Don't lives of victims outweigh gun rights? (great letter to the editor)

[jpak]

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110219/NEWS04/102190326/-1/NEWSMAP

It is stunning that numerous members of our community are more concerned about keeping their guns than the loss of innocent lives (e.g., a recent letter: "Typical knee jerk reaction to shooting."). Where are their priorities?

<snip>

He continues, "The cited statistics actually bolster the point of gun owners" that there is a "need to defend themselves," but fails to cite any statistics that support this claim. He ignores my argument, in response to my previous piece, that if one owns a gun and is threatened by another gun owner, that person is more than three times more likely to be shot than a person without a hand gun. It is nothing more than a dangerous fantasy that guns protect citizens from intruders, as this happens rarely.

The writer disregards the facts: The Brady Campaign summarizes the findings of the Violence Policy Center 2010 study, "States with higher gun ownership and weaker gun laws have more gun deaths while states with a lower percentage of households with guns and strong gun laws have lower numbers of gun deaths."

Does the writer truly believe that guns make him safer or does he simply love guns? The inescapable facts are that people in Tucson are dead and we wouldn't be having this debate if the gunman was not allowed to purchase a weapon. In light of this tragedy, it is offensive and a moral outrage that many consider their individual right to bear arms more important than the lives of innocent victims.

<more>

:thumbsup:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Don't the lives of unborn babies outweigh abortion rights?

Believe it or not, you are on the side that pushes to restrict the freedom and civil rights of others.
I wonder what other civil rights you secretly wish abolish as well... for the common good, of course. :puke:

[Kolesar]

3. Weak...eom

[DissedByBush]

9. A claim of "weak" with nothing to back it up n/t

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

35. Who knew? They loves them some Chuck Grassley

Yup

[rl6214]

105. They loves them some Chuck Grassley

English isn't your first lanquage?

[Mojorabbit]

39. It really isn't

Don't hurt feelings and damaging someone's self esteem over rule the first amendment?
One can make a case for anything using this tactic. It is the typical " won't someone think of the children?" ploy.

[jpak]

4. I have a right to be FREE of gun wielding individuals in public places

You logic is dumb

yup

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

7. Yes I do - and communities/states have a RIGHT to ban guns on public property

FREEDOM

yup

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. Only in your world do bans and restrictions translate into "freedom"

Let me guess, you were one of those kids who pressed their forehead against the microwave window and stared at the food while it was cooking.

[jpak]

15. Yes, the REAL WORLD that Sarah Palin and the NRA does not live in

I want big government regulation of high capacity magazines

and bans on guns in public places

The BATF rules

yup

:D

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NewMoonTherian]

75. I want the BATFE, NFA, GCA, and Hughes Amendment...

abolished.

FREEDOM.

You bet.

[RSillsbee]

78. FREEDOM

Yup

Yup

Yup

[jpak]

86. Gun free zones are FREEDOM

yup

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

92. Put a cop there - problem solved

yup

[NewMoonTherian]

94. If you feel comfortable putting your life...

in the hands of those corrupt, incompetent dimwits, I honestly don't think your opinion can be swayed. I'll choose an armed civilian populace every single time.

[jpak]

96. Police are now "corrupt, incompetent dimwits"?

pathetic

yup

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

100. I do not have an authoritarian attitiude about the 2A - I have an attitude for Liberty

yup

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

108. His opinion will be

The SCOTUS decision is invalid because a couple of the appointments are invalid.

YUP

YUP

YUP

[NewMoonTherian]

99. Not just now. They've been that way for a long time. You bet. n/t

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

103. And you are volunteering to pay for that, amIrite? n/t

[rl6214]

107. The cops just clean up the scene and write a report afterwards

YUP

YUP

YUP

[GreenStormCloud]

122. There aren't enough cops for that. N/T

[mediator]

55. Say, could I purchase a bit of whatever you're smoking?

It's been a long time...

[Euromutt]

77. I'd advise against it

Whatever it is appears to have inflicted permanent damage.

[NewMoonTherian]

74. On government property, certainly.

Not on private property, and not on infrastructure required to access private property.

And, unless you stay on your own property, or on property whose owner doesn't allow guns, you have no right to be free of gun wielders.

You bet.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. Where do you gather that unenumerated rights trump other established rights?

All reasonable logic must have some basis... ?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

19. From the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution - as the Framers intended

yup

My rights

yup

yup

yup

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

22. I don't have to - that is the job of law enforcement

to arrest and prosecute law breakers

yup

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

25. Make them perfectly illegal in most states

yup

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[S_B_Jackson]

53. Since you're the one seeking change to the legal status quo

the burden or persuasion is entirely yours. I have to say that so far, you're haven't even gotten your pack off the floor and onto your shoulder.

Enumerated rights outweigh unenumerated rights.
Yup.

[lawodevolution]

72. Then I have the right to not see your posts here when I read this forum

So kindly stop posting. Based on your view that unenumerated rights supersede rights listed in the BOR I think I'd rather not read your posts and it's my right. Also stop voting because it is my right to not have political figures in office who were influenced by your vote.

Yup

[oneshooter]

84. "Make them perfectly illegal in most states" Which states would be allowed to keep them? n/t

[jpak]

87. Down South where they have such low gun crime murder rates

yup

[one-eyed fat man]

120. Bigoted bastard, aren't you?

'Down South....'

[rl6214]

109. Let's see you make this happen.

But you won't, you'll just whine about it.

YUP

YUP

YUP

[cleanhippie]

20. No, you don't

and to quote you:

"don't like it, tough shit"

yup

[jpak]

32. Yes, I do I have a right to be FREE from gun toters who want to intimidate me and my family

in public places - just because they think they have a "right" to do so.

They don't

tough shit

yup

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

38. I am intimidiated by people openly carrying handguns in public places

They carry to intimidate

yup

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. Intimidation must not be irrational for the law to determine you are being threatened.

If you put teabagger bumper stickers on your car to intimidate me... and I feel intimidated... that does not mean I have been threatened in the eyes of the law.

Your fears are irrational, grow up.

[PavePusher]

56. Nup.

[X_Digger]

65. I'm sure some people are intimidated by men holding hands in public..

.. they'll get over it, just like you will.

[rrneck]

66. Grow a pair. nt

[rl6214]

112. hahaha

That's exactly what I posted even before seeing your post.

[Howzit]

79. Do cops carrying guns scare you?

After all; they became cops so that they could intimidate...

The only people who should be intimidated by those carrying guns are crooks.

[jpak]

88. Nope - trained & armed law enforcement with a legal mandate to carry and use guns in law enforcement

do not scare me at all

Does the BATF scare you?

Why?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

91. But if if you are "law abiding" you have nothing to fear from them - yes?

I'm a gun owner and have nothing to fear from them at all.

yup

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

95. I own several guns - for hunting and I'm not worried about the BATF bothering me

They protect me from the Tim McVeigh Free-Stater Clown Squad

yup

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

117. I have a legal (Constitutional) mandate to carry and use guns for self-defense.

Why does that seem to scare you?

[rl6214]

111. BULLSHIT

I'll bet you have never even seen anyone open carry. Grow a pair.

[krispos42]

118. Too bad. I guess you'd better treat them with civility and respect.

Gee, that would be terrible for society, wouldn't it?

[rl6214]

110. Please cite, with proof instances where you have been intimidated

But you can't.

NOPE

NOPE

NOPE

[krispos42]

119. No, you don't.

You have the right to be free from harassment, threats, and assault. Past that, you're on your own.

If three street toughs in a group intimidate you, the law doesn't put the burden on them to disperse, or to stop looking "tough", or whatever it takes to mollify you.

So sorry, you just have to live with people.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

28. I have the right to to be FREE from antigun individuals speaking out against the 2nd Amendment

You logic is dumb

yup

[jpak]

33. How do you plan to do that?

How authoritarian

yup

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. WHOOSH

:rofl:

[jpak]

37. By whooshing?

:shrug:

[DissedByBush]

70. LOL, so far over your head n/t

[lawodevolution]

73. He was owned

[PavePusher]

57. Mirror, mirror, on the wall....

...who's the most arrogant one of all....

[Atypical Liberal]

68. No, you do not.

I have a right to be FREE of gun wielding individuals in public places

Unless you live in one of the two (soon to be one) remaining states in the Union that don't allow citizens to carry firearms in public, you don't have the right to be free of "gun wielding individuals in public places".

[Callisto32]

80. Even there, there is no right.

Just because the powers that be decide to use their powers to unjustly infringe upon rights, does not mean that any rights are created or lost. Rights cannot be taken way, they may only be infringed or waived. This is an important intellectual distinction, since once you concede that a right may be created or taken away, it becomes not a right, but a privilege.

[rl6214]

106. I have a right to be FREE of idiotic statementsmade in public forums

YUP

YUP

YUP

[Kolesar]

2. That first comment by ECHO was stupid and off topic...eom

[DissedByBush]

6. Rights aren't subject to statistics

You do not take the moral high ground by violating my rights because others abuse their right.

[msongs]

8. innocent people have no constitutional right to be free from gun owners unfortunately nt

[DissedByBush]

12. Unfortunately gun owners have no right to be free from rights grabbers

They extensively use their First Amendment rights in order to take away the Second Amendment rights of others.

I don't see the Second Amendment supporters working to take away their rights.

[Kolesar]

14. slow day in paradise? ... eom

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

18. Grabbing 30 round magazines is not "gun grabbing"

nope

[oneshooter]

23. You have never answered the question....

How are you planning to pay for all of those magazines you confiscate?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[jpak]

30. Nope - if they are illegal they get no compensation, any more than a dope dealer's confiscated dope

yup

[spin]

42. Perhaps you will volunteer to go out and confiscate them ...

yup

[jpak]

43. Why? - we have the BATF to protect us

yup

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

45. Me a Coward? - don't think so

Law enforcement has the training and equipment and legal mandate to go after the evil doers

and make cowards out of them

yup

:rofl:

[PavePusher]

58. Speaking of "authoritarian".... WHOOOOOSHHHHH...... n/t

[pipoman]

83. Laughable

1. The BATFE is not a protector, they are a law enforcement agency

2. The BATFE can't even enforce and investigate existing laws, it is delusional to believe they could or would bother to attempt confiscation of 100,000,000+ magazines, simply laughable..and to illustrate..

The ATF Does Not Always Make Timely Firearms Retrievals

We identified delays in retrieving firearms in 65 of the 188 cases (35 percent) we reviewed for which investigations were completed. In 28 of these 65 cases (43 percent), it took from four months to over a year to retrieve the firearm. We identified a number of reasons for these delays:

* The Brady Operations Branch did not have the technological capability to transfer the delayed denials directly to the field and satellite offices, and instead routed the denials through the division NICS coordinators. Not all NICS coordinators were timely in forwarding these denials to the field offices.

* Insufficient staffing at some ATF field and satellite offices made it difficult for special agents to investigate the large volume of labor-intensive NICS cases in addition to conducting other high-priority investigations, such as those involving firearms trafficking, explosives, and arsons. In addition, the large geographic territories some of the field offices cover make retrieving a firearm a time-consuming process.

* ATF special agents did not consider most of the prohibited persons who had obtained guns to be dangerous and therefore did not consider it a priority to retrieve the firearm promptly.

* The ATF had not established timeliness standards for retrieving firearms and did not track the retrieval process.

These delays increase the risk that prohibited persons may use the illegally obtained firearm to harm others or to otherwise commit a crime. In one of our sampled cases, for instance, the prohibited person fired the weapon at another person's car and was subsequently charged by local law enforcement with aggravated assault.

-snip-

In addition, of the 59 sampled cases involving third party transfers, only 24 cases (41 percent) contained evidence that the special agent had conducted a background check to verify that the third party was not prohibited. Failure to verify the prohibited status of the third party can result in the firearm being transferred from one prohibited person to another.

-snip-

A June 28, 2001, memorandum from the Attorney General directed the U.S. Attorneys to "make it a priority to enforce the law against those persons who attempt to subvert the legitimate crime prevention objectives of the Brady Act and to incorporate this new focus into comprehensive prosecutive efforts." During CYs 2002 and 2003, approximately 120,000 cases were referred by the FBI to the Brady Operations Branch. Of these cases, the ATF formally referred only 230 to the USAOs, and the USAOs accepted 185, or 80 percent for prosecution.3 Of these cases, 154 were prosecuted.

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm

Oh and notice that these facts actually come from a government agency, not an advocacy group.

Now do tell when or how the BATFE will accomplish this fantasy of yours?

[X_Digger]

46. Read the fifth amendment.

Confiscation would be a 'taking', requiring compensation.

[jpak]

47. So - when they bust some asshole with 5 tons of dope and confiscate it

The cops have to reimburse the dope dealer for the fair street value of the dope?

That's just plain fucking stupid

yup

[X_Digger]

48. It wasn't legal when acquired.. unlike a currently owned magazine.

Go take a constitutional law class.

You can't make a currently legal item retroactively illegal- ex post facto. If the government declares something illegal, then it 'grandfathers' current stock.

This was true in 1906 with the passage of the Federal Food and Drug Act. It only applied to items created, imported, or sold after enactment.

If the government confiscates property, they must compensate the owner- see Eminent Domain.

Fucking duh.

[lawodevolution]

76. "Go take a constitutional law class."

I like Jpak just they way he/she is. Imagine if he started trying to argue for the pro gun side. The damage would be difficult to contain.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

49. The dope is illegally acquired. Magazines, prior to any ban would have been legally acquired.

Im guessing that the hundreds of bans in the past that required grandfather clauses to be passed mean nothing to you.
jpak, awash in all of his legal and constitutional wisdom, knows something that thousands of lawyers and legislators do not.
You're a real riot. :rofl:

I'm going to tote TWO handguns when I head out to dinner tonight. Just for you.
I hope somone feels intimidated.

[jpak]

50. So, when they outlawed dope - they paid restitution for all dope in possession prior to the ban?

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

52. None was seized.. it was all grandfathered.

Just like the Volstead act had provisions for previously purchased alcohol, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act only applied to that sold after the enactment.

[HankyDubs]

59. gotta disagree with you here jpac

Though we might be tempted to try and snatch all these things off the streets when we see yet another senseless bloodbath, what you are proposing won't work, namely confiscating an item for public safety concerns.

Such action thouroughly violates both the words and the spirit of the BOR on multiple points and has absolutely no snowball's chance in hell to pass constitutional muster. Thurgood Marshall (probably the wisest justice ever) would rule against any such law.

But even more you have to consider that confiscating property is just exactly precisely the main thing that drives our gun-owning friends WILD and makes it impossible to reason with them. Every argument then boils down to hyperbolic hooting about "rights" and the worst thing about that is that they are absolutely right when you start pushing confiscation.

[jpak]

60. OK 30 round mags are cheap - give 'em $10 and grab 'em

yup

[X_Digger]

61. Try $40 retail..

Even a 15 round magazine goes for $30.

http://www.midwesthuntersoutlet.com/item.aspx?PID=42684&w=PQ%2BJDyOLrQE%3D

There are about 250M handgun magazines with more than 10 rounds- if we assume $25 per that's six and a quarter billion dollars.

Time to flip up the sofa cushions.

[jpak]

62. Depreciation - spring fatigue - give 'em a buck for the **30 rounders**

yup

[X_Digger]

63. Riiiiiiiight. "just compensation" mean anything to you?

Again, refer to the fifth amendment.

You can't seize someone's home to build a freeway and give them a dollar and call it even, either.

[Bold Lib]

114. It means as much as Due Process does. Shameful

yup yup yeep yeep yeep.

[rl6214]

116. I have got over 50 brand new in package 30 rounders

No spring fatigue there.

NOPE

NOPE

NOPE

[Bold Lib]

113. Yup, to Hell with due process and all that nonsense.

yup yup yup.

[one-eyed fat man]

121. Even on a purely pragmatic point

A bunch of people who hate guns will only have two choices:

A. Go from door to door and demand the people who have the guns give them up. 99.9% are unlikely to select this option.

B. Hire other people WITH GUNS to do what they don't have the nerve to do personally.

[rl6214]

115. Your arguement

is just plain fucking stupid.

[S_B_Jackson]

54. Problem with your theory is that they ARE legal, and therefore

in order to grab them (your words, not mine) you run afoul of the 5th Amendment's requirement that the government may not seize private property without due process of law AND just compensation.

Yup.

[Callisto32]

81. Ex post facto.

Look it up, twice.

Once in a dictionary/encyclopedia, then in the Constitution. I'll save you some trouble and give you a hint. For this exercise to make any sense, the part about ex post facto in the Constitution will need to be read in the context of the surrounding words.

[DissedByBush]

51. What other artificial limits do you propose?

Why specifically 30 rounds? Why is that a magic number?

You say 30 rounds for my Second Amendment.

I say maximum 30 words for your First Amendment.

You're coming close to using up your quota for the day.

[rrneck]

29. Why couldn't you write this?

It's just some random opinion you found. Of course if there are fewer guns there will be fewer gun deaths. How many more people will get brutalized because they couldn't defend themselves?

Generate your own bait for a change.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Euromutt]

64. Yes, they do

That's why murder, manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, reckless endangerment and brandishing are all criminal offenses.

The rest of the letter is so much hand-waving away of inconvenient statistics with an appeal to junk science like that perpetrated by the likes of Arthur Kellermann, Matthew Miller, David Hemenway, etc. along with an unstated and insupportable premise that deaths inflicted using firearms would not occur if gun control laws were more stringent (blithely ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of homicide perpetrators have--or should have--prior criminal convictions that prohibit them from possessing firearms, or the possibility of method substitution).

Consider this: how many shootings have been committed in the past 15 years in the United States using automatic weapons (i.e. machine guns)? The North Hollywood bank robbery, okay, and? I'm not aware of any others (though I'm willing to be corrected). During that same period, London has seen at least four shootings involving SMGs. If criminals want guns, they can get them, no matter what the laws are.

[Atypical Liberal]

67. No, they don't.

I am not going to give up my right and ability to defend my person, my family, and my property, just because 2% of firearm owners break the law with their firearms.

No matter how tragic, or how many people die at the hands of criminals, it will never be enough justification to penalize innocent people.

It's just that simple.

[DWC]

69. I am innocent

(in most cases) and do not intend to become a victim therefore I carry a gun. It is simply the best tool available to stand between me and "innocent victim" status. My gun trumps any physical threat a Bad Guy can throw at me except another gun and my consistent training and practice with my firearms trumps that.

My only concern about statistics is that I do not intend to become one.

Semper Fi,

[oneshooter]

71. Welcome to DU. Another Marine to fight the good fight, and WIN. n/t

[pipoman]

82. When are the controllers

going to quit trotting out 'The Brady Campaign' and 'Violence Policy Center' as the sources for valid arguments? Nobody on this forum cites NRA or GOA for stats. Oh, don't get me wrong, I understand that statistics are not on the side of the gun control argument, thus unbelievably twisted logic must be used to arrive at the conclusions Brady and VPC arrive at, then the intellectually challenged and propagandists cite only these erroneous conclusions as fact. Like this, "States with higher gun ownership and weaker gun laws have more gun deaths while states with a lower percentage of households with guns and strong gun laws have lower numbers of gun deaths.", was completely, indefensibly debunked the day it was released, and yet as expected this completely false conclusion has been repeated (as factual) here every week since its release.

[Katya Mullethov]

85. I know but .............

It leads to harder stuff .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73PnAymHAHk

[rl6214]

104. It's just another op ed piece. No facts, just opinion

YUP

YUP

YUP