Abortion and Handguns

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Thank you, Draken. You said basically what I was trying to say except that i'm afraid i get too into the argument and cannot see past my feelings on the issue.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Thank you, Draken. You said basically what I was trying to say except that i'm afraid i get too into the argument and cannot see past my feelings on the issue.

Well you can fight to have Oregon pass stricter gun laws. I feel people should fight within their states first for the things they want.

No state of course can outlaw guns entirely without first changing the Constitution. Nothing can happen to change the Constitution without 2/3 of the states approving it.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Yes, i know, JD. i have read the constitution. several times. and written papers on it.

slightly off-topic, but have you read many of the federalist papers? i'm thinking particuarly of...argh, don't remember which one, the one about factions. this thread reminded me of it. . .

yes, seeing as the most i can do is work on getting stricter gun laws in my state. (i'm actually from WA state, i'm just going to college in OR) thanks for the suggestion. or of course i could just leave the country altogether. according to locke i have the right to leave if i feel the government is not fulfilling its purpose.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Yes, i know, JD. i have read the constitution. several times. and written papers on it.

slightly off-topic, but have you read many of the federalist papers? i'm thinking particuarly of...argh, don't remember which one, the one about factions. this thread reminded me of it. . .

yes - although I haven't read the Federalist Paper from cover to cover in one read. I also have the Anti-Federalist Papers.

yes, seeing as the most i can do is work on getting stricter gun laws in my state. (i'm actually from WA state, i'm just going to college in OR) thanks for the suggestion. or of course i could just leave the country altogether. according to locke i have the right to leave if i feel the government is not fulfilling its purpose.

What purpose is the government supposed to fulfill? Two hundred years ago the Federal Government was set up with limited powers and it was supposed to remain that way. As far as I'm concerned the government has been been too big for at least 70 years. The federal government should have less power not more.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I find that in many ways the government is indeed too big, but in some cases there should be more--like with handguns. in that way i suppose i have slightly conflicting ideals. i don't think we are, in general, responsible enough to have handguns. on the other hand, i think government should stay out of people's business when it comes to things like abortion.

of course we don't want to take too much power from the fed. gov. if it looks like being in any danger of being like the articles of confederation again, because that wasn't working so well. of course, there's an interesting article i read about how maybe the federalists had the wrong idea. i'll read it again, i think; i don't remember it well enough right now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
of course we don't want to take too much power from the fed. gov. if it looks like being in any danger of being like the articles of confederation again, because that wasn't working so well. of course, there's an interesting article i read about how maybe the federalists had the wrong idea. i'll read it again, i think; i don't remember it well enough right now.

Well there were problems with the Articles of Confederation that the current government under the Constitution never had. For one thing - the Articles of Confederation gave no power to the federal government to force states to pay off the war debt, there was no power to control commerce, or to set up treaties with countries. Under the Articles - if a country wanted to negotiate a treaty with the US - they would basically have to go to all 13 states and get them to sign. The federal government had no power to enforce - it could only suggest or plead with the states to do something. Once one state refused to do something - then all the states refused.

Right before the Constitutional Convention - New Jersey and Connecticut were gathering troops to invade New York. New York was blocking our ports and requiring ships to first pay tarrifs at their ports before being allowed to dock in New Jersey or Connecticut to unload their cargo. This had been going on throughout colonial times too. As a matter of fact the Royal Governor of NY, Sir Edmund Andros, kidnapped one of our Royal Governors, Phillip Carteret, because he wouldn't do what NY wanted.

Basically the Articles of Confederation was just an agreement between the states - it was not a functioning government like what was developed under the Constitution.

I have certain problems with the federal government - I think more power should be left up to the states. The Federal Government should not be dictating social programs - these should be left up to the states. Education should be left up to the states. New Jersey pays the most to the federal government - yet gets the least back. We pay $2000 for every $1 we get back in benefits. The Federak Government does nothing for us - other than take our money and split it among the other states.

By the way - I am also upset with the federal government getting involved in California's "medical marijuana" laws and Oregons "Right to die" laws. These I also believe are state issues and are prime exampled of the federal government overstepping their authority.

The federal government should only be concerned with national defense, international and interstate commerce and fights between the states. NJ and NY are always in court against each other - if we weren't part of the same country we would have been at war a long time ago.

[Aeryn]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
i see a difference. handguns are for killing people. quickly. lighters aren't. (no they're just for killing people veeery slowly, when used to light cigarettes...)

*giggles* Wow, well let me argue.

Okay, a car, (like a gun) is a deadly weapon, more children die in car related accidents then gun related accidents, should cars be outlawed.

Jersey,
I sO agree with you!!! finally!

OOC:
Eruvial, thank you for the great debate sessions.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

JerseyDevil, I do not appreciate how you talk about many things as if you're the only one who knows them. I guess you aren't taking the hint when I say I've read the constitution, and the articles of confederation, and some of the federalist papers. I know that stuff already.

Aeryn: i'm always glad for a good debate
Do you have any information to back up that statement, though?

And cars are for transportation...they only become deadly when used irresponsibly. Of course I hate cars and I'd gladly give up their benefits if only to use less *fossil fuels. Although really those SUVs are especially dangerous, not to mention gas-guzzling. They ought to be banned.

edit: *this was typed rather late at night...i originally forgot to say less...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
JerseyDevil, I do not appreciate how you talk about many things as if you're the only one who knows them. I guess you aren't taking the hint when I say I've read the constitution, and the articles of confederation, and some of the federalist papers. I know that stuff already.

I'm sorry you can't have a "conversation". But my saying those things wasn't necessarily directed at you. I do believe you may know those things - but most people think - "well we just outlaw guns and that'll be that'. Most people don't know how the Constitution works.

Also - you made the statement that if we had a limited Federal Government, as was the original plan under the Constitution - it could lead to the prolems that we had under the articles.

of course we don't want to take too much power from the fed. gov. if it looks like being in any danger of being like the articles of confederation again, because that wasn't working so well.

The Articles had their own problems - that would not and COULD NOT occur under the Constitutional government. If you think that the current government can be limited in power and run the risk of being a government as it was under the Articles - then you don't know this stuff.

And cars are for transportation...they only become deadly when used irresponsibly. Of course I hate cars and I'd gladly give up their benefits if only to use fossil fuels. Although really those SUVs are especially dangerous, not to mention gas-guzzling. They ought to be banned.

So again you feel that the government should step in and issue a ban and make decisions for people. Also - guns only kill when used irresponsibly. Hand guns main purpose may be used to kill someone - but they are also for protection. There are also hunting guns - I guess you would have the government ban those too?

We live in a democracy that allows individual freedoms. I hate SUVs too - but I am against the government telling people what to drive - or getting into people's personal lives.

[Aeryn]

In car accidents.
All ages=16.5 Under 1=5.7 1-4=5.3 5-14=5.2 15-24=29.2

In gun related accidents, I coudln't condense it, I felt it was pretty much important. (the entire statement)

Overall, 30,708 people died of firearms in 1998, a 5 percent drop from 1997 and a 22 percent drop from the high of 39,595 in 1993. The age-adjusted death rate from firearms was 11.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 1998, a 7.4 percent drop from 12.2 in 1997 and down sharply from the high of 15.6 in 1993."

These are strange statistics, actually. Those on the far left are about to have a fit because these government reports make liars out of them. Every state that instituted concealed carry firearms laws immediately noticed a measurable decrease in death by firearms. This is enough to drive the liberals and socialists positively nuts! Worse yet, the report comes from a branch of the very liberal Department of Health and Human Services.

Anyway, now that 31 states issue concealed weapons carry permits, the trend is noticeable nationally. Because, lets face it folks, crooks don't want to mess with people who can shoot back.

The report was not all good news, though. It did come out of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, after all. So, they had to get their liberal shots in --- so to speak. For instance:

"Firearm deaths for children and teens dropped significantly between 1997 and 1998. 3,792 children and adolescents under age 20 died in 1998 from firearms, down 10 percent from 4,223 in 1997, and down 35 percent from the high of 5,833 in 1994. This translates into a drop from 16 deaths per day in 1994 to 10 deaths per day in 1998."

Ten kids a day is a lot, of course, but there is also a lot not being said here. For instance, if drug related shootings and gang bangers are removed, adolescent death by firearms would be very, very low.

We note with interest that the socialists at Handgun Control, Inc. or their counterparts in government like Senators Feinstein, Boxer and Schumer, never go into the inner-city to disarm the feral little darlings doing all the shooting. No, instead of going to where the actual problem is, they would rather propose laws to bother the normal, law-abiding people. That's one glaring difference between the craven socialist class and real American folks. They are cowards.

About 92 percent of the firearms deaths among people under age 24 were among 15 to 24 year olds. Ninety-four percent of those deaths were due to suicides or homicides. That's our "Great Society" programs at work.

The liberals tell us trigger locks are one fix to stop kids from using guns, but that's baloney. I've seen kids get trigger locks off just as fast without a key as I can with the key. One proper way to make guns safer around kids is exactly the way many of us grew up back in the 1940s and 1950s: Teach kids to shoot properly so they realize and respect both the power and danger of firearms.

Back then, nearly every boy had a rifle to tote around and some of us also had revolvers. Yet, we never heard of anyone being shot because no one ever was.

Mr. Fiedor publishes a newsletter Heads Up --- A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia that is free to all at http://209.15.142.23/reports/headsup/list-hu.html. His e-mail is fiedor19@eos.net.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2000;5(6):213. Copyright©2000 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)



(Eruvial, these are newer statistics than the ones I was looking at incase you wanted to know...)

[BeardofPants]

Aeryn, I'm curious: how would you propose to lower the death toll via gun related accidents?

[Aeryn]

Well, more secure ways of distributing guns, backround checks and the like. The gun owners being responsible with the guns by putting them away out-of-sight and out-of-mind of there kids. Just really general common-sense stuff. That's clarifying huh?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm sorry you can't have a "conversation". But my saying those things wasn't necessarily directed at you. I do believe you may know those things - but most people think - "well we just outlaw guns and that'll be that'. Most people don't know how the Constitution works.

Also - you made the statement that if we had a limited Federal Government, as was the original plan under the Constitution - it could lead to the prolems that we had under the articles.

First, I am capable of having a "conversation," though perhaps I do take offense too easily. As for my comment on limiting the constitution, I did not say that because I thought we could, I was merely pointing out that limiting the federal government in some places might not be such a good thing, I was not saying that it would be possible. I do know this stuff. Perhaps not as well as you do, but I do know it.

So again you feel that the government should step in and issue a ban and make decisions for people. Also - guns only kill when used irresponsibly. Hand guns main purpose may be used to kill someone - but they are also for protection. There are also hunting guns - I guess you would have the government ban those too?

We live in a democracy that allows individual freedoms. I hate SUVs too - but I am against the government telling people what to drive - or getting into people's personal lives.

I think perhaps we are too paranoid, then, if we think need handguns that badly, for protection. I would not necessarily have the government ban hunting guns, in fact I'm not even saying hand guns should be banned altogether, but I do think that perhaps it would work better if you had to prove that you really needed a gun to get one.

Yes, we live in a democracy, and I'm all for individual freedoms, but there ought to be limits, would you not agree? SUVs use far too much gas and contribute a great deal to greenhouse gas emmisions. It's great if people can drive whatever they want but not when it's something that's that harmful to other people and to the planet. I don't have my copy of Common Sense with me, so I'll paraphrase Thomas Paine: "Society is created by our desires and government by our vices." Paine was all for democracy as can be seen very easily in Common Sense, but he acknowledged that we do need government to keep ourselves in control.

[Elvellon]

I’m curious, where would you put the limit? What should be permissible to have and what should not?

(I’m asking this to both sides)

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Elvellon
I’m curious, where would you put the limit? What should be permissible to have and what should not?

(I’m asking this to both sides)

That is a really hard question. . .

I think in cases where we are harming other people and/or infringing upon their rights, and also where the protection of the environment is concerned, there should be limits. Unfortunately, these lines are far from clear. I'll think about it, though.

[jerseydevil]

This is the section from Common Sense. Thomas Paine of course wrote this to explain the evils of the English government and to argue in support of independence.

Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness possitively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last is a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government even in it's best state is but a necessary evil; in it's worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a Government, we might expect in a country without Government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of Kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of Paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistably obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do, by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to others.

My argument is that we already have tons of laws that govern the sale of guns - the real problem is that the existing laws aren't enforced. We can pass 50,000 more laws - and if those aren't enforced - it will do nothing.

The only additional thing that I support in terms of gun laws - are madatory background checks at gun shows. I do not think people should "prove they need a gun" to get one.

In terms of SUVs again - I would support tax reductions for more fuel efficient vehicles - which we do have for Hybrids. Why must people be punished? Why not give incentives to do something instead? I hate SUVs and trucks and vans - and it's not only because they're gas guzzlers. My main problem with them is the fact that when I'm behind one - I can't see the traffic ahead of them, or the stop lights. I can't see around the damn things when I'm pull out of a parking lot. They're a nuisance on the road and they barely have any more room than a standard car.

I think in cases where we are harming other people and/or infringing upon their rights, and also where the protection of the environment is concerned, there should be limits. Unfortunately, these lines are far from clear. I'll think about it, though.

It's not a easy balancing act.

Remember when ever a law is passed - you are infringing on someone elses right. An example of this happened this summer in the Northwest between water usage and the farmers. Salmon runs versus hydro-electricity. Trees versus the logging industry and jobs.

Land is so incredibly expensive in NJ that farmers choose to sell because developers offer them so much money. NJ came up with Green Acres Program where the state or communities buy the development rights either to the farms or forests. This is a way to make both parties happy.

[BeardofPants]

Call me an ignorant kiwi, but what exactly is an SUV?

[Mirahzi]

SUV: Sports Utility Vehicle. The big burly ones.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Call me an ignorant kiwi, but what exactly is an SUV?

SUV Online

They're gas guzzling monstracities that idiots drive. I know a lot of people that drive them - and half the time there is hardly anymore room in them than a standard car. It's not like these people are using them for off road driving or anything. There are people of course that need trucks - even if I hate them too. As I said though - my big problem with SUVs and trucks is the fact that I can't see around them.

[BeardofPants]

Thanks JD and Mirahzi. We have something similar over here which guzzles up the diesel, but I dont' think it's a terribly huge problem as of yet.