If we could magically have them visit us today (these founding fathers), I think they would be most shocked that we let the situation get so bad without doing anything about it.[/QUOTE]
Get on that time machine then!! :D
But seriously, I agree, they definitely would be shocked at that, but I think they would also be equally shocked how bad some aspects of American culture has become too...
7Innuendo7 · Member since
It's not about 'Constitutional rights' -- the Founders knowingly ratified a document that denied women the right to vote, recognized the institution of slavery, and declared native Americans less than human -- and the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is now known as the National Guard. Times change, perspectives change, behaviors change, and the NY legislation seems completely appropriate. The earlier poster's point about a constitutional amendment abridging or removing the 2nd Amendment, not being on the table is a strong one indeed. However, the real issue behind the controversy imho is the profit of gun manufacturers. I would love to see Sasha and Malia Obama host a press conference and say, "Wayne LaPierre, you're a gun manufacturer's BITCH!"
"Put Out the Fire" comes to mind. Ozzy Osbourne said something to the effect of 'if guns don't kill people, then why don't we send unarmed soldiers to war? Shhhhhhaaaaaarrooooonnnnnnnn!!!!'
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]
Correction – USA – the place where HALF the people want no gun regulation, but insist on marriage and vagina regulation.
[/QUOTE]
I knew someone would be all pedantic over this :-)
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]7Innuendo7 wrote:[/b]
It's not about 'Constitutional rights' -- the Founders knowingly ratified a document that denied women the right to vote, recognized the institution of slavery, and declared native Americans less than human -- and the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is now known as the National Guard.
[/QUOTE]
If you're going to talk to Republicans about this, you're going to have to stop using facts as parts of your arguments. They don't work.
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]
Correction – USA – the place where HALF the people want no gun regulation, but insist on marriage and vagina regulation.
[/QUOTE]
I knew someone would be all pedantic over this :-) [/QUOTE]
Ah, but you see, if I were part of the half that insists on non-regulation of guns but strict regulation of marriage and vaginas, I'd be more than happy to let the original statement stand. However, I stand in opposition - as if that comes as a surprise - and felt the distinction needed to be made. Of course, I know you'd never purposely lump all Americans into one category...this was merely a typo. And you're forgiven for it. :-)
GratefulFan · Member since
I'm so often struck by the social pressures on Americans on this issue. The fear card is played with great finesse and great conviction from so many sides. I saw this this weekend and felt only immense sorrow for a culture so steeped in the idea of the threat of imminent violence that they spend decades vigilantly guarding against what the vast majority will never see in their entire lives. So many can't appreciate how much the literal and metaphorical weight of that constant cold steel at their hip changes them as a people.
New York was first, then Colorado. Now Connecticut has passed new gun regulations. The governor has only to sign it into law and there's no question about his intent to do just that.
Connecticut is the state where the most recent US gun massacre took place. It's where 26 people - mainly 5 and 6 year old children - were shot down in an elementary school by a mentally unstable 20 year old whose gun-collecting mother saw nothing wrong with not only taking him on trips to the shooting range but also leaving weapons and ammunition where he could get to them AND giving him gifts of cash with notes attached stating he should use the money to purchase his own guns. She was also the first to die that day when her son put four bullets into her head before heading out to kill defenseless babies and their teachers.
This new legislation is being touted as 'the strongest gun control legislation in the country" and as a "terrific blueprint for how to do this in a comprehensive way".
I am happy about these laws. I'm happy both parties came together - overwhelmingly, in this case - to pass the legislation. I'm not happy, however, that each of the states to pass new laws have focused mainly on the weapons themselves and how many ways owners must register them, and not directly on the mental health issues that have been at the heart of these recent mass shootings. (though there is reference - I just added it in an 'edit' note below)
What's in the law? "In addition to an expansion of an existing ban on assault-style weapons to add more than 100 firearms, the bill requires background checks for all purchasers and bars the sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Gun owners would need to undergo a background check to get a certificate required to buy cartridges, while those with a banned model or magazine would have to register with the state."
What’s in the background check? What will they be checking for? They have not said. It is a criminal background check? Will there be a psychological evaluation performed as part of this check? If so, who would do the evaluation and how would we know if it would be thorough yet fair? And what happens to people who own a ‘banned model or magazine’? They register with the state…and…?
Gun owners are livid and feel these regulations will make them into 'criminals' and 'victims'. One gun owner, who was part of a rally against the legislation, said the state had no business knowing what he owned and that "their authority does not extend into my house". His sentiments echo those of gun owners around the country.
With such bipartisan support (the Senate voted 26-10 and the house voted 105-44) and a Democrat governor in this very ‘blue’ state, there's no chance the bill will be overturned at local levels, so gun-owners will have to try to get their fight in front of the Supreme Court if they expect anything to change - which I doubt they'll do.
btw - there are six gun-makers in Connecticut and together they employ more than 7,000 people. All six have threatened to leave the state if (when) the new gun restrictions are signed into law.
btw #2 - far fewer "gun-control" measures have passed around the US since the elementary school massacre than "gun-rights" laws - which not only grant greater access to weapons but also limit existing federal restrictions (believe it or not).
Opinions?
EDIT - A little piece of this legislation that I did not see before the governor signed it into law (which he did just moments ago) is this: "The bill allows school districts to require "mental health first aid" training for school personnel and creates a task force to examine the state's mental health system. Additionally, it alters state insurance regulations to beef up mental health care coverage." THIS, I think, is a very good start.
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
I realize I'm replying to my own comments but I find this topic fascinating and so I can't help myself. I'm really looking forward to change, so each step towards that grabs my attention.
Anyway - Harry Reid, the US Senate Majority Leader (Democrat and, btw, 2nd amendment supporter), has called for "an initial gun control vote" this Thursday. Fourteen Republicans, meanwhile, have threatened to filibuster any attempt to bring the issue to the floor. As President Obama said yesterday, it's not that they don't want to vote no. It's that they don't want anyone to vote at all.
But wait, there's more...
A counter-filibuster has been planned by pro gun control activists. That filibuster is set to take place on the steps of the Capitol when/if the Republican senators carry out their filibuster inside. The counter filibuster will consist of victims and survivors of gun violence reading the names of... are you sitting? ...over 3,300 Americans who have been lost to gun violence SINCE the December elementary school shooting that left all those babies dead. 3,300+ people have been killed by guns in the US in just under four months.
If there is a counter filibuster, it will be the most horrifying one of all.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]
A counter-filibuster has been planned by pro gun control activists. That filibuster is set to take place on the steps of the Capitol when/if the Republican senators carry out their filibuster inside. The counter filibuster will consist of victims and survivors of gun violence reading the names of... are you sitting? ...over 3,300 Americans who have been lost to gun violence SINCE the December elementary school shooting that left all those babies dead. 3,300+ people have been killed by guns in the US in just under four months.
[/QUOTE]
Hopefully it's filmed. I'd actually like to see the looks on the faces of the right-wing nutjobs who feel gun regulations are an "infringement on their liberty."
30 thousand gun-related deaths a year in the US, but they need to regulate vaginas because they're concerned about life.
What a truly fucked up country you live in. You have my sympathies.
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
I would love it to be filmed. Latest news is the Republicans won't filibuster. Ha. We'll see what happens there. I hope the names are read regardless - and that the media watches. Closely.
You're so right about the nut jobs' claim that this is an infringement on their liberty. They also screech a sky-is-falling warning that any gun regulation starts at the top of that overused 'slippery slope'. Of course, that only applies to gun rights. That, of course, in no way applies to abortion rights - those they can chip away at on a regular basis. So yes, government is 'too big' when it wants to regulate the sale and use of deadly weapons to average citizens but it is not big enough when it probes the wombs of American women and demands doctors lie to patients by reading specific statements regarding some fictitious connection between abortions and breast cancer. I could go on.
You might think I'm blindly patriotic, however, when I say I still love this country and don't think it's as pathetic as this conversation implies. I will say this as well - what I think is wrong here is how a HUGE majority of the public sits back and curses at the TV, rants online or to each other about issues that affect us all, but doesn't get off its collective ass and make a point of telling elected officials exactly what is expected of them. The complacency, laziness, (there are so many adjectives I could use) of the average American is what embarrasses me about my country. Beyond that - I do love it (though I don't like it all the time) and I'm still proud to call it home.
