Craig Lamson Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened? How about we start with the first amendment Len, that one is under fire since Tocson, well even before Tucson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened? How about we start with the first amendment Len, that one is under fire since Tocson, well even before Tucson. Yes Craig, why don't we start with the first, and the fourth amendments. You posted links to these two extremist, anti-bill of rights, propagandists. Do you allow them to influence your political perspective? They seem unhinged, posing as defenders of the Bill of Rights who spend much of their time enabling those who diminish our protections under all of the first ten amendments, except that good ole, second amendment. Did you ever consider that they are working to distract you while the "work" they endorse, stripping away all of your protections, except your shiny, metal toys for the time being, continues unabated in a bi-partisan consensus with the enthusiastic support of Hindraker and Malkin? "These widespread eavesdropping abuses enabled by the 2008 FISA bill -- a bill passed with the support of Barack Obama along with the entire top Democratic leadership in the House, including Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, and substantial numbers of Democratic Senators -- aren't a bug in that bill, but rather, were one of the central features of it." ... You do realize that the Dems also posted their own "hit list" complete with bullseyes and the Daily Kos did the same and included Giffords? Can you please point me to these other hit lists? Especially the Dem one you say has bulleseyes. Not that I'm a Dem. And not that this is a strictly Dem vs Rep issue. Its a broader issue than that. Even people outside of the one major US DemRep party should be aware of possible consequences from such lists. Ah but the meme from the media and the left is that this IS a REP issue alone. I heard exact quotes for 1800's political ads today on the radio. Makes today's stuff seem kinda tame. The retoric has alwyes be shrill and partisan. Anyways some interesting links: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028104.php I really like this one... http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/ And so it goes. Of course there is more on both sides. Craig, my problem is, you, John Hindraker @powerline blog and Malkin, seem like one trick ponies... http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010 By Michelle Malkin • January 10, 2011 03:19 AM The Tucson massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand. They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded. Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence. And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.... First amendment rights champs, Michelle Malkin and John Hindraker led the charge against Associated Press and the rule of law.: http://michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/WHERE IS BILAL HUSSEIN? By Michelle Malkin • April 12, 2006 10:16 PM Where is Bilal Hussein–and who is he working for? A year ago, I blogged about a controversial, Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by an unidentified Associated Press stringer in Iraq. This afternoon, in response to a tip from an anonymous military source in Iraq, I contacted both the AP reporter embedded with the Marines in Ramadi, ... ....According to my tipster, Hussein was captured earlier today by American forces in a building in Ramadi, Iraq, with a cache of weapons. While we wait (and remember that the AP has a history of dragging its feet http://michellemalkin.com/2005/12/14/jimmy-masseys-lies-the-ap-finally-wakes-up/ ), a quick refresher on the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo controversy and Hussein’s work:... Fortunately, Malkin's role as an intimidation/censorship agent, working for the U.S. military, did not go unnoticed.: http://web.archive.org/web/20060927083211/www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/...September 20, 2006 ASSOCIATED PRESS TO MICHELLE MALKIN, LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS AND OTHER WINGNUTS: STOP LYING ABOUT US. The Associated Press has now fired back at Michelle Malkin and other wingnut bloggers who have been attacking the agency over Bilal Hussein, the Associated Press photographer who's been held for five months by the U.S. military for what it calls his "strong ties with known insurgents." Malkin and Little Green Footballs have been linking approvingly to Riehl World View, which posted some of Hussein's photos and suggested that the pictures and a related video raised questions of whether he had "blood on his hands" and may have been "present throughout" at an execution. This has fueled their argument that the AP is aiding and abeting the enemy. Now the AP has responded in a piece (which also quotes this blog): The AP on Tuesday issued statements correcting various bloggers who repeated from site to site charges that Hussein had witnessed and photographed executions. One of Hussein's most controversial pictures -- that of a dead Italian man with two masked insurgents standing over him with guns -- was taken when the man already was dead, it said. When Hussein photographed Salvatore Santoro, an Italian man, in December 2004, his body was already stiff with rigor mortis. Journalists were taken by insurgents to see the propped-up body. None of the journalists witnessed his death, said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography. A video of the same scene, posted on some Web sites, is a copy of such low quality that it appears that Santoro is moving at one point, Lyon said. But a review of the AP's video of the scene shows he was already dead, Lyon said. Another accusation -- that Hussein had taken a picture of election workers being executed on a Baghdad street -- was also false, the AP said. Hussein never took photos for the AP in Baghdad, and the AP photographer who took that picture was on the scene because of other events when the shooting unfolded in front of him. Bilal "was certainly not present, as far as we can determine, at any execution," Lyon said. As you can see, the AP is making a detailed case that the attacks on it by Malkin and others are flat-out false. I haven't yet had a chance to look closely at the AP's arguments, or the numerous right-wing blog responses that are probably out there already. But I wanted to get the AP story to you, because this thing isn't going away. Check it out for yourselves, and if you feel like it, let me know what you think. --Greg Sargent September 19, 2006 MORE ON THE IMPRISONED ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTOGRAPHER. The imprisonment of Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein by the U.S. military is gaining more attention by the minute. Here's the latest: (1) AP fleshes out demand. The Associated Press has expanded on its demand that Hussein either be charged with something or released, asking that Hussein be handed over to the "central criminal court of Iraq" or be let go. Outside groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders are urging the same. (2) Powerline's doctrine of Presidential infallability. Glenn Greenwald weighs in heavily on the deception Powerline Blog's John Hinderaker is inflicting on his readers over this case: This principle is just axiomatic -- the fact that someone is accused by the Bush administration of being a terrorist or suspected by the administration of working with terrorists does not, in fact, mean that they are a "terrorist." There is a distinction between (a) being accused or suspected by the Bush administration of working with Al Qaeda and ( actually being in cahoots with Al Qaeda and being a "terrorist." But Bush followers simply do not recognize any such distinction. They literally operate from the premise of Presidential Infallibility. Thus, to them, if the Bush administration suspects that someone is a terrorist, then it means that they are a terrorist. To Hinderaker, the AP photographer is a terrorist because the Bush administration says he is. Hence, Hinderaker complains that AP is not "expressing any embarrassment that it has been publishing propaganda photos taken by an apparent associate of al Qaeda in Iraq". Therefore, there are only two choices which a Bush follower like Hinderaker can recognize -- (1) support the War on Terrorism by supporting the administration's imprisonment of this photographer, or (2) side with the Terrorists by demanding that this Terrorist be released (which is what he told his readers AP is doing). Hinderaker doesn't recognize a third option (such as charge the photographer with terrorism and then determine in a hearing if it's true) because, to him, the Bush administration's accusation of terrorism is tantamount to proof. This is exactly right. This same mental disease is what makes it impossible for some people to grasp the idea that the Associated Press is asking either for more evidence and charges, or for him to be released. Got that? Either, or. Not complicated. RIGHT-WING POWERLINE BLOG MISLEADS READERS ABOUT IMPRISONED IRAQI ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTER. Normally it wouldn't be news that right-wing Powerline Blog is misleading readers, but this is an important story. The Associated Press has now announced that the U.S. military has been holding an AP photographer, Iraqi citizen Bilal Hussein, in captivity for five months. The AP's story on this quotes a top military official who says Hussein is being held because he has "close relationships" with insurgents and is "afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities." But the AP complains that the charges are vague and backed up with no evidence, and claims the military has never filed charges or allowed a public hearing. Predictably, the folks over at Powerline Blog, who have been on a campaign to discredit the news orgs' coverage of Middle East carnage, have now seized on this story as yet more proof that AP can't be trusted. Powerline Blog's John Hinderaker essentially presumed Hussein guilty and went on to mislead his readers in a post about the case. Hinderaker wrote: Incredibly, the Associated Press, rather than expressing any embarrassment that it has been publishing propaganda photos taken by an apparent associate of al Qaeda in Iraq, is campaigning for Hussein's release, saying that it is normal for journalists to have "relationships with people that others might find unsavory." Powerline readers, Hinderaker is deceiving you. He obviously wants you to think that the AP isn't interested in knowing whether Hussein did anything wrong, and simply wants him released. But Hinderaker's characterization of the AP's position is highly misleading, and probably wilfully so. The AP isn't merely "campaigning for Hussein's release." The AP is actually asking that Hussein be charged with something or be let go, rather than held without charges. From the AP: "We want the rule of law to prevail. He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable," said Tom Curley, AP's president and chief executive officer. "We've come to the conclusion that this is unacceptable under Iraqi law, or Geneva Conventions, or any military procedure." As you can see, Hinderaker completely mischaracterized the AP's position. Is Hussein guilty of the vague charges that have been lodged against him? I have no idea. But what is clear is that the broader campaign by the right against war coverage has, with a few exceptions, amounted to little more than thuggery designed to get news orgs to think twice before bringing images back to America of the carnage in the Middle East. Powerline's misrepresentation of AP's position is only the latest example of this. Why on earth would Powerline readers put up with such deception? Maybe they like being deceived. --Greg Sargent http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221682/smirk-delaware-second-amendment/michelle-malkinMichelle Malkin Archive | Latest | Log In July 25, 2007 6:32 A.M. The Smirk from Delaware & the Second Amendment A Democratic gun-owner-bashing YouTube moment. Sen. Joe Biden is the embodiment of snide. Snide is the embodiment of the left-wing attitude toward gun owners. So when snide Joe Biden confronted a YouTube user who asked Democrat presidential candidates about gun control during a debate Monday night, what unfolded was a Teachable YouTube Moment — the caught-on-tape embodiment of ideological snideness toward the Second Amendment and those who defend it.... http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/10/008218.php Voter Intimidation in Colorado Share Share Post Print October 24, 2004 Posted by John at 3:47 PM ...ONE MORE THING: It occurs to me that as this low-level violence becomes more and more prevalent, the Second Amendment will take on increasing importance. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005/12/012415.php A Really Obvious Point Share Share Post Print December 19, 2005 Posted by John at 7:59 PM ....Under the circumstances we face in dealing with the terrorist threat, is it unreasonable--the Constitutional standard--to begin immediately intercepting calls being made to a captured terrorist cell phone, whether those calls originate in the U.S. or another country? Of course not. Note the date of the post above by anti Bill of Rights apologist John Hindraker. ...Good to go? Fast forward to nearly 3-1/2 years later.: "...Now comes the duty of carrying them out. And I can assure all Americans that these important new statutes will be enforced to the full. Thank you for listening." Within months after making this assurance to the American people, President Bush authorized the NSA to ignore the requirements of the law he had just signed and which he assured the American people would be "enforced to the full." Now that he's been caught, what is his stated reason for disregarding the law? He tells us the law was too "old" and "outdated" and not designed to deal with the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist.... http://web.archive.org/web/20011028063426/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011027.html For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary October 27, 2001 Radio Address of the President to the Nation ...When earlier laws were written, some of these methods did not even exist. The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. It will help us to prosecute terrorist organizations -- and also to detect them before they strike.... ..... Intelligence operations and criminal investigations have often had to operate on separate tracks. The new law will make it easier for all agencies to share vital information about terrorist activity. Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists. In recent years, some investigations have been hindered by limits on the reach of federal search warrants. Officials had to get a new warrant for each new district and investigation covered, even when involving the same suspect. As of now, warrants are valid across districts and across state lines.... ...... These measures were enacted with broad support in both parties. They reflect a firm resolve to uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, while dealing swiftly and severely with terrorists. Now comes the duty of carrying them out. And I can assure all Americans that these important new statutes will be enforced to the full. Thank you for listening. http://web.archive.org/web/20051222102931/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary December 19, 2005 Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence James S. Brady Briefing Room ......Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court? ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred. The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- ...And, nine months after his attorney general was again describing a "problem" the president told us back in October, 2001, had been solved by passing changes to the law that loosened our protections against warrantless government surveillance, here is the president again, with the identical, exactly five years old rhetoric.: http://web.archive.org/web/20060914070440/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060907-2.html For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary September 7, 2006 President Bush Discusses Progress in the Global War on Terror Cobb Galleria Centre Atlanta, Georgia ...Last year, details of the Terrorist Surveillance Program were leaked to the news media, and the program was then challenged in court. That challenge was recently upheld by a federal district judge in Michigan. My administration strongly disagrees with the ruling. We are appealing it, and we believe our appeal will be successful. Yet a series of protracted legal challenges would put a heavy burden on this critical and vital program. The surest way to keep the program is to get explicit approval from the United States Congress. So today I'm calling on the Congress to promptly pass legislation providing additional authority for the Terrorist Surveillance Program, along with broader reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (Applause.) When FISA was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines. Since then, the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically. The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones, and open anonymous e-mail addresses. Our laws need to change to take these changes into account... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001058.html A Law Terrorism Outran We Need a FISA For the 21st Century By Mike McConnell Monday, May 21, 2007 In 1978, the first cellular mobile phone system was still being tested, a personal computer's memory had just been expanded to 16 kilobytes and our greatest threat was the largest nation-state on Earth, the Soviet Union. That same year, the framework governing electronic surveillance of foreign powers and agents of foreign powers -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- was signed into law.... ....Technology and threats have changed, but the law remains essentially the same. If we are to improve our ability to protect the country by gathering foreign intelligence, this law must be updated to reflect changes in technology and the ways our adversaries communicate with one another... ..We are in this situation because the law simply has not kept pace with technology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001058_Comments.html Your Comments On... A Law Terrorism Outran Terrorists use up-to-date technology. Too bad our surveillance laws haven't kept pace. - By Mike McConnell Bartron wrote: Mr. McConnell, you are LYING. "Technology and threats have changed, but the law remains essentially the same." In fact, the FISA Act was amended in October 2001. When he signed the FISA amendments into law, George Bush stated that "This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones. As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology." Weirdly enough, the words you yourself have written in this article as an explanation for why FISA "needs" [further] amendment closely parallel the statements given by President Bush in 2001, when he claimed that the newly-amended FISA Act fixed exactly the problems which you claim were never addressed. Let's compare what you wrote here with what Bush said in 2001: You: "Technology and threats have changed, but the law remains essentially the same. If we are to improve our ability to protect the country by gathering foreign intelligence, this law must be updated to reflect changes in technology and the ways our adversaries communicate with one another." Bush, in 2001: "When earlier laws were written, some of these methods did not even exist. The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. It will help us to prosecute terrorist organizations -- and also to detect them before they strike. . . . Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists." In short, Mr. McConnell, your boss asked for and GOT everything which you claim he did not get, and which you are demanding today. I deeply suspect that the new changes you are pushing for will enable you to continue to hide the illegal FISA violations which Mr. Bush has been covering up these past five years. You, sir, have no business running a whelk stall, let holding the position of Director of National Intelligence. And the Washington Post would do well to start fact-checking its guests' editorials. 5/23/2007 11:35:32 AM So, Craig, maybe you can understand why I cannot take you, or Malkin, or Hindraker, and most other second amendment "rights" advocates all that seriously. By and large, you fall into two categories, the duped and the dupers. Do you really believe either Malkin or Hindraker, or any other right wing political operative is a committed supporter of second amendment "rights"? They are committed to replacing the protections of the Bill of Rights with the power of a unitary executive. This "decider" will make an announcement when it suits his puppeteers, announcing that someone will be coming around to collect all of your shiny, oily toys, and that you better cooperate and hand them over so they can be melted down to build a powerful new weapon that will destroy the bogeyman du jour. http://web.archive.org/web/20011027071225/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011026-5.html For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary October 26, 2001 Multi-front Operation, 2001 Video & Timeline President Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill Remarks by the President at Signing of the Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Legislation The East Room ...Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.... But,SIX YEARS AFTER BUSH SAID THE LAW WAS MODERNIZED: Edited January 18, 2011 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I want to congratulate you Tom, on your superb mastery of the ctrl+c and ctrl+v keystrokes. Beyond that I'll go back to my long held practice of ignoring your rants. You and your sad worldview are simply not worth the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened? “What a godsend for a future tyrant to know exactly where the guns that might help remove him or her from power are located.” Sound reasonable at 1st but seems more like a rationalization for opposing reasonable registration regulations. With its 230-year tradition of democratic rule, a takeover of the US by a despot is a very unlikely possibility and IF it would happen would probably be in the distant future. The US’s violent crime and murder rates (by far the highest in the developed world) are current reality not an improbable scenario decades of in the future. “I'm no longer willing to surrender myself or my family to a madman if the situation arises. I might fail but at least I'll know I did everything in my power. Freedom IS sometimes messy....” Few gun control proposals, and fewer of those likely to be enacted, would deny you such a right unless you want to own a full automatic or carry around an unregistered semi-auto or concealed firearm. Does having to get a driver’s license and insurance, register your car(s) and obey traffic laws meaningfully limit your right to own and operate a car? After reading you silly arguments about cars and your cherry picking of homicide data Len, it's pretty clear you no longer have a vaild argument. So instead you run off the reservation. LOL you are the one who introduced “silly arguments about cars”. And who is guilty of “cherry picking of homicide data” me or the author of the piece you posted, he seems to have specifically selected DC for its elevated homicide rate. As a commentator pointed out the comparison is not valid because the city is surrounded by states with weak gun control. I chose a) the 3 largest cities in the US (all with strict gun control) and even included Chicago whose rates were very high and the three largest cities I could think of with lax gun control. You think my data is cherry picked? Then chose your own group of cities, with strict and lax gun control, it normally only takes a minute or 2 per city. Current gun control 'proposals' are not the problem. Things are genrally done in small steps. Let one piece slip away and you will soon lose it all. Popular opinion is unlikely to allow such a thing, the consensus of the American public seems to be people should be allowed to own firearms but with reasonable limitations and registration. It's quite clear that 'gun control' is not the answer to reduced murder rates in the US. .. It's quite clear to Jack that the Apollo photos were faked, the WTC was not struck by 767’s etc. But at least he has offered arguments and evidence (lame as it might be) in favor of his position, you have failed to do so Lets look at a tale of two cities, a bridge apart. One had 50 homicides in 2010, and had many more residents than the city over the bridge. When you cross over the bridge 90 people were killed in 2010 in a city with less residents. Both cities had the same restrictions on guns. Both were in the state with the most strict gun laws in the US.The difference was not the "GUNS" but rather the PEOPLE. Guns don't kill people...PEOPLE kill people. The argument that more gun control is needed is a farce. That is graphically demonstrated by the two cites and the bridge, San Fransisco and Oakland California. California has all the aspects of "gun control" you propose Len. Thanks for bringing that to my attention it points to one of the flaws in the article you posted a link to, one has to consider various demographic factors when comparing cities across the river from each other in the same state let alone ones different parts of the country. Oakland has long been plagued by gang violence and a larger percent of its part of the underclass, it has more black and Latinos, average and median per capita/household income are much lower, a larger percent of the population living in poverty etc. http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Francisco-California.html http://www.city-data.com/city/Oakland-California.html You want to see a lower homicide rate in the US, change the way people THINK. Vague and simplistic, bettering economic and educational opportunities for the poor, improving the efficiency of the police and offering treatment on demand for drug addicts have been shown to be effective and according to most social scientist and police chiefs so does limiting the availability of guns. If guns were as hard to get in the US as they are in some other countries obviously at lot of the 221 people killed in Oakland and DC last year would still be alive. Nearly 80% of the latter’s victims were killed with guns I can’t tell you about the former because the FBI only divulges states by state. 67% of US homicide are committed with guns and that jumps to 86 – 93% drug and gang related killings. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened? How about we start with the first amendment Len, that one is under fire since Tocson, well even before Tucson. Can you cite any examples of how you think the 1st amendment has been "under fire" since and even before Tucson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) LOL you are the one who introduced “silly arguments about cars”. And who is guilty of “cherry picking of homicide data” me or the author of the piece you posted, he seems to have specifically selected DC for its elevated homicide rate. As a commentator pointed out the comparison is not valid because the city is surrounded by states with weak gun control. I chose a) the 3 largest cities in the US (all with strict gun control) and even included Chicago whose rates were very high and the three largest cities I could think of with lax gun control. You think my data is cherry picked? Then chose your own group of cities, with strict and lax gun control, it normally only takes a minute or 2 per city. LOL indeed. I gave a PERFECT example of another "weapon" the killer COULD have used and inflicted mass damges such as he did with a gun. You COULD NOT REFUTZE this simple fact. Indtead, as usual you went off the reservationand went all strawman on us wiht your silly claims about safety, registrations etc. What you FAILED to do is refute the simple fact that an aout could have been used as easily as a gun. You HAD NO ARGUMENT so you made a strawaman. LOL indeed. I just GAVE you two cites...in the SAME STATE, with same strict gun laws and a MASSIVE difference in homicide rates. I can give you more of the same kinds of examples in California alone. Wanna takl Compton, wis sits right besides LA? How about New Your City and Buffallo? We can play this game for hours. The simple fact as borne out quite comvincingly to anyone with a functioning brain is that it is not controls on guns or lack thereof but PEOPLE who are responsible for taking the the life of another human being. And despite your wordy but meaningless replies you can't refute this simple fact. Current gun control 'proposals' are not the problem. Things are genrally done in small steps. Let one piece slip away and you will soon lose it all. Popular opinion is unlikely to allow such a thing, the consensus of the American public seems to be people should be allowed to own firearms but with reasonable limitations and registration. Popular opinion was AGAINST the enactmant of Obamacare yet it happened anyway. Your argument fails. It's quite clear that 'gun control' is not the answer to reduced murder rates in the US. .. It's quite clear to Jack that the Apollo photos were faked, the WTC was not struck by 767’s etc. But at least he has offered arguments and evidence (lame as it might be) in favor of his position, you have failed to do so Lets revisit San Farn and Oakland. Same gun control, Oakland kills way more people. Again this is NOT the only example of htis situation. Gun control did NOT make Oakland as safe as San Fran. Please try again next time. Lets look at a tale of two cities, a bridge apart. One had 50 homicides in 2010, and had many more residents than the city over the bridge. When you cross over the bridge 90 people were killed in 2010 in a city with less residents. Both cities had the same restrictions on guns. Both were in the state with the most strict gun laws in the US.The difference was not the "GUNS" but rather the PEOPLE. Guns don't kill people...PEOPLE kill people. The argument that more gun control is needed is a farce. That is graphically demonstrated by the two cites and the bridge, San Fransisco and Oakland California. California has all the aspects of "gun control" you propose Len. Thanks for bringing that to my attention it points to one of the flaws in the article you posted a link to, one has to consider various demographic factors when comparing cities across the river from each other in the same state let alone ones different parts of the country. Oakland has long been plagued by gang violence and a larger percent of its part of the underclass, it has more black and Latinos, average and median per capita/household income are much lower, a larger percent of the population living in poverty etc. Meaningless. EVERYONE regardless of age, race, or income status has to make the EXACT same decision when it comes to the taking of another persons life. People of ALL races, education level, income level etc. KILL. And ONCE AGAIN its the PEOPLE who kill, not GUNS. Strike three Len, you are OUT. You want to see a lower homicide rate in the US, change the way people THINK. Vague and simplistic, bettering economic and educational opportunities for the poor, improving the efficiency of the police and offering treatment on demand for drug addicts have been shown to be effective and according to most social scientist and police chiefs so does limiting the availability of guns. If guns were as hard to get in the US as they are in some other countries obviously at lot of the 221 people killed in Oakland and DC last year would still be alive. Nearly 80% of the latter’s victims were killed with guns I can’t tell you about the former because the FBI only divulges states by state. 67% of US homicide are committed with guns and that jumps to 86 – 93% drug and gang related killings. Once again you get it ALL wrong. KILLING is a DECISION made by EVERYONE who does it. Unless you can instill the value of human life....CHANGE THE WAY PEOPLE THINK...people will continue to kill other people. PEOPLE, not GUNS kill people. Your arguments are BUSTED Len. BTW, guns are not easy to get in Brazil are they Len? Hows the murder rate doing there? Edited January 19, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened? How about we start with the first amendment Len, that one is under fire since Tocson, well even before Tucson. Can you cite any examples of how you think the 1st amendment has been "under fire" since and even before Tucson? Do you read or watch the news Len? Ever heard of the "fairness doctrine"? Have you heard the calls to limit the voices of the conservative media? If not, you need to get up to speed if you want to play.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened? How about we start with the first amendment Len, that one is under fire since Tocson, well even before Tucson. Can you cite any examples of how you think the 1st amendment has been "under fire" since and even before Tucson? Do you read or watch the news Len? Ever heard of the "fairness doctrine"? Have you heard the calls to limit the voices of the conservative media? If not, you need to get up to speed if you want to play.... ya mean "Hannitized" is the best answer conservatives have to the call limiting the violent, idiotic voices of conservative gloom and doom talk show media? Get over it, son! The GOPers can't get out of their own way... and to think, the Tea-Crumpet crowd haven't warmed their rhetoric up, YET! What a farce the "GOP" movement is.... no vision, no answers, no media = simply NO, your legacy! ! ! ! (more messes for the liberals to clean up later -- same old story) So, John Boehner "temporary" Speaker Of The House, is he the sacrificial cow (of the moment) in the pursuit of GOP obstructionism? Repeal the health care bill? Who do you think you're kidding, never happen -- the last thing GOPers want, or need, is the insurance industry tearing at your bums... now THAT would be a pretty picture... fairness doctrine? LMAO! Edited January 19, 2011 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 LOL you are the one who introduced “silly arguments about cars”. And who is guilty of “cherry picking of homicide data” me or the author of the piece you posted, he seems to have specifically selected DC for its elevated homicide rate. As a commentator pointed out the comparison is not valid because the city is surrounded by states with weak gun control. I chose a) the 3 largest cities in the US (all with strict gun control) and even included Chicago whose rates were very high and the three largest cities I could think of with lax gun control. You think my data is cherry picked? Then chose your own group of cities, with strict and lax gun control, it normally only takes a minute or 2 per city.LOL indeed. I gave a PERFECT example of another "weapon" the killer COULD have used and inflicted mass damges such as he did with a gun. You COULD NOT REFUTZE this simple fact. Indtead, as usual you went off the reservationand went all strawman on us wiht your silly claims about safety, registrations etc. What you FAILED to do is refute the simple fact that an aout could have been used as easily as a gun. You HAD NO ARGUMENT so you made a strawaman. LOL indeed. Of course I refuted you I pointed out that explosives and cars are very rarely used to commit homicides and that the former are difficult to obtain legally. So if it is true as you believe “that an [automobile] could have been used as easily as a gun” why are they so rarely used either in ordinary murders or spree killings? What supposed strawman did I supposedly make? ============================= I just GAVE you two cites...in the SAME STATE, with same strict gun laws and a MASSIVE difference in homicide rates. I can give you more of the same kinds of examples in California alone. Wanna takl Compton, wis sits right besides LA? How about New Your City and Buffallo? We can play this game for hours. The simple fact as borne out quite comvincingly to anyone with a functioning brain is that it is not controls on guns or lack thereof but PEOPLE who are responsible for taking the the life of another human being. And despite your wordy but meaningless replies you can't refute this simple fact. Did it ever occur to you that we are not talking about mutually exclusive possibilities? That social factors AND the availability of ready availability of guns could BOTH be factors in homicide rates. The high homicide cities you cited all are much poorer and have larger minority populations than the ones with lower rates and guns are used in almost 80% of murders in the former*. Of course it is “PEOPLE who are responsible for taking the life of another human being” but they very rarely kill with their bare hands because it is easier to do so with a weapon. And the easiest weapons to do so with must be guns because they are used in 2/3 of homicides is US. Oh and hate to break it to you but gun control is a lot stricter in NYC than Buffalo. *79% in DC and 78% Buffalo the only cities I found data for. ============================== Current gun control 'proposals' are not the problem. Things are genrally done in small steps. Let one piece slip away and you will soon lose it all. Popular opinion is unlikely to allow such a thing, the consensus of the American public seems to be people should be allowed to own firearms but with reasonable limitations and registration. Popular opinion was AGAINST the enactmant of Obamacare yet it happened anyway. Your argument fails. “Obamacare” was greatly scaled back from the original proposal. . Your argument fails ===================================== It's quite clear that 'gun control' is not the answer to reduced murder rates in the US. .. It's quite clear to Jack that the Apollo photos were faked, the WTC was not struck by 767’s etc. But at least he has offered arguments and evidence (lame as it might be) in favor of his position, you have failed to do so Lets revisit San Farn and Oakland. Same gun control, Oakland kills way more people. Again this is NOT the only example of htis situation. Gun control did NOT make Oakland as safe as San Fran. Please try again next time. See above, demographics explain the differences between the 2 cities. Almost 80% of killings in DC and Buffalo are committed with guns do you doubt the percentages in Compton and Oakland are much lower? Do really think that if it was more difficult to get the type of weapon used in about 80% of murders in these cities less people would be killed in them? I thought you were a firm believer in market economics. ================================== Lets look at a tale of two cities, a bridge apart. One had 50 homicides in 2010, and had many more residents than the city over the bridge. When you cross over the bridge 90 people were killed in 2010 in a city with less residents. Both cities had the same restrictions on guns. Both were in the state with the most strict gun laws in the US.The difference was not the "GUNS" but rather the PEOPLE. Guns don't kill people...PEOPLE kill people. The argument that more gun control is needed is a farce. That is graphically demonstrated by the two cites and the bridge, San Fransisco and Oakland California. California has all the aspects of "gun control" you propose Len. The easy availability of guns makes it much easier for “PEOPLE [to] kill people” ================================== Thanks for bringing that to my attention it points to one of the flaws in the article you posted a link to, one has to consider various demographic factors when comparing cities across the river from each other in the same state let alone ones different parts of the country. Oakland has long been plagued by gang violence and a larger percent of its part of the underclass, it has more black and Latinos, average and median per capita/household income are much lower, a larger percent of the population living in poverty etc. Meaningless. EVERYONE regardless of age, race, or income status has to make the EXACT same decision when it comes to the taking of another persons life. People of ALL races, education level, income level etc. KILL. And ONCE AGAIN its the PEOPLE who kill, not GUNS. Strike three Len, you are OUT. Oh yes just like Jack you believe that anything that contradicts your position is “meaningless” the availability of guns is but one of many factors that affect violent crime rates. Are you a diehard believer in market forces? Making guns more difficult to obtain will increase their cost. If you increase the cost of something what tends to happen? ========================================== You want to see a lower homicide rate in the US, change the way people THINK. Vague and simplistic, bettering economic and educational opportunities for the poor, improving the efficiency of the police and offering treatment on demand for drug addicts have been shown to be effective and according to most social scientist and police chiefs so does limiting the availability of guns. If guns were as hard to get in the US as they are in some other countries obviously at lot of the 221 people killed in Oakland and DC last year would still be alive. Nearly 80% of the latter’s victims were killed with guns I can’t tell you about the former because the FBI only divulges states by state. 67% of US homicide are committed with guns and that jumps to 86 – 93% drug and gang related killings. Once again you get it ALL wrong. KILLING is a DECISION made by EVERYONE who does it. Unless you can instill the value of human life....CHANGE THE WAY PEOPLE THINK...people will continue to kill other people. And just how do you propose going about that? Homicides went down when the economy improved and seem to be going up again now that its is going down the toilet, do you think that is a coincidence? ========================= PEOPLE, not GUNS kill people. Your arguments are BUSTED Len. BTW, guns are not easy to get in Brazil are they Len? Hows the murder rate doing there? Glad you brought that up, yes Brazil’s homicide rate is quite elevated but it is poor country plagued by corruption which for decades wrote off the favelas (slums) that surround the cities BUT look at the chart below. Note the murder rate steadily increased 50% from 1992 till it peaked in 2003, and then decreased 13.4% by 2007. http://g1.globo.com/brasil/noticia/2010/09/taxa-de-homicidios-cresce-32-em-15-anos-no-pais-aponta-ibge.html What caused the decrease? “Os pesquisadores atribuíram essa redução tanto à entrada em vigor do Estatuto do desarmamento - uma lei mais restritiva ao porte de armas e que permitiu recolher milhares de armas nas mãos da população - como à redução da violência nas grandes cidades.” http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Mundo/0,,MUL1551018-5602,00-TAXA+DE+HOMICIDIOS+CAI+NO+BRASIL+EM+ANOS.html Translation: The researchers attributed this reduction in both the enforcement of the Statute of Disarmament - a law that reduced the right to bear arms and led to the turning in of thousands of weapons in the hands of the public - and reduced violence in big cities. Another study showed pretty much the same thing a 13.8% increase 1997 – 2003 then a 14.6% decrease by 2007. It also attributed the national decrease to the reduction in Sao Paulo and Rio and the Disarmament law http://www.institutosangari.org.br/mapadaviolencia/MapaViolencia2010.pdf (pgs 47 & 74) I have not been able to find national figures for 2008 – 2010 but Sao Paulo and Rio, the most and 3rd most populous states in the country, report their lowest rates in decades. http://jovempan.uol.com.br/videos/sp-registra-menor-taxa-de-homicidio-da-historia-50235,1,0 http://www.europanewsblog.com/2010/06/2010-report-on-gangs-groups-and-guns.html The new law went into effect at the end of 2003, I guess that was just another coincidence? https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/2003/L10.826.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Of course I refuted you I pointed out that explosives and cars are very rarely used to commit homicides and that the former are difficult to obtain legally. So if it is true as you believe “that an [automobile] could have been used as easily as a gun” why are they so rarely used either in ordinary murders or spree killings? What supposed strawman did I supposedly make? There you AGAIN with your silly strawmen arguemtns. You refuted nothing. But I'll give you yet another chance. WHY could a car not have been used as easily as a gun...in a PARKING LOT? Your obfucation has been duly noted and it speaks VOLUMES about your lack of an agrument. ============================= Did it ever occur to you that we are not talking about mutually exclusive possibilities? That social factors AND the availability of ready availability of guns could BOTH be factors in homicide rates. The high homicide cities you cited all are much poorer and have larger minority populations than the ones with lower rates and guns are used in almost 80% of murders in the former*. Of course it is “PEOPLE who are responsible for taking the life of another human being” but they very rarely kill with their bare hands because it is easier to do so with a weapon. And the easiest weapons to do so with must be guns because they are used in 2/3 of homicides is US. Oh and hate to break it to you but gun control is a lot stricter in NYC than Buffalo. *79% in DC and 78% Buffalo the only cities I found data for. Sheesh Len you do get desperate when beaten... Lots of poor, undereducated, underemployed people of all colors exist without killing people. In the cites mentioned they all have the SAME access to firearms. Yet in one city over another tthey kill far more people. It's not the access to guns, its not social factors...its simply PERSONAL CHOICES. Why am I not suprised that once again a LIBERAL wants to minimize personal rresponsibilty. I've never claimed a firearm is not a very good tool for murder. It is. However it...by itself...cannot commit that killing. THAT takes a person, who must make a CHOICE to aim thye firearm and pull the trigger. Your argument fails once again. See above, demographics explain the differences between the 2 cities. Almost 80% of killings in DC and Buffalo are committed with guns do you doubt the percentages in Compton and Oakland are much lower? Do really think that if it was more difficult to get the type of weapon used in about 80% of murders in these cities less people would be killed in them? I thought you were a firm believer in market economics. No, its NOT demographics, its PERSONAL CHOICES. Its already the state with the MOST STRICT gun control laws in the US...laws YOU think should be national. And yet even with the limited access, one city kills more than their neighbor. All of which proves beyond a show of a doubt that limited access and strict gun laws do not a safer society make. Y9ou what a safer society, change the way bad people think....or arm yourself for protection. ================================== [ And just how do you propose going about that? Homicides went down when the economy improved and seem to be going up again now that its is going down the toilet, do you think that is a coincidence? Strong families for a start. And perhaps ARMING yourself for self protection. And you might want to rethink the rates going up again. If you look you will still see them GOING DOWN in many cites. Kinda puts a dent in your "economy" theory. ========================= What caused the decrease? Maybe BETTER choices? Tell me Len how easy is it NOW to get a BLACK MARKET firearm compared to a LEGAL one in Brazil? The new law went into effect at the end of 2003, I guess that was just another coincidence?[/color]https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/2003/L10.826.htm Curious Len how many people do you murder per capita in your country with its very strict gun control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened? How about we start with the first amendment Len, that one is under fire since Tocson, well even before Tucson. Can you cite any examples of how you think the 1st amendment has been "under fire" since and even before Tucson? Do you read or watch the news Len? Ever heard of the "fairness doctrine"? Have you heard the calls to limit the voices of the conservative media? If not, you need to get up to speed if you want to play.... Oh no the evil FAIRNESS Doctrine, which was law of the land 1949 – 87 and was even defended by Nixon’s FCC and DoJ. Don’t worry before being elected and after being inaugurated Obama said he opposed bringing it back. Not only that but the 60 – 40 Democratically controlled Senate voted 87 – 11 to block its revival. So if that is your best (worst) example you made my point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Revocation http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/395/367.html http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114322-Obama_Does_Not_Support_Return_of_Fairness_Doctrine.php http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/white-house-obama-opposes-fairness-doctrine-revival/ http://www.jimdemint.com/2009/02/senate-backs-amendment-to-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened? How about we start with the first amendment Len, that one is under fire since Tocson, well even before Tucson. Can you cite any examples of how you think the 1st amendment has been "under fire" since and even before Tucson? Do you read or watch the news Len? Ever heard of the "fairness doctrine"? Have you heard the calls to limit the voices of the conservative media? If not, you need to get up to speed if you want to play.... Oh no the evil FAIRNESS Doctrine, which was law of the land 1949 – 87 and was even defended by Nixon’s FCC and DoJ. Don’t worry before being elected and after being inaugurated Obama said he opposed bringing it back. Not only that but the 60 – 40 Democratically controlled Senate voted 87 – 11 to block its revival. So if that is your best (worst) example you made my point. Gotta love your tortured logic Len. Lots of calls PRIOR to the shooting to curb the conservative media which destroys you, and yet you claim it makes your point. You have jumped the Shark Len, but most of the forum already knew that a long time ago. BTW can you cite for us the US statue or executive order that prohibits the FCC from employing the fairness doctrine or something similar? Edited January 20, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) My latest replies in bold Of course I refuted you I pointed out that explosives and cars are very rarely used to commit homicides and that the former are difficult to obtain legally. So if it is true as you believe “that an [automobile] could have been used as easily as a gun” why are they so rarely used either in ordinary murders or spree killings? What supposed strawman did I supposedly make? There you AGAIN with your silly strawmen arguemtns. You refuted nothing. But I'll give you yet another chance. WHY could a car not have been used as easily as a gun...in a PARKING LOT? Perhaps because people could have moved away easier. Perhaps this is less satisfying for most psycho-loners If cars make such effective weapons “why are they so rarely used either in ordinary murders or spree killings?” how many times will you avoid answering that one? Your obfucation has been duly noted and it speaks VOLUMES about your lack of an agrument. LOL you keep dodging my questions and I’m ‘obfuscating’, you’re a funny one Craig! ============================= Did it ever occur to you that we are not talking about mutually exclusive possibilities? That social factors AND the availability of ready availability of guns could BOTH be factors in homicide rates. The high homicide cities you cited all are much poorer and have larger minority populations than the ones with lower rates and guns are used in almost 80% of murders in the former*. Of course it is “PEOPLE who are responsible for taking the life of another human being” but they very rarely kill with their bare hands because it is easier to do so with a weapon. And the easiest weapons to do so with must be guns because they are used in 2/3 of homicides is US. Oh and hate to break it to you but gun control is a lot stricter in NYC than Buffalo. *79% in DC and 78% Buffalo the only cities I found data for. Sheesh Len you do get desperate when beaten... Lots of poor, undereducated, underemployed people of all colors exist without killing people. In the cites mentioned they all have the SAME access to firearms. Yet in one city over another tthey kill far more people. It's not the access to guns, its not social factors...its simply PERSONAL CHOICES. Why am I not suprised that once again a LIBERAL wants to minimize personal rresponsibilty. So how do you explain people in NYC, LA and SF being so much better at making “PERSONAL CHOICES” than those in Buffalo, Compton and Oakland? I never said criminals are victims of circumstances but demographically identifiable social factors effect crime rates and these have to be considered when comparing cities. I've never claimed a firearm is not a very good tool for murder. It is. However it...by itself...cannot commit that killing. THAT takes a person, who must make a CHOICE to aim thye firearm and pull the trigger. If you make it more difficult to obtain the easiest means of killing people logic dictates less people will obtain them and that reducing the number of people who obtain them will reduce the number of people who get killed. See above, demographics explain the differences between the 2 cities. Almost 80% of killings in DC and Buffalo are committed with guns do you doubt the percentages in Compton and Oakland are much lower? Do really think that if it was more difficult to get the type of weapon used in about 80% of murders in these cities less people would be killed in them? I thought you were a firm believer in market economics. No, its NOT demographics, its PERSONAL CHOICES. Its already the state with the MOST STRICT gun control laws in the US...laws YOU think should be national. And yet even with the limited access, one city kills more than their neighbor. All of which proves beyond a show of a doubt that limited access and strict gun laws do not a safer society make. Y9ou what a safer society, change the way bad people think....or arm yourself for protection. So how do you explain people in NYC, LA and SF being so much better at making “PERSONAL CHOICES” than those in Buffalo, Compton and Oakland? You continue ignore that there is a limit to how effective state and city laws can be because it is easy to bring in guns bought in locations with laxer regulations, Oakland is about 180 miles from Nevada. “All of which proves beyond a show of a doubt that limited access and strict gun laws do not a safer society make” It proves nothing because it doesn’t tell us how much higher (or lower) the rate would be if access to guns was easier. Market economics dictates reducing access increases prices and higher prices reduces sales. ================================== And just how do you propose going about that? Homicides went down when the economy improved and seem to be going up again now that its is going down the toilet, do you think that is a coincidence? Strong families for a start. And how do you propose making them stronger? If you have a good idea that and gun control could put a real dent in violent crime! And perhaps ARMING yourself for self protection. Statistics don’t bareout the notion that this will reduce the homicide rate. And you might want to rethink the rates going up again. If you look you will still see them GOING DOWN in many cites. Kinda puts a dent in your "economy" theory. ========================= What caused the decrease? Maybe BETTER choices? Yes, making it harder to get guns was a good choice Tell me Len how easy is it NOW to get a BLACK MARKET firearm compared to a LEGAL one in Brazil? The more relevant question is how much more difficult is it to get a firearm now compared to in 2003. As in the US a major source of illegal guns was people who had the legal right to buy them reselling to those who didn’t, that has all but ended. Now guns have to be stolen or smuggled in from other countries, this makes them more expensive, you know what happens when something becomes more expensive. The new law went into effect at the end of 2003, I guess that was just another coincidence?[/color]https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/2003/L10.826.htm Curious Len how many people do you murder per capita in your country with its very strict gun control? I don’t murder anyone! Brazil's per capita rate was already very elevated and CLIMBING before the new law went into effect after it did the rate started to fall. I never said gun control would lead the murder rate dropping dramaticlly instantly. If the rate continued/continues to fall at the 2003 – 7 rate it will be halved by about 2022 Edited January 20, 2011 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened? How about we start with the first amendment Len, that one is under fire since Tocson, well even before Tucson. Can you cite any examples of how you think the 1st amendment has been "under fire" since and even before Tucson? Do you read or watch the news Len? Ever heard of the "fairness doctrine"? Have you heard the calls to limit the voices of the conservative media? If not, you need to get up to speed if you want to play.... Oh no the evil FAIRNESS Doctrine, which was law of the land 1949 – 87 and was even defended by Nixon’s FCC and DoJ. Don’t worry before being elected and after being inaugurated Obama said he opposed bringing it back. Not only that but the 60 – 40 Democratically controlled Senate voted 87 – 11 to block its revival. So if that is your best (worst) example you made my point. Gotta love your tortured logic Len. Lots of calls PRIOR to the shooting to curb the conservative media which destroys you, and yet you claim it makes your point. You have jumped the Shark Len, but most of the forum already knew that a long time ago. There were “lots of calls” before and after the shooting for all sorts of thing but there is a big gap between talk and action especially governmental action and even more so between proposals and changes in law or policy. The fact that you have yet been able to cite an example a proposed law or policy change likely to take effect anytime in the foreseeable future shows how bankrupt your position. BTW can you cite for us the US statue or executive order that prohibits the FCC from employing the fairness doctrine or something similar? Since Obama said he opposes it that is unlikely to happen at least until another Democrat becomes President and Congress might even vote to prohibit this since 47 Democratic Senators, out of 60, recently voted to do so and the Republicans control the House. Barring that I doubt such an action would survive court challenge since it would be a usurpation of Congress’ responsibility for passing legislation an might even fail on 1st ammendment grounds. Edited January 20, 2011 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) I want to congratulate you Tom, on your superb mastery of the ctrl+c and ctrl+v keystrokes. Beyond that I'll go back to my long held practice of ignoring your rants. You and your sad worldview are simply not worth the effort. Maybe you post the opinions you post because you routinely react to being exposed to EVIDENCE of outrages such as the president of the United States blatantly and criminally exploiting the 9/11 attacks to manipulate the law to strip away our constitutionally guaranteed, fourth amendment right to be protected from extra-judicial, warrantless surveillance by government authority, by attacking the person who you asked, in the first place, to show you such things. I'm gonna go s-l-o-w-e-r, this time.... The president said the FISA laws had not kept up with technological advances, but announced he was satisfied that they had been modernized.... http://web.archive.org/web/20011027071225/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011026-5.htmlFor Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary October 26, 2001 Multi-front Operation, 2001 Video & Timeline President Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill Remarks by the President at Signing of the Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Legislation The East Room ...Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.... http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?civilliberties_patriot_act=civilliberties_patriot_act&timeline=civillibertiesEarly 2002: Bush Signs Executive Order Allowing NSA to Spy on US Citizens; Spying Began Before 9/11 Edit event Sometime in early 2002, President Bush signs a secret executive order authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap phone conversations and read e-mails to and from US citizens. The order extends an operation set into motion at least as early as October 2001 to begin wiretapping US citizens’ phones in a response to the 9/11 attacks. When the program is revealed by the US media in late 2005 (see December 15, 2005), Bush and his officials will say the program is completely legal, though it ignores the requirements of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA) that requires the government to obtain court-issued warrants to mount surveillance against US citizens. They will insist that only those suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda, and then only when those individuals make or receive international communications, are monitored. As more information continues to come out about the program, these assertions will be increasingly called into question. [New York Times, 12/15/2005; Washington Post, 12/22/2005].... December 17, 2005: Bush Acknowledges Authorizing Warrantless Wiretapping by NSA, Accuses Media of Jeopardizing National Security by Reporting Illegal Surveillance Edit event President Bush acknowledges that he issued a 2002 executive order authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap US citizens’ phones and e-mails without proper warrants, and accuses the New York Times of jeopardizing national security by publishing its December 15 article (see Early 2002 and December 15, 2005). Bush says he was within the law to issue such an order, which many feel shatters fundamental Constitutional guarantees of liberty and privacy, but accuses the Times of breaking the law by publishing the article.... http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006/02/what-bush-said-then-vs-what-he-says.html ....Within months after making this assurance to the American people, President Bush authorized the NSA to ignore the requirements of the law he had just signed and which he assured the American people would be "enforced to the full." Now that he's been caught, what is his stated reason for disregarding the law? He tells us the law was too "old" and "outdated" and not designed to deal with the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. And for some reason which I cannot begin to fathom, the press simply ignores all of his previous statements to the contrary. ...Indeed, Bush's Attorney General parroted Bush's 2001 explanation for why FISA needed to be modernized, but "General" Gonzales, Michael Hayden, and Bush himself, embarked on a three year campaign of lies directly contradicting Bush's declarations when he had signed the FISA modernization steps into law in October, 2001. They did this because the press, after much delay, reported that Bush secretly broke the laws he had so enthusiastically signed changes to, just months after he signed them! http://web.archive.org/web/20051222102931/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.htmlFor Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary December 19, 2005 Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence James S. Brady Briefing Room ......Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court? ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred. The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology --... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001058_Comments.html Your Comments On... A Law Terrorism Outran Terrorists use up-to-date technology. Too bad our surveillance laws haven't kept pace. - By Mike McConnell Bartron wrote: Mr. McConnell, you are LYING. ..."Technology and threats have changed, but the law remains essentially the same." Weirdly enough, the words you yourself have written in this article as an explanation for why FISA "needs" [further] amendment closely parallel the statements given by President Bush in 2001, when he claimed that the newly-amended FISA Act fixed exactly the problems which you claim were never addressed. Let's compare what you wrote here with what Bush said in 2001: ...In short, Mr. McConnell, your boss asked for and GOT everything which you claim he did not get, and which you are demanding today. I deeply suspect that the new changes you are pushing for will enable you to continue to hide the illegal FISA violations which Mr. Bush has been covering up these past five years. You, sir, have no business running a whelk stall, let holding the position of Director of National Intelligence. Bush, directly contradicting his own, October, 2001 statement, quoted at the beginning of this post, http://web.archive.org/web/20011027071225/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011026-5.htmlOctober 26, 2001 Remarks by the President at Signing of the Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Legislation The East Room ......Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.... as he tells American troops on July 28, 2007, the exact opposite of what he had said six years before.: So, you can congratulate me, to your heart's content, Craig. You can post links to quotes of Malkin and Hindraker, two right wing thugs who could care less about a free press. Malkin acted as the military's liason in their set up, arrest and detention of an AP photographer in Iraq, in an OP obviously executed to intimidate the press in an effort to discourage it from distributing reports and photos that the military did not approve of. Malkin demonized the detained AP photographer and attacked the AP, itself, as she dutifully presented statements from her "anonymous, military sources". Hindraker followed along in full support of this anti free press attack. You follow and you are influenced by these propagandist extremists, Craig. They do not care about illegal breaches of the Bill of Rights. ... Ah but the meme from the media and the left is that this IS a REP issue alone. I heard exact quotes for 1800's political ads today on the radio. Makes today's stuff seem kinda tame. The retoric has alwyes be shrill and partisan. Anyways some interesting links: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028104.php I really like this one... http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/ And so it goes. Of course there is more on both sides. Second amendment "defenders" seem to be concerned only about that one component of the Bill of Rights. Thus, it is difficult to take your views seriously, but it is entertaining to read your reaction to my last post, even as I anticipate your reaction to this one. You are not the least bit concerned about the concerted efforts of the Bush and Obama administrations to violate and diminish all of our Bill of Rights protections, and you will continue to "value" and probably refer others to links displaying the anti bill of rights messages of Malkin and Hindraker. Our one party "system" is robbing you of your rights as you sit there, locked and loaded. Guns yes! abortion, no! Football yes. Well supported arguments taking five to ten minutes to read.... no way. Attack the messenger, accuse him of being a "cut n paste" artist, and off you go to your NRA meeting, or Townhall.com, for your next, Guns, Yes!, Abortion, no! reinforcement session. Edited January 22, 2011 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now