Proof that guns are EVIL

“Whoops!

Huckabee's son arrested with handgun By ANDREW DeMILLO, Associated Press Writer

David Huckabee, a son of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, was arrested at an Arkansas airport Thursday after a federal X-ray technician detected a loaded Glock pistol in his carry-on luggage.”

“And I always thought journalists were supposed to provide sources.

Well, Y2, after posting a number of titles, with no helpful source links (but then you’re not a very helpful man are you) to verify their validity, you’ve been busier than a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest trying to defend your position.

It’s obvious that you would never let your bias intrude on your professional descriptions as it is so obvious the rest of your fellows do. Riiiiiight, and Mohamed Atta was described as a PLANESMAN.



Let’s just examine the first five of your so-called “examples” to counter my examples of the term “GUNMAN” in the U.S. media.


Troops kill Palestinian knifeman
Austrailian

‘Delirious’ knifeman terrified 85-year-old
UK

Knifeman held in state hospital
BBC

Knife-man threatens shop assistant and steals cash
UK

Abigail bid to ID knifeman's car
Scottish


In the past, many of you arguments have been largely irrelevant because you seem to enjoy the sound of your own voice instead of presenting reasoned points. You keep showing the same behavior patterns.

Why would we care about how the media in these countries portray stabbers? Everyone except yourself understands that pistols have managed to be banned in these countries and now the leftists have moved on to other objectives.

If you had been honest with your “examples” instead of just providing headlines, it becomes obvious that your examples are irrelevant to a discussion of whether the media in this country is biased towards pistols. My obvious point was that most major newspapers in this country don’t miss a chance to create sensationalistic “GUNMAN” headlines. And that they drum home the “GUNMAN” description instead of the more accurate descriptions: “MURDERER”, “KILLER”, or even “PSYCHOTIC.”


Don’t purposely try to be an idiot, Y2. I’ll out you every time.

Your dishonesty gives less validity to every point you try to make. You have proven to be an unreliable source.




And talk about repeating behavior patterns. Solitary, I think I like pedxing quite a bit, but getting him to admit a mistake is like asking Y2 to be honest.
last edited: 4/26/07 8:07:24 PM”

“Don't let it get you down. This is the way 2nd Amendment threads on TT always devolve. The anti-gun crowd either tries to badger the pros or they slink off when they realize that they are going to lose the argument based on the overwhelming evidence.

The right to keep and bear arms is a private right and NOT a collective right. That's why pedXing has backed off. He probably went back and read the Presser vs. Illinois ruling and realized that it was an affirmation of the private and not the collective right. He f#cked up when he mentioned that one.”

“Ya right - you base a whole argument around a wrongly applied definition of a legal finding of what consitutes a militia - but at least you do have some sort of basis for a different interpretation of the constitution here. But even setting this side of things aside - like I said I don't think there will be any change in gun ownership laws - there's simply not the political will or even desire to enact any change.

I do have issues with some of the bs spouted by certain people here, the so-called facts and proof, which falls down on the briefest of examination - and I do like to call them on it. But I have to admit I just don't know eough about constitutional law to put up a strong argument on either side. I just responded with what appeared to be holes in the ruling you posted.

Nigal - a worthy contribution up there with his usual stats comparing uk and us violent crime.

Arclite - there's so much wrong with every part of your little piece there that it's difficult to know where to start.

1) I explained to you that I just googled knifeman - these results are all there in the first few pages - try it yourself.

2) I said specifically that instances of the term knifeman were mostly used in countries using more 'British' English.

3) So wtf are you talking about 'honest'?

4) I've seen the light and will ow be joining your campaign against the word gunman and also adding a few of my own.

I will also be looking to ban the word bomber - as this may imfer that the individual has a bomb.

The unabomber will henceforth be known as 'una-man'

The boston strangler will now be named 'boston' as strangler might infer some degree of asphyxiation was used.

New Orleans even had an 'Axeman' killer in the early part of the 20th century - I guess this reflected some early progressive era bias again the lumber industry,

Taking this further into the less murderous realm - I shall also look to ban the word farmer - as ths imply that an individual owns and uses a farm, banker, which may infer that an individual works at a bank, baker, infering that someone bakes and even candlestick-maker, as that person might be accociated in some way with the making of candles.

Your use of alternative words is also bs in the most.

Murderer - specific term reserved for those charged with murder - the 'gunman' in the VA incident could, for instance, had he survived, have been charged with manslaughter because of his record of mental illness.

Killer - you've found one that may work and has probably been used numberous times in reporting the incident.

Psychotic - refers to a specific definition of mental illness. We don't know as of yet that this was his exact diagnosis. He may, for example, not been psychotic, and been schizophrenic, or even like yourself, paranoid.


Again you demonstrate a complete lack of understand and knowledge on a subject you claim to have 'read' so widely on - but you shouldn't let that get in the way of you 'liberal media bais' views - you certainly haven't up to this pont.”

“Y2, you've got a bit of Cool Hand Luke in you. You've got nothing, but you keep coming back.”

“Whereas you are full of something Muttly ;op”

“What it comes down to is that you boys love your guns, you feel you need them for protection, so you tend to grasp onto anything that legitimizes this. But you don't really need to as the majority of America passively or actively agrees with you.

The fact is that you really don't need to be so paranoid and you just need to be realistic.
The 'pro-gun' campaign has been effective and there just isn't any significant support to gun control of any kind. You don't need to be so paranoid that someone will take your guns away - it's not going to happen anytime soon - even if a democratic president comes in. At the very 'worst' all you might see is some ineffective legislation which will be de-toothed by congress on the way through.

I do guess that a degree of parnoia goes with the territory in many instances though.

You go online to look up anything, and there's a thousand pro-gun sites to every one daring to suggest there might be a problem with the murder rate. The most prominent and newsworthy responses to the latest spree killing were more the pro-gun lobby attack the 'gun free' zones.

One example of how the gun argument sits is that ridiculous spectacle of Kerry pretending to be Elmer Fudd, Romney is even at it now.”

“Y2 you're the one who sounds paranoid. And the facts are that the pro-gun crowd is not playing loose with the evidence. The 2nd Amendment facts are all on our side. Don't believe it? Well go find some court rulings letters, or other documentation to make your case. And I'm not going to base any case I have on a "twisted" difinition of what a militia was or is. I'm going to define what "well regulated" meant when the 2nd Amendment was written. And guess what? It doesn't mean what you anti-gun people try to imply.”

“Sol hiker - this is just your view, you know there's more debate on the second amendment. This is simply your view. your interpretation of legal reasonings in certain judgments.
You know it's not as cut and dried as you portray and as the constitution is often refered to as a living document, it's up for interpretation in the courts.

"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government
from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would
interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia."

U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)

The "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment
was "to assure the continuation and render possible the
effectiveness" of state militia forces.

"It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)”

“http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpartone.htm

This provides a pretty good summary - and it's clear there is more debate on the matter than you suggest. It also suggests that there have been no clear rulings that would outlaw the various gun control legislation.”

“RM, wasn't there a congressman or senator's aid recently caught trying to carry a handgun in to the U.S. Capitol, recently? I don't remember the details, it blew over pretty fast.”

“Here're just a couple of the great things guns helped accomplish in America today!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070427/ap_on_re_us/trooper_shooting;_ylt=Ai6a2yBfWibNatf.eW0jh6zMWM0F

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070427/ap_on_re_us/workplace_shooting;_ylt=AurADQIDmoqWY2Pw0CvWkqWs0NUE
last edited: 4/27/07 5:41:23 PM”

“(ok, so that's the bill of rights... so what) lol!”

“Why would anyone want to see ANY of the constitutional rights taken away? I'm not a slippery sloper but it is obviouse that when one can be suspended then any of them can be.”

“Agreed. We have little enough.”

“Absolutely. Terror suspects deserve the right to arm themselves!!

NRA: Don't ban gun sales to suspects By SAM

WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/terror_suspects_guns;_ylt=Ak0ZI.xJSxxwFl9szJmmHuOs0NUE”

“In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.”

“Solitary, in the past I’ve considered Tribe to have some very questionable beliefs; however, I’ve got to respect a man who starts out with a premise, examines the facts, and discovers a solution that is different from the position where he originally started.




A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Helps Sway Judiciary


In March, for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable.

There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.

In those two decades, breakneck speed by the standards of constitutional law, they have helped to reshape the debate over gun rights in the United States. Their work culminated in the March decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, and it will doubtless play a major role should the case reach the United States Supreme Court.
Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.

Several other leading liberal constitutional scholars, notably Akhil Reed Amar at Yale and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas, are in broad agreement favoring an individual rights interpretation. Their work has in a remarkably short time upended the conventional understanding of the Second Amendment, and it set the stage for the Parker decision.

The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”

The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (Some transcriptions of the amendment omit the last comma.)

If only as a matter of consistency, Professor Levinson continued, liberals who favor expansive interpretations of other amendments in the Bill of Rights, like those protecting free speech and the rights of criminal defendants, should also embrace a broad reading of the Second Amendment. And just as the First Amendment’s protection of the right to free speech is not absolute, the professors say, the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms may be limited by the government, though only for good reason.

The individual rights view is far from universally accepted. “The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia,” said Dennis A. Henigan, director of the legal action project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected.”

Scholars who agree with gun opponents and support the collective rights view say the professors on the other side may have been motivated more by a desire to be provocative than by simple intellectual honesty.
“Contrarian positions get play,” Carl T. Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University, wrote in a 2000 study of Second Amendment scholarship. “Liberal professors supporting gun control draw yawns.”

If the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit does not step in and reverse the 2-to-1 panel decision striking down a law that forbids residents to keep handguns in their homes, the question of the meaning of the Second Amendment is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court. The answer there is far from certain.

That too is a change. In 1992, Warren E. Burger, a former chief justice of the United States appointed by President Richard M. Nixon, expressed the prevailing view.

“The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Even as he spoke, though, the ground was shifting underneath him. In 1989, in what most authorities say was the beginning of the modern era of mainstream Second Amendment scholarship, Professor Levinson published an article in The Yale Law Journal called “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”

“The Levinson piece was very much a turning point,” said Mr. Henigan of the Brady Center. “He was a well-respected scholar, and he was associated with a liberal point of view politically.”

In an interview, Professor Levinson described himself as “an A.C.L.U.-type who has not ever even thought of owning a gun.”

Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian group that supports gun rights, and a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Parker case, said four factors accounted for the success of the suit. The first, Mr. Levy said, was “the shift in scholarship toward an individual rights view, particularly from liberals.”

He also cited empirical research questioning whether gun control laws cut down on crime; a 2001 decision from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that embraced the individual rights view even as it allowed a gun prosecution to go forward; and the Bush administration’s reversal of a longstanding Justice Department position under administrations of both political parties favoring the collective rights view.

Filing suit in the District of Columbia was a conscious decision, too, Mr. Levy said. The gun law there is one of the most restrictive in the nation, and questions about the applicability of the Second Amendment to state laws were avoided because the district is governed by federal law.

“We wanted to proceed very much like the N.A.A.C.P.,” Mr. Levy said, referring to that group’s methodical litigation strategy intended to do away with segregated schools.

Professor Bogus, a supporter of the collective rights view, said the Parker decision represented a milestone in that strategy. “This is the story of an enormously successful and dogged campaign to change the conventional view of the right to bear arms,” he said.

The text of the amendment is not a model of clarity, and arguments over its meaning tend to be concerned with whether the first part of the sentence limits the second. The history of its drafting and contemporary meaning provide support for both sides as well.

The Supreme Court has not decided a Second Amendment case since 1939. That ruling was, as Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a liberal judge on the federal appeals court in San Francisco acknowledged in 2002, “somewhat cryptic,” again allowing both sides to argue that Supreme Court precedent aided their interpretation of the amendment.

Still, nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question.

Linda Singer, the District of Columbia’s attorney general, said the debate over the meaning of the amendment was not only an academic one.

“It’s truly a life-or-death question for us,” she said. “It’s not theoretical. We all remember very well when D.C. had the highest murder rate in the country, and we won’t go back there.”

The decision in Parker has been stayed while the full appeals court decides whether to rehear the case.
Should the case reach the Supreme Court, Professor Tribe said, “there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed.”

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070506/ZNYT02/705060362&SearchID=73280324893481


The media do like to play fast-and-loose with the term “liberal.””

“Anyone ever notice the term Innocent until PROVEN guilty...only apparently applies to LIBERAL CRIMINALS or their willing accomplices?”

“Well a BIG DUH!!!!!!!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/ap_on_fe_st/odd_officer_pillow_shot;_ylt=AoOfRf.yCeTvanZ3R.ASTQ6s0NUE”

“I think its more PEOPLE are idiots than Guns are evil. This ofcourse overlooks the most destructive weapon of all time.”

“This ofcourse overlooks the most destructive weapon of all time.”

What might that be? The belief that my God is better than your God?”

“LOL...the ROCK, Killed 25% of the earth's population....”

“xl makes an important point. people are idiots, but we still give them guns.”

“Its their dog-given right, CrAsH bAnG.”

“Guns aren't evil. People who think guns are evil are evil.”

“You guys are so out of touch --- the NRA and Carolyn McCarthy are like peas in a pod (for about ten seconds).”

“>> FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE:
>>
>> 1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
>>
>> 2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
>>
>> 3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
>>
>> 4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
>>
>> 5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
>>
>> 6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
>>
>> 7 "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
>>
>> 8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
>>
>> 9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
>>
>> 10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
>>
>> 11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you NOT understand?
>>
>> 12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians
>> ignore the o thers.
>>
>> 13. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
>>
>> 14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
>>
>> 15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. - No guns, no peace, no
>> safety.
>>
>> 16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
>>
>> 17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
>>
>> 18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
>>
>> 19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their job safer.
>>
>> 20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
>>
>> 21. Only a g overnment that is afraid of its citizens tries to
>> control them
>>
>> 22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
>>
>> 23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
>>
>> 24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create
>> slaves.
>>
>> 25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun
>> control.
>>
>> 26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
>>
>>
>> Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
>> Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
>>
>> -- Ben Franklin”

“#26- of the people = of the corPOORations? Where's the fence and the revolution? I am a 2nd believer and don't want a fence.”

“well...un when the people turn enough of the Responsibility for their lives over to the government they find sadly they have also given the government control over thier priviledges...in that case the golden rule applies.

He who has the gold makes the rules.”

“So the Freedom on the other thread is for $ALE? And I nolonger drink ale.”

“Un...its government sponsored slavery..and this time the majority of the citizenry willingly helped put the chains on.

When we can start demanding less centralized government, more educated voters and a citizenry who actually UNDERSTANDS Civics...then we have a chance.

But when we are surrounded by people who are voting for leaders like they were choosing the Senior Class President of NUMBNUTS Highschool...well not a chance we will get our freedom back.”

“Bang bang shoooo..shooo.”

“bang bang...dig dig”

“NATCHEZ, Miss. -- A Natchez man shot and killed his wife when he mistook her for an intruder in their home, according to police.

Police Chief Mike Mullins said Glenn and Deborah Mizell awoke around 4 a.m. Tuesday to the sound of their barking dog. Mullins said Glenn Mizell went to investigate, taking a pistol with him.

Mullins said Glenn Mizell began checking through the house and was unaware his wife had left the bedroom and gone into the kitchen. Mullins said when Mizell saw her figure in the dark, he fired his gun once.



Authorities said he shot Deborah Mizell, 49, once in the chest and died at the scene.

Mullins said a preliminary investigation shows the shooting was an accident.”

“Guns have minds.”

“a man who doesn't even have the presence of mind to notice that his wife is NOT lying in the same bed next to him probably shouldn't own a gun”

“The gun was at fault? That's the kind of logic that gets liberals elected.”

“Mullins said when Mizell saw her figure in the dark, he fired his gun once.

Being sure of what you're shooting at - ain't that one of them gun safety rules?”

“Damn, you beat me to it. Stupid moron, a good shot though.”

“This may or may not have been an "accident".”

“You may be on to something, Creek Dancer.

It may have been caused by friction between the mortgage and the life insurance policy.”

“This may or may not have been an "accident".�
Creek Dancer

i concur...no offense to the other southerners but i'd imagine the detective work in old natchez mississippi isn't up to par with matlock”

“http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/02/maryland.hospital/index.html

Guns used properly in this story.”