, but let’s be a little honest about this. If we were to construct a giant scoreboard with Tyrannical American Governments Overthrown on one side, and Dead Innocent American Men/Women/Children on the other… …which side do you think would have the higher tally? I think we all know the answer to that one. That’s not just opinion. That’s fact. One could argue that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. True, but killing them was made much easier by their access to weapons like AR-15’s and TEC-DC9’s. The reason why most current gun laws are so ineffectual is because they do NOT cover a specific type of sale. Nearly all gun-show exhibits that take place across this country are totally exempt from any state or federal gun laws, including the infamous Brady Bill. At these types of exhibits nearly any citizen of legal age can enter and purchase the weapon of their choice without the normal 5 to 7 day waiting period or background check. Of course, the real question still lingers. Why? Why does any normal everyday citizen require the use of an assault rifle or semi-automatic handgun? Let’s consider this.
I have heard many arguments over the years. Phrases such as “Well, thousands of people die every year in car accidents. Why not place a ban on automobiles?” Or, for yet another example, “People die all the time in airplane accidents. Why not just ban flying?” Excuse me for a moment while I try not to be too sarcastic. You see the logic surrounding these statements is actually lacking in common sense. Automobiles and airplanes are not specifically manufactured for use as a weapon, though they have admittedly sometimes been used in such a manner. One has to ask the question though. Does anyone believe that the designers of the 2012 Ford Mustang or Boeing 787 at some point during their creative process asked themselves “yes, it gets great gas mileage, has several safety features, and is incredibly fast, but how many people can I possibly kill with this thing?” Chances are probably not. How far does the imagination have to stretch to believe that this was not one of the considerations during the design and manufacturing of weapons like the AR-15 and TEC-DC9? Probably not very far. Let’s just take actual weapons into further consideration.
When manufacturers of weapons like an ordinary hunting rifle decided on certain designs chances are they were concerned with accuracy. After all, when hunting rifles were first used by settlers they were used in order to kill animals whose meat provided food, skins provided clothing, and even in some instances provided shelter. When manufacturers produced handguns the main objective was to help citizens protect their families, protect themselves, their property, and their homes. When manufacturers produced repeating rifles, assault weapons, etc. it was to provide our military and armed forces with a means to kill more of the enemy, and more accurately, without having to reload as often. It was the latter type of these weapons which were once used in defense of our nation. They were never meant to be used by the general public, who were routinely unfamiliar with the proper handling and care of such weapons. Assault rifles and many types of semi-automatic weapons are specifically manufactured with a singular intent. They are meant to kill, as accurately as possible, as many as possible human beings with as little time possibly required for reloading. These are not weapons used to provide for the welfare and protection of a family. These are not weapons used to kill animals in order to provide food or shelter. These are weapons specifically commissioned and manufactured solely for the purpose of killing as many human beings as possible in one given moment. So, the question I ask is why? Why is it necessary, when there are plenty of other weapons with which to achieve the above objectives like protection, food, and shelter, does one require such a weapon? Who are you really expecting to invade your home? The Libyan Front? Al-Qaeda? The Afghani Taliban? Beyond even this scope let’s dig a little deeper.
One may argue that “Well, if someone like Mr. Holmes had really wanted a weapon like the one he used in the massacre he could have gotten it by illegal means. So, what good would it have done for assault weapons to be have been banned in the first place?” Perhaps this is true. On the other hand, why must we make it so much easier to obtain weapons like these? Why do we allow a group like the NRA to have such a stranglehold on American politics as to dictate legislation? Why not make laws a little stricter if only for the chance to stop such horrible acts of violence. It would only be regulation of a smaller more particular area of the market, not the entire market itself. Is the desire to own such lethal weaponry by some civilians really worth the chance that they may in fact fall into the wrong hands? I’ll speculate. What if Congress had continued the ban on assault weapons? Maybe he would have decided to use illegal means to obtain an AR-15 through the black market or other illegal channels that might have been monitored. Perhaps then he would have been caught and the lives of 12 people would not have been lost. We don’t know, and unfortunately now, we will never know. Are the lives of those 12 people and many others like them not worth the consideration? I would suggest that the ownership of such lethal weapons by civilians is unnecessary. Let us not forget that weapons like these should only be in the possession of someone who is well trained to handle and use them. By that rationale, who besides an officer of the law or soldier should really be in possession of such weapons? I believe the answer should be a resounding ‘no’, but we are all entitled to our opinion. I may be a liberal, but that does not mean I do not cherish the Bill of Rights or even the Second Amendment. I’m quite glad it’s there for our protection. Among my immediate family including my parents and two brothers we own a total of 17 firearms (9 rifles/4 shotguns/and 4 handguns). I personally am now in the process of acquiring a Texas Concealed Handgun License. I believe every American should have the right to protect themselves, their family, and their property. However, at what point do we realize that our forefathers were correct in the very specific language they used in the Second Amendment. Although it states quite perfectly that Americans should have the right to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed. They also stated that it should be well regulated.
Let us take another view into consideration. In the aftermath of the events of 9/11 the FAA made new regulations and laws concerning what items a passenger could and could not carry aboard an aircraft. Specifically the banning of knives and box-cutters. Were these regulations and laws such an infringement upon the passengers of airliners that many felt as though they could never safely travel aboard an airplane again? Did you ever hear someone complain that they felt violated by such laws that they could not carry their knives during a flight from Atlanta to San Diego? I did, and was much happier to realize that I was sitting several aisles away from the individual upon boarding. With regards to gun regulations, why is it such an infringement and appalling matter to only be allowed to purchase handguns, shotguns, and various other weapons other than assault rifles for protection? Even if it only stopped that one individual like Mr. Holmes from purchasing such a deadly weapon, is it not worth the regulation? One should never have to fear the ability to protect their loved ones, their home, and their property. Then again, they should never have to fear enjoying a movie with their friends without someone bursting into an auditorium with a civilian modified version of the military’s M-16 either. To put it plainly, I do not believe in the propagation of these types of weapons. They are in fact not guaranteed or protected under the amendments of the Bill of Rights. These weapons belong in the accountable hands of trained individuals who are in fact in the service of the military. A militia. If one can argue the need for an assault rifle, then why not an RPG, IED, chemical or biological weapon under the guise of being a militia?
Here is a suggestion. Why can we not have a serious discussion about this issue in order to try to prevent tragedies like the one in Aurora, CO from ever happening again? Why is this not a consideration? Certainly we cannot prevent every condition or tragedy, but are the lives of others not worth the consideration? If in fact we cannot stop someone who is possibly mentally unstable from committing such acts as they are clearly unaware of their immoral actions, why is it such an infringement upon others to somehow not enable their ability to acquire the deadliest of weapons with which to cause such substantial detriment to others? I am only asking these questions in order to obtain your opinions.
Actually, in cases involving the insane I do not agree Dolly. Here is where I have a problem with your logic. A person who is by clinical definition insane is not of reasonable mind, especially at this very early age when for example the onset of schizophrenia begins to take hold. Which, by the way, is what is believed to be the case with Mr. Holmes thus far. If this is in fact true then why is it our obligation to simply get rid of the human being instead of treating the human being? Why is it morally justifiable to murder one human being who may have not understood his own actions to appease the deaths and victims of others? An eye for an eye? If we use this moral justification in the biblical sense then you and I should have been put to death long before now as prescribed by law in both the Old and New Testaments in the books of Leveticus and Deuteronomy respectively. What about the contradictions? Whilst in one part of the bible we are instructed to stone some to death for their immoral actions we are also instructed by the Ten Commandments that "Thou shalt not kill". To my knowledge there was no underwriting beneath the Ten Commandments with an asterisk stipulating that this particular commandment was null and void should it be for the purpose of wreaking justice upon the condemned? All I'm asking is that if we have a moral obligation to Mr. Holmes, should it not be to help or rehabilitate a person who may not have been under true moral and mental faculties at the time he made such an irrational and terrible decision? Should we be so quick to judge those and their circumstances that we barely know? If indeed he was not of sound mind at the time of his horrific actions why does it then become justifiable to simply stick a needle in his arm as opposed to food in his mouth? If we go by "wrong is wrong" then why do we cheer and celebrate women who kill their husbands after years of physical and mental abuse, but a man whose mind is genetically predisposed to mental illness should be strapped into a chair and told to take deep breaths?
As far as deterrence is concerned I do not see your logic there either. Remember that the death penalty is a punishment by law. Parole officers, registries, and house arrests are exactly as you said... ...restrictions. They are in place to provide future protection from those who are eventually released. Death penalties are pretty much finalistic. If the law and penalty are rescinded then they spend the rest of their natural lives in prison without possibility of parole. Just as being put to death, no possibility of parole still removes them permanently from civilization.
As for your determination that we should not have to feed, clothe, and house such individuals I also see a lack of judgment as well. Is it because of tax dollars spent to accommodate these men and women? By that same rationale should we also simply put to death those who have been sentenced to life for various crimes which did not warrant the death penalty? For example, there are plenty of men and women who have been convicted of lesser crimes such as tax evasion, mail fraud, pedophilia, and involuntary manslaughter, etc. that have received sentences that go well beyond a normal person’s lifespan at the time of their incarceration. Should we save a few more dollars and gas them as well? Why is it morally right to feed, clothe, and house these individuals? Murder, whether first degree, mass, or capital, etc. are far more reprehensible crimes and thusly the death penalty is the only viable solution? I am only asking that you be more specific.
In answer to your last question concerning different factors I did state previously that several of the studies took different variables into consideration:
“Rick - 7/21/12 @ 1:38 PM:
Several of the studies go way beyond just what appears on the surface. Many of them consider crimes other than the typical first degree murder or capital murder in order to get the death penalty.”
I’m not being sarcastic, mean, or facetious. You stated what you considered a very valid argument, and I agree to an extent on some of the content, but I am simply replying in answer to some of your questions, and would only ask that you elaborate on some of the points. At the very least I responded just so that I might both clarify my position and suggest thoughts for you to consider as well.
Well, this rivalry was one sided to begin with. Who in their right mind would vote that axing unlimited from long time customers who had been grandfathered in was good business? Anyway, just like companies no longer have loyalty to their employees, businesses no longer have loyalty to their customers.
I have no problem with public breast feeding. The woman should try to cover up, as there are public decency laws. And, us gay guys don't enjoy seeing breasts. Lol. Seriously, there are some people who need to mind their own business when somebody is doing something they don't like but it's not hurting anybody. This country is too embarrassed by the human body and sexuality. That's one of the reasons this country has problems with gays and lesbians. Love is love and nurturing another being is nurturing but some people can't see past the sexes of the individuals or the breasts, so it's considered bad. Yet,we see people hurt a child or abuse a spouse and we look the other way, so that we are not involved.
Wow, this rivalry has mostly gotten off track. I love how your two brilliant minds go back and forth at each other. For having brilliant minds, you'd think you would agree with each other more often. Tells me that neither Rick nor Ryan is brilliant! LOL that really did make me laugh out loud! Hee Hee. Anyway, I agree that Obamacare is not perfect but that parts of it are good. Pre-existing conditions being eliminated, keeping your children on your insurance til age 26, etc. are some good things. And being made to have health insurance helps you pay for healthcare instead of me paying for all of your healthcare because you didn't have it and I have to pay higher prices. Some people chose not to get healthcare and then expect the rest of us to cover the costs. Of course, some CAN'T afford healthcare and this program does nothing to address that! So I believe this is a step in the right direction but there are some problems to work out.
I say why end it? Investigate and get rid of anyone who was remotely involved and rebuild the program. To end it would just punish those who did nothing and those in the community. There are a lot of people who will be economically hurt by this, even without closing it down. If they had nothing to do with it, why make their losses bigger. They will already be hurting from the time it takes Penn State to recruit coaches and athletes to rebuild. As for removing his statue, of course they should have! Doesn't matter how great his football record is, of he helped cover up this scandal, the rest easy to ignore. Boys lives and minds are much more important than a school and coach's legacy!
I have never voted neutral before! Couldn't even tell you the last time I ordered something thru the Internet. Of course, by law, there is supposed to be a physical presence in the state for the state to collect taxes. I guess that passing a national tax would only be on businesses with a physical presence in this country? Then more business could move out of the US and take more jobs away. Of course, now that I think
about it, once we let the government have a tax, they turn around and expand it or increase it, so I guess I should vote "no" to a national Internet tax!
Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Section 8
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
…
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
…
United States Bill of Rights
Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
My day has been entirely too crazy to even stand a chance of rebutting every claim in Rick’s well thought out response and would love for some other JealousBrother members to pick up what I’m starting with here. Since my time has been limited today I’m going to focus on my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and attempt to answer the question that is posed in the title of this rivalry.
I intentionally cited Section 8 of the Constitution for simple fact that the precursor to the Bill of Rights (Constitution) clearly lays out that the power the Congress has to “..provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia…”. Why is this significant? Why would there be any question of militia members being armed if the government itself was responsible for arming them? They had to emphasize this so the government wouldn’t send them to war with their bare hands?
Amendment II to the Bill of Rights is cited because it’s the underlying issue being discussed right now and it’s important to point out that while a well regulated militia is mentioned when it comes to mentioning the right to keep and bear arms the word “People” is specifically used, not Militia members but people. How does the constitution start again? “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…”. That’s right it’s “We the People” not “We the Militia”. Strange, it’s almost like they meant to address the right to bear arms to the masses not just those in the militias. Odd..
I cite Amendment III for a specific reason as well, it clearly distinguishes a difference between, the People, the Militia, and the Soldiers (Land and sea).
Now let’s pretend we’re back in the gentlemens war for a second and someone drops off a crate of AR-15 or the military brother M-16 assault rifles. Do you think they would have used it to shoot the idiots lining up waiting to be shot? Uhhmm Yup! Now when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and ratified do you think they would have said, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon except for the rapid fire assault rifles”.
I was fairly confident about the weaponry used in the revolutionary war but looked it up just to be sure; included are Muskets, Cannons, Flintlock Pistols, Swords and Sabres. Out of curiosity does it mention anywhere in the bill of rights or Constitution that The People can own weapons but not canons? I mean, canons are military weapons and if The People couldn’t own them then it might have been a good idea to mention that kind of thing.
I understand a lot of people think it’s irrational to want a assault rifle and I think it’s irrational for grown adults to own thousands of cabbage patch kids, name them all, and treat them like real children but guess what if they want to be a couple of dumb ass mother @&%*#% and spend thousands of dollars raising cabbage kids(Keeping them in HVAC climate controlled buildings) as children guess what that’s fine as long as they don’t send them off to conduct any kind of attack that hurts or kills others.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/my-crazy-obsession-cabbage-patch-kids-video_n_1331140.html (Frankly I’m surprised I’m sourcing something from the Huffington Post but even Hell freezes over apparently.)
As I get more time I’ll try and address more of Rick’s points but hope some other members step in and help me out. I’m mean come on folks, someone has to keep coding these sweet ass features!
Despite what some of you may think of me personally, I do love my country. I loved it enough to serve in the armed forces, and love it still. I would fight for this country even to ensure the rights of those to speak heavily against me in defense of their own beliefs. I have, and would gladly continue doing so because I have a deeper love for this country I believe than most who would rather censor and deprive me of that right purely because it conflicts with their own beliefs. I am not stating that any of you would behave this way. So, please, do not assume that my previous statement is meant to identify anyone in particular on this website.
From the Bill or Rights
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I know we’ve all discussed the Bill of Rights at some point, but rarely has someone actually published the entire text of the Second Amendment on this website during a rivalry. I think it important that we all see it. Many times we all see the latter text of the amendment. We rarely see the beginning text of the Second Amendment. I wonder if there is a reason for this. Notice the very first four words: “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA”. Is there a reason why so few rarely see this text? Is it because our forefathers had sense enough to realize that an armed citizenry was somewhat dangerous, and that perhaps regulation might be the sensible thing? Of course, as I’ve stated myself in many arguments like these, a well regulated militia at the time of our forefathers was sought in order to protect a fledgling nation from foreign enemies. I know many would argue that it was also to protect the people from tyranny of the government, but let’s be a little honest about this. If we were to construct a giant scoreboard with Tyrannical American Governments Overthrown on one side, and Dead Innocent American Men/Women/Children on the other… …which side do you think would have the higher tally? I think we all know the answer to that one. That’s not just opinion. That’s fact. One could argue that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. True, but killing them was made much easier by their access to weapons like AR-15’s and TEC-DC9’s. The reason why most current gun laws are so ineffectual is because they do NOT cover a specific type of sale. Nearly all gun-show exhibits that take place across this country are totally exempt from any state or federal gun laws, including the infamous Brady Bill. At these types of exhibits nearly any citizen of legal age can enter and purchase the weapon of their choice without the normal 5 to 7 day waiting period or background check. Of course, the real question still lingers. Why? Why does any normal everyday citizen require the use of an assault rifle or semi-automatic handgun? Let’s consider this.
I have heard many arguments over the years. Phrases such as “Well, thousands of people die every year in car accidents. Why not place a ban on automobiles?” Or, for yet another example, “People die all the time in airplane accidents. Why not just ban flying?” Excuse me for a moment while I try not to be too sarcastic. You see the logic surrounding these statements is actually lacking in common sense. Automobiles and airplanes are not specifically manufactured for use as a weapon, though they have admittedly sometimes been used in such a manner. One has to ask the question though. Does anyone believe that the designers of the 2012 Ford Mustang or Boeing 787 at some point during their creative process asked themselves “yes, it gets great gas mileage, has several safety features, and is incredibly fast, but how many people can I possibly kill with this thing?” Chances are probably not. How far does the imagination have to stretch to believe that this was not one of the considerations during the design and manufacturing of weapons like the AR-15 and TEC-DC9? Probably not very far. Let’s just take actual weapons into further consideration.
When manufacturers of weapons like an ordinary hunting rifle decided on certain designs chances are they were concerned with accuracy. After all, when hunting rifles were first used by settlers they were used in order to kill animals whose meat provided food, skins provided clothing, and even in some instances provided shelter. When manufacturers produced handguns the main objective was to help citizens protect their families, protect themselves, their property, and their homes. When manufacturers produced repeating rifles, assault weapons, etc. it was to provide our military and armed forces with a means to kill more of the enemy, and more accurately, without having to reload as often. It was the latter type of these weapons which were once used in defense of our nation. They were never meant to be used by the general public, who were routinely unfamiliar with the proper handling and care of such weapons. Assault rifles and many types of semi-automatic weapons are specifically manufactured with a singular intent. They are meant to kill, as accurately as possible, as many as possible human beings with as little time possibly required for reloading. These are not weapons used to provide for the welfare and protection of a family. These are not weapons used to kill animals in order to provide food or shelter. These are weapons specifically commissioned and manufactured solely for the purpose of killing as many human beings as possible in one given moment. So, the question I ask is why? Why is it necessary, when there are plenty of other weapons with which to achieve the above objectives like protection, food, and shelter, does one require such a weapon? Who are you really expecting to invade your home? The Libyan Front? Al-Qaeda? The Afghani Taliban? Beyond even this scope let’s dig a little deeper.
One may argue that “Well, if someone like Mr. Holmes had really wanted a weapon like the one he used in the massacre he could have gotten it by illegal means. So, what good would it have done for assault weapons to be have been banned in the first place?” Perhaps this is true. On the other hand, why must we make it so much easier to obtain weapons like these? Why do we allow a group like the NRA to have such a stranglehold on American politics as to dictate legislation? Why not make laws a little stricter if only for the chance to stop such horrible acts of violence. It would only be regulation of a smaller more particular area of the market, not the entire market itself. Is the desire to own such lethal weaponry by some civilians really worth the chance that they may in fact fall into the wrong hands? I’ll speculate. What if Congress had continued the ban on assault weapons? Maybe he would have decided to use illegal means to obtain an AR-15 through the black market or other illegal channels that might have been monitored. Perhaps then he would have been caught and the lives of 12 people would not have been lost. We don’t know, and unfortunately now, we will never know. Are the lives of those 12 people and many others like them not worth the consideration? I would suggest that the ownership of such lethal weapons by civilians is unnecessary. Let us not forget that weapons like these should only be in the possession of someone who is well trained to handle and use them. By that rationale, who besides an officer of the law or soldier should really be in possession of such weapons? I believe the answer should be a resounding ‘no’, but we are all entitled to our opinion. I may be a liberal, but that does not mean I do not cherish the Bill of Rights or even the Second Amendment. I’m quite glad it’s there for our protection. Among my immediate family including my parents and two brothers we own a total of 17 firearms (9 rifles/4 shotguns/and 4 handguns). I personally am now in the process of acquiring a Texas Concealed Handgun License. I believe every American should have the right to protect themselves, their family, and their property. However, at what point do we realize that our forefathers were correct in the very specific language they used in the Second Amendment. Although it states quite perfectly that Americans should have the right to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed. They also stated that it should be well regulated.
Let us take another view into consideration. In the aftermath of the events of 9/11 the FAA made new regulations and laws concerning what items a passenger could and could not carry aboard an aircraft. Specifically the banning of knives and box-cutters. Were these regulations and laws such an infringement upon the passengers of airliners that many felt as though they could never safely travel aboard an airplane again? Did you ever hear someone complain that they felt violated by such laws that they could not carry their knives during a flight from Atlanta to San Diego? I did, and was much happier to realize that I was sitting several aisles away from the individual upon boarding. With regards to gun regulations, why is it such an infringement and appalling matter to only be allowed to purchase handguns, shotguns, and various other weapons other than assault rifles for protection? Even if it only stopped that one individual like Mr. Holmes from purchasing such a deadly weapon, is it not worth the regulation? One should never have to fear the ability to protect their loved ones, their home, and their property. Then again, they should never have to fear enjoying a movie with their friends without someone bursting into an auditorium with a civilian modified version of the military’s M-16 either. To put it plainly, I do not believe in the propagation of these types of weapons. They are in fact not guaranteed or protected under the amendments of the Bill of Rights. These weapons belong in the accountable hands of trained individuals who are in fact in the service of the military. A militia. If one can argue the need for an assault rifle, then why not an RPG, IED, chemical or biological weapon under the guise of being a militia?
Here is a suggestion. Why can we not have a serious discussion about this issue in order to try to prevent tragedies like the one in Aurora, CO from ever happening again? Why is this not a consideration? Certainly we cannot prevent every condition or tragedy, but are the lives of others not worth the consideration? If in fact we cannot stop someone who is possibly mentally unstable from committing such acts as they are clearly unaware of their immoral actions, why is it such an infringement upon others to somehow not enable their ability to acquire the deadliest of weapons with which to cause such substantial detriment to others? I am only asking these questions in order to obtain your opinions.
As far as deterrence is concerned I do not see your logic there either. Remember that the death penalty is a punishment by law. Parole officers, registries, and house arrests are exactly as you said... ...restrictions. They are in place to provide future protection from those who are eventually released. Death penalties are pretty much finalistic. If the law and penalty are rescinded then they spend the rest of their natural lives in prison without possibility of parole. Just as being put to death, no possibility of parole still removes them permanently from civilization.
As for your determination that we should not have to feed, clothe, and house such individuals I also see a lack of judgment as well. Is it because of tax dollars spent to accommodate these men and women? By that same rationale should we also simply put to death those who have been sentenced to life for various crimes which did not warrant the death penalty? For example, there are plenty of men and women who have been convicted of lesser crimes such as tax evasion, mail fraud, pedophilia, and involuntary manslaughter, etc. that have received sentences that go well beyond a normal person’s lifespan at the time of their incarceration. Should we save a few more dollars and gas them as well? Why is it morally right to feed, clothe, and house these individuals? Murder, whether first degree, mass, or capital, etc. are far more reprehensible crimes and thusly the death penalty is the only viable solution? I am only asking that you be more specific.
In answer to your last question concerning different factors I did state previously that several of the studies took different variables into consideration:
“Rick - 7/21/12 @ 1:38 PM:
Several of the studies go way beyond just what appears on the surface. Many of them consider crimes other than the typical first degree murder or capital murder in order to get the death penalty.”
I’m not being sarcastic, mean, or facetious. You stated what you considered a very valid argument, and I agree to an extent on some of the content, but I am simply replying in answer to some of your questions, and would only ask that you elaborate on some of the points. At the very least I responded just so that I might both clarify my position and suggest thoughts for you to consider as well.
about it, once we let the government have a tax, they turn around and expand it or increase it, so I guess I should vote "no" to a national Internet tax!