Wednesday, October 04, 2006
|
|
Rosie: Second Amendment 'Not a Real Right'
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
8:25 AM
|
|
Oh, no she didn't!
Read the exchange.
Go Elisabeth, go Elisabeth!
Maybe Rosie would like to ask these ladies or these ladies whether the Second Amendment is "real" to them.
If Rosie had any idea how much money she just raised for the NRA's next direct mail campaign, she'd be a sad, sad woman.
Update: A commenter of mine was nice enough to point out a couple days ago that you can e-mail your support to Elisabeth. Check the e-mail link on the left side of the page. I'll be writing her, and maybe sending along a column or two, hee.
Update: Allah has video.
Update: Since "HYPOCRISY" is everyone's favorite charge these days, I would be remiss not to point this out.
Previous:
Dear Lord, Please Don't Let It Be Elisabeth
Elisabeth Hasselbeck on the Morning-After Pill
Rosie O'Moral Equivalence
|
|
|
The "Bill of Rights" is NOT one Right (the Second) for the government, and the rest for the People. They're ALL for the People. ALL!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Let's try again, Rich. This time, on the merits of the argument. If you want to argue that the Second Amendment is only meant for a "well-regulated militia," fine. Do that. Don't give me the "guns make bad things happen, so we should ban them" argument. As you can see in the columns above, in the hands of good people, guns also prevent bad things from happening. |
|
Where did he go? He went to the most helpless gun-free environment that you can find in America. You don't get any more gun-free than a pacifist Amish schoolhouse. He sure as heck didn't go to an inner-city pool hall, because he might kill one person, before he got shot himself and got his skull smashed in for good measure.
|
|
Oh, that's it Mary Katherine, you want to have a real, data-driven debate then?
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
In 2001/2002, 97 people in Britain (which has strict hand gun controls, though also plenty of real hunters with guns) were killed by guns.
The population of Britain is 60 million, 1/5 that of the US. Extrapolating the data from the UK to the US and taking out the people in the US not killed with guns means that roughly 9,500 Americans lost their life to the NRA in a single year. But, hey, what are those lives worth anyways. |
|
|
|
RichB,
> The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the
> 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
>
> In 2001/2002, 97 people in Britain (which has strict hand gun
> controls, though also plenty of real hunters with guns) were killed
> by guns.
Maybe we can pass the hat and get you a one-way plane ticket for Britain....
|
|
|
I'm still waiting. Your chicks with guns story was cute, though could we please move beyond posturing and anecdotes? |
|
|
I got a job to do, here, Rich, and this is not the only issue in the news. I'll be back, but it might not be at your bidding. See you soon. |
|
|
I'll let you get back to spinning the Foley scandal. Have fun. |
|
Rosie's typical buffooning shows here ineptitude of being informed of why our founding fathers developed the Bill of Rights. They knew that you can't have the First admendment without the Second admendment as history has proven itself time and time again of what happens when the common people of a country give up their guns. Those that ignor the past will only relive it again. I for one, do not want my grandchildren or any ones future family members end up under a National Socialist government as the Democrats are leading us to.
Read your unabridged history books people! |
|
|
The AK-47 isnt for deer, its to protect ourselves God forbid, when Rich and Rosie rule the world a shotgun might just not do it. |
|
|
Blaming the recent phenomenon of school shootings on guns is like blaming race horses for gambling. Murder will find a way, as will the compulsion to wager. What is being missed is that the real issue is mental illness and public policy toward its treatment. President Kennedy did not do the country a favor back in 1963 when he signed the Community Mental Health Services Act. The homeless, drugs, and these shootings are the end result of the closing of mental hospitals across the US that this law accomplished. Kennedy's assassination is the prophetic irony of his championing the CMHSA of 1963. |
|
Din't be fooled into thinking that Bush and the Republicans are pro-gun. They *aren't.*
If you recall, Bush's first acceptance speech at his first nomination he called for the enforcement of all Federal gun laws that were on the books then.
To keep and bear arms without *anybody's* permission is not only guaranteed by the Constitution, but it's a God-given right. Anyone who calls for the enforcement of all those Federal laws (plus numerous state and local laws) is calling for ignoring the Constitution and making a right into a privilege.
Consider becoming a Libertarian if you are for gun rights or any rights at all for that matter.
Go to LP.com and check it out.
And see my own blog at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com .
To support Bush and be for freedom is to be in serious la-la land, and I have to urge one to wake up and smell the coffee. |
|
|
If my memory serves (and it might not!), I think I recall something about Rosie having a GUN-TOTING |
|
|
If my memory serves (and it might not!) I think I recall somthing about rosie having a gun-toting private security guy guarding her home - this was about the same time as her argument with tom selleck. anyone else remember this? |
|
|
...such remarks by someone who does not know their own gender.... |
|
RichB,
I wouldn't wait for MKH to defend gun ownership, as it is an untenable position. Gun do nothing but kill, and, when they're not killing, they're jamming. And then you have to try and pry the casing out with your keys. Personally, I have many guns in my house and live in constant fear of them.
We have many gun control laws, but, for some reason, criminals don't seem to follow the law; I guess criminals are wily that way. We should start a campaign to remind criminals that they're not exempt from following the law. Maybe the commercial for this campaign could have puppets; puppets are useful in teaching. Puppets are also funny when they hit each other.
If we can get guns out of the hands of crazies, then school massacres will only be done with bombs made from household chemicals... just like God intended. |
|
|
Do you realize that Wayne LaPierre made more than $880,000 in 2004? He probably made more than a million in 2005 and will probably make the same this year. I know the posters on here don't like to deal with numbers or data, but why do you think he needs to make that much money if he's fighting the good cause of the right to bear arms (as part of a well regulated militia, of course)? Now I can't imagine that he might be tempted to harm the welfare of the country in order to land a salary like that, but do think someone, no, not Wayne of course, but someone, might be tempted to lead a group arguing for a "right" that they knew was damaging the country in order to bring in a million bucks a year? |
|
Which laws has the federal government tried harder to enforce over the past 10 years:
The gun control laws that are on the books;
or the immigration laws that are on the books? |
|
RichB,
I'm still not understanding your point. Could you use puppets to explain? |
|
RichB,
> Do you realize that Wayne LaPierre made more
> than $880,000 in 2004? He probably made more
> than a million in 2005
Is that ALL? ...for someone who does so much to protect the Constitution of the United States from its enemies--mostly domestic enemies?
LaPierre's a bargin at twice the price. I'm glad to be paying part of his paycheck.
|
|
...that passing laws rids us of anything we want too; for example: cocaine.
To Frank J.: passing a law to rid us of something we do not want is equivalent to how Clinton got rid of "Buddy." |
|
RichB writes: Oh, well maybe she can't ask them because they were shot dead by a heterosexual child molestor with a handgun.
-----------------------------------
Gotta ask Richy, how many laws did this man break? Do you really think another one or two would have stopped him? While he was putting the zip ties on the those little girls do you honestly believe he was thinking "Better not not use a handgun, that's illegal"?
Maybe the US could enact laws and enforce them the way the former Soviet Union did, happen to notice their crime rates?
How many laws does Washington DC have on the books? Why does their crime rate seem to set the pace for the rest of the nation? |
|
|
overthrowing their previous government. I am sure they were quite aware that a "well-armed militia" could serve as a sort of "national guard" as well as a reminder that power comes from the consent of the governed. |
|
Sorry I've been so long. You seem to argue that bad things happen because guns are legal and available. But, if you ban guns, they don't disappear; they just go black-market. Thus, law-abiding citizens don't have them, but criminals, who never cared much for the law in the first place, do.
Let's talk about Charles Carl Roberts, the murderer in question, here. Do we really believe, that if guns were illegal, a man who was willing to bind 10 defenseless girls, ages 6-13, perhaps with the intent to sexually molest them before shooting them execution-style, would have heeded the law that prevented him from having a gun? Of course not.
There are two sides to the gun issue. Sometimes they hurt people; sometimes they help people. It depends upon which hands they're in. I concede your point, which is that they can hurt people. You call my point, that they sometimes help people, "posturing and anecdotes."
Luckily, despite the fact that guns can hurt people, the Constitution ensures that good folks can have access to them to help themselves. That's a tough hurdle to jump, and you still haven't made the argument that the Second Amendment doesn't mean that people should be allowed to keep and bear arms. I think your argument would be wrong, but that would at least get closer to an argument.
Just saying guns should be gone because sometimes they can hurt people ignores the moral problem of ignoring the Constitition. It also ignores the moral problem of disarming law-abiding women like those in my columns, most of whom would surely have become victims without their sidearms.
Then, there's the evidence that gun bans--surprise!-- don't decrease gun violence, for the reasons I listed above.
CDC: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085844-8119r.htm
Or, you know, the whole city of Washington, D.C.:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092600406.html
Or, Canada, Australia, England, and Wales:
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604
Also, chill with the conspiracy theories. LaPierre gets paid a lot because he runs one of the biggest, most effective advocacy groups in the nation in such a way that makes its members and board of directors very happy. |
|
There are two sides to the issue, but when you look at something called "data" (do you know what that is?) one side far outweighs the other. When the US is compared to similar countries that have gun control, such as Britain, murders with guns (and murder in general) are much higher here. What ever happened to your Pro-Life stance? 10,000 people dying each year isn't a big enough deal for you?
And I'm sorry that you're dyslexic when it comes to actually reading the Second Amendment, but the right to bear arms is set out in the context of a well-regulated militia. With your reasoning, why is it that I can't own an M1 tank?
(The questions are just hypotheticals; you don't have to answer them. I don't want to detract from your time spinning the Foley scandal.) |
|
Rich is right, we have a major problem with murder (and rape and assault) in this country. The figures are horrible, especially when compared with places like England and a large portion of Europe. (fyi: Robbery and car theft are much higher in England.)
There's no way anyone can argue that guns don't play a big part in the whole scheme. As awful as it is to consider: for those who use guns to solve their problems it's quick, final, and chances are likely you won't get anything on you. All in all, a cowardly solution.
Given this, going back to the data merely tells us the story we already know, guns don't kill people, puppets kill... er, I mean it's more than an exercise in statistics. It's a moral issue. Why is the murder rate so much lower in England? Higher alcohol content and more accessible pubs? Is it because handguns are harder to obtain? Or is our culture naturally prone to violence?
If the case is made that a higher murder rate is due to a more violent culture, how does imposing more laws on law-abiding citizens do anything but aid criminals in committing more gun-related crimes? The Pro-Life stance seems quite consistent: protect the innocent. How would making myself indefensible lower the statistic? (well, I guess if the criminal and I killed each other with guns it would double as opposed to just me being killed...)
The case for making handguns harder to obtain drifts into the same conundrum as alternative fuels and solar-powered cars. Hard facts and data were argued previously, well, here's one: our economy is oil and machine based -- switching over to a greener and more renewable solution is going to take years and years of adjustment. Forcing it to happen overnight would damage the economy for decades -- and slow the progress of actually creating renewable fuels.
It's much the same with restricting handgun ownership. We have been making handguns for a long time, which means there are lots of them around. We could try a little Pol Phot exercise and collect them all, but I doubt the gun-toting cretins would show up. It would just be those who obey the laws. Then where would we be left? It would take a police-state like we have never seen (and please don't launch into wire-tapping here okay?) to bring about this type of change.
So, what do we have left? Fewer guns would equal fewer crimes committed with them, but is that truly realistic? It seems what we need is a change in the culture. Maybe something a bit more life-affirming. Maybe something with a little more personal responsibility and consequence. Maybe more honor and integrity. Maybe a little shame? How many gun-related deaths would we experience in that country?
Sadly, my utopia is just as full of holes -- getting people to behave with more civility and respect is just as probable as taking all the guns away from the bad guys.
Guess we just need to kill them off. Of course, we'll give them Frank J's puppet show first just to let them know they are breaking the law, then if they don't change, we kill them.
It's an old, but interesting link:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/contents.htm |
|
Unrelated: anyone know how to change our screen names? I favor the more honest "RichB" or "FrankJ" approach to "jiblet."
It asked for something somewhere when I was signing up -- I typed in "jiblet" and there it is. I've asked the powers that be, but they are slow to respond.
Y'know, instead could I possibly have a picture of the Troll from the Labyrinth with David Bowie next to my name? Yea... |
|
..no wonder she is spewing out her out of touch stupidity again. Of course she and her Looney-Left, Soros type scream "Gun Control". If they have their way in establishing the type of secular anti-Christian, pro-murder (Abortion), anti-school prayer, same sex marriage etc..etc.. government people will be killing at will.. DUH like we have now. Only it will be worse!!
It's time to put morality back in our schoolrooms, government, movies and way of life.
Homosexuality is immoral and against Godly principles. To quote "the plumbing wasn't made that way". Removing God from everything the way the secularists want have caused the chaos and immorality this country faces. Guns are not the cause they are in the hands of the effect.
|
|
|
A related question that puzzles me. If we're exporting our democratic ideals, does that mean we should also enshrine the right to bear arms in the Iraqi and Afghan constitions ? |
|
Who let Rosie out of her cage? Again!!
And who cares what Rosie thinks? Get a grip.
Who advocates more gun control laws? This country has over 25,000 at last count.
Tell me which one of those 25,000 could have prevented what happened in Pennsylvania or Colorado?
Please explain to me why we need one or 10 or 100 or 1,000 more gun control laws.
How about more effective security at our schools as a starter.
Legislating one more gun control law would be about as effective as putting up signs in an airport warning terrorists that it is illegal to hijack or blow up airplanes.
A properly trained person with essential moral clarity is the best gun control there is along with;
1.) proper target acquisition
2.) sight alignment
3.) effective trigger control
Here are a few more web sites that offer thoughts on gun control;
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0402f.asp
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20010815.htm
So put a sock in it all you gun control advocates.
I'm with NRAlifer. Just try to take my guns and you better not bring harsh words or protest signs as I'll be right there on the firing line. |
|
1. now look there are ak47's and ak47's, do we mean full auto? supressed? just flash suppressor? .223, 1x.762? 10 round? 30 round, 110 round drums? ok cuz all these are different. indeed, the ruger mini 14 /.223/ and the traditional ar15 have tons of variations used for hunting and farm and ranch plinking. great critter drops. ...but it is all the same mechanism. so deliniating weapons, capacities, and styles is as stupid as say ....... campaign finance spending rules or cap gains taxes.
2. buy a semi-auto rifle or handgun. in most states a snap. see above, semi auto is semi auto.... indeed if you have a semi auto ak47, and i have an old double ought 6 with back to back taped clips, you are in deep poop. just because they look cool does not give them unique killing ability.
3. some states are, and some states are not "machine gun" or full auto states. because of the 2nd amendment an outright fed ban is not legal. so you buy stamps for a liscense which can be denied federally by the batf for criminal cause, or by you local sheriff for any da** reason he wants. usually sheriffs being smart, want as many as possible in their district. full auto weapon owners although often are collectors and junior machinists, also are uniformly law abiding. why? see above batf check. it is very rare for crimes to be committed with full auto weapons.
4. anyone thinking a world w/out guns is a utopia or safer has thinking that flys in the face of all scientific reason. rates of deaths by fire arms for all reasons are declining in the usa. rising in canada, england /where no one has guns in the home/, australia and many other latin and euro countries. the trend is ugly in gun control countries and is accelerating not abating. states with lax gun control laws particularly right to carry conceal states all show lower rates of gun violence than more restrictive states. also they have lower rates of all sorts of person on person crime.
5. rosie likes gun control until her body guard can no longer carry. any american that wishes protection should have the same rights as rosie, the president, and your local crack dealer.
6..... and duh, of course there should be guns in schools. exactly when does the dummy light go on.
u got all that???? |
|
|
|