|06-24-2009 06:55 AM|
According to the Social Contract and Locke and whodawhatnot, we are born with the right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
JFK was partly famous for his Civil Rights Address
"...that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened..."
in the end, speaking your mind on a subject like this is gonna burn you.
i personally believe that if another human being intends to interrupt my life, liberty or pursuit, that i should be allowed to stop them with lead, before they do worse to me.
|05-29-2009 12:25 PM|
|05-28-2009 04:21 PM|
|jupiterboy||We can't say the simple words.|
|05-28-2009 04:18 PM|
|Scout||This thread has a lot of words in it.|
|05-28-2009 03:00 PM|
|VegasWrangler||I'm confused. I'm going to rip you all a new one if this thread doesn't make sense to me again|
|05-28-2009 02:58 PM|
|jupiterboy||IDK, I was only making a joke myself, but evidently I’m militantly advocating dual-evacuation apparatus for the progressive among us. Who knew?|
|05-28-2009 02:19 PM|
|05-28-2009 02:06 PM|
|05-28-2009 01:52 PM|
|05-28-2009 01:48 PM|
|4point||I know that vegaswrangler is kidding. You on the hand are militant.|
|05-28-2009 01:46 PM|
I can, but I choose not to. Where is that line between my remark and
One is violent as well as alluding to the naughty bit, while one brings the allusion closer to the actual word while not expressly spelling it out. What are we trying to teach our kids or protect them from?
|05-28-2009 01:39 PM|
|05-28-2009 01:37 PM|
|05-28-2009 01:23 PM|
|jupiterboy||Just what gun-grabbing liberals need, two a$$holes…|
|05-28-2009 01:20 PM|
We're allowed to carry in banks here in NV. The only places I don't carry are the airport, schools, and police stations. Everywhere else I carry.
In NY, you can't carry in a bar because they serve alcohol. Good thing that doesn't apply to NV because just about every place in Vegas serves alcohol
Good paper. I was ready to rip you a new one if you were a gun grabbing liberal.
|05-28-2009 12:53 PM|
Got an A in the class, so I assume the final paper (above) was an A or high B.
Thanks again for the suggestions!
|05-28-2009 11:46 AM|
How did it go?
|05-14-2009 04:24 PM|
|05GT-O.C.D.||Thanks for the suggestions guys, I've made some changes. Going to turn it in now.|
|05-14-2009 11:48 AM|
|jupiterboy||I would really pin down the “hundreds of years” and be able to defend that. The NRA has not been around for hundreds of years, which isn’t to say the issue predates that organization. It may have been a big issue in Europe before the Revolutionary War, IDK.|
|05-14-2009 11:35 AM|
|john's ct jeep||When Mrs. Brady first took up the notion of banding guns. She stated that she would lie, cheat, steal, and lay down with anyone to futher her chosen path. To my understanding. (yes devoted to my jeep and Sig)|
|05-14-2009 08:56 AM|
The bolded statement is a MUCH stronger opening line than the other two which say basically the same thing. Remember, the first sentence is the "hook". You're fishing for readers and you have to land them right away.
You can even open with the quote if you choose or use it as the segway to the next paragraph.
|05-14-2009 08:46 AM|
Knowing that violent criminals act without warning and that help may be several minutes away has helped to push laws into effect that allow licensed people to carry a concealed weapon. Over half of all the states in the US now allow their citizens to carry a concealed weapon after obtaining a concealed weapons permit (CWP). The Brady Campaign has worked to prevent these laws playing on people's fears that the person standing in line behind them at a store or bank may have a gun. What they fail to mention is that the CWP holder is a law abiding gun owner and not a violent criminal. If you were standing in line at a convenience store and a man on a drug rage comes in to rob the place and begins shooting people, the CWP holder standing in line behind you may be the only person within 5 miles who can save your life.
Even after obtaining a CWP, there are still many sensitive places that the law does not allow people to carry a concealed weapon. Some of these locations may include banks, courthouses, police departments, polling stations, and schools, just to name a few. Many of these places seem to make sense. It's highly unlikely that you'll need to draw a weapon to defend yourself while in a police department. Some states forbid concealed carry in banks, but like the convenience store encounter mentioned earlier, a CWP holder in a bank being robbed may end up being your best friend.
One of the most controversial places that forbid concealed weapons has been schools. There has been a recent argument to allow concealed carry on college campuses after the massacre at Virginia Tech. On April 16th, 2007, a troubled student walked onto campus and carried out the deadliest US shooting, fatally wounding 33 people and injuring 15 others. The killing spree lasted for over two hours and put the campus in a panic. Immediately afterwards gun control activists began using this as an example of why we need more strict gun control laws, just as they did after the shootings at Columbine High School. After the Virginia Tech shootings the media picked up on the typical gun control bandwagon, but then something different began to happen. This time we heard a voice from the other side of the issue. Students from Virginia Tech and gun rights groups now began to pose "what if" questions of their own, asking if there would have been a different outcome on a campus where a CWP holder would have been allowed to defend himself and stop the threat of a man on a murder spree.
The gun control topic will continue to be debated for many years to come, but the violence will continue until society is able to curb the underlying causes of gun violence. Before there were guns, there was still violence. Romans killed with swords, Vikings killed with spears, and Native Americans killed with bow and arrows. In countries where guns have been taken off the streets, violent crimes with knives have been steadily rising. The gun itself is inanimate and doesn’t harm anyone until a human being pulls the trigger, but people need to blame the gun to have a target for their rage against tragedies like Columbine. After the shootings in Littleton, Colorado people blamed everything from guns to singer Marilyn Manson, but there was not as much focus on the real issues such as the breakdown of the family and other support systems. Someone needed to pay for the tragedies and there were calls for more gun legislation. Once again, the guns themselves didn’t kill anyone, but the man behind the trigger did. Shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebod used guns and even made bombs in attempt to kill their teachers and classmates. Gun laws would not have prevented this tragedy, it likely would have just occurred in another form. It should also be noted that this shooting took place over three years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, while the Virginia Tech shootings took place after the AWB had been allowed to sunset. Gun rights groups offer this as proof of the ineffectiveness of gun control laws against controlling gun violence.
Gun control laws tend not to work because they affect law-abiding citizens more than they affect criminals. By their very nature, criminals don’t respect the laws that govern this country. If the threat of the death penalty for a murder conviction doesn’t keep people from needless killing, a new gun law will also have no effect. This is because it’s not the inanimate gun that’s to blame, and the NRA has mastered the art of getting this message out with bumper sticker slogans. Once such bumper sticker that comes to mind reads, “Guns are responsible for murders, like forks are responsible for making Rosie O’Donnell fat.” While that may get a chuckle out of most readers, it does make a point that guns aren’t solely to blame. Obesity is linked to diabetes and also death, but we don’t hear anyone saying that we should ban forks.
|05-14-2009 08:46 AM|
Another Gun Control thead...
... but this one's a little different. I'm finishing a paper that's due tonight and though I'd post it for a little quick feedback. I can't change too much since I have to stick to an outline that's already turned in, as well as meet the length requirement (can't be too long either). So with that said, let me know if there's anything that you think NEEDS changed. (If you have time to read the whole thing and car, thanks. No biggie, I know it's kinda long for an internet thread)
Gun control is one of those hotly debated topics that can spark strong emotions from both sides of the issue anytime it's brought up. It is no surprise that gun control is a political hot button in every election year. The gun control debate has raged on for hundreds of years and our Founding Fathers felt so strongly about the issue that it was written as the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
"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."
It is obvious that the amendment was meant to keep government from banning guns, but the words "A well regulated Militia" have allowed for controversy about just who should have the right to bear arms. This controversy, combined with the death that is associated with the use of firearms, has provided the reason for galvanizing groups such as the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to form.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) would like you to believe that the government wants to take all of the guns from all of its citizens. This fear is based on the fact that repressive governments in the past have outlawed citizens from gun ownership, and organizations such as the Brady Campaign can actually give the NRA credibility. Anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign portray the NRA as crazy people who think that everyone should own guns. This portrayal is false because the NRA does not promote that every person in the country, regardless of age or criminal history should own a firearm. The NRA promotes responsible gun ownership, but sometimes their own fear of the proverbial slippery slope causes them to fight any anti-gun legislation even if it isn't suppressive of ordinary responsible citizens owning firearms.
One such piece of recent legislation that regulated firearm ownership was The Federal Assault Weapons Act that was signed into law on September 13, 1994. This act is an example of a law that is written more for political purpose than saving lives. The name of the bill, "The Federal Assault Weapons Act," makes it sound scary. Based on the title alone, who wouldn't support it? No politician can take the platform of stating that they think that ordinary citizens should be allowed to own assault weapons, but it's what's in the bill that made it obvious that it was written for peace of mind but not real safety.
Before the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) went into the books, "assault weapons" were not defined by law. The AWB was an attempt to define what an assault weapon was and keep them out of the hands of citizens. The problem with the AWB is that it did more to keep ugly weapons out of people’s homes than it did to keep people from getting dangerous weapons. For example, the ban did not outlaw semi-automatic rifles, but only semi-automatic rifles that had certain features. The ban outlawed semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and two (or more) features including a folding stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, and a threaded barrel. A semi-automatic rifle without two of these features was still perfectly legal even though it was no less deadly. The bullet being fired from the gun is what proves lethal, not whether the shooter had a comfortable grip. With all of the crimes in this country, when was the last time there was a drive-by bayoneting?
The laws are written, in part, to help satisfy Washington lobbyists such as the NRA and the Brady Campaign. Both of these groups are involved in their own war of public perception and their weapon of choice is often spin and half-truths. As mentioned earlier, the NRA is falsely portrayed as being a group that opposes all gun laws. The truth is that the NRA supports many gun laws and has even helped write gun safety legislation. The NRA supports laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by convicted violent criminals. The NRA also supports laws that prevent the sale of firearms to juveniles and supports the instant criminal records checks on retail firearm purchases (Official National Rifle Association of America Home Page).
The topic of instant criminal records checks brings us to the next subject, and that is that the NRA is also guilty of distorting facts. One goal of the Brady Campaign is to close the so-called "gun show loophole." (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) The gun show loophole refers to the fact that the law only requires federal firearm licensed dealers to perform the criminal background checks prior to selling a firearm. At gun shows, private individuals are able to set up their own table and sell their personal firearm collection without obtaining a federal firearms dealers license. Gun show patrons can purchase the firearms from the private collection without going through the criminal background check. Inside the show, private sellers will often advertise the fact that they won't need to perform the background check by displaying a sign that reads "Private Sale." The NRA's own website states "There is no gun show loophole." They defend this statement by stating that all laws that apply outside of a gun show also apply at the gun show itself. While this is true, the NRA fails to come out against an event that has the potential to bring violent criminals and private sellers together to complete gun transactions.
So why do ordinary, law-abiding citizens need guns anyways? This question was asked in the Michael Moore film "Bowling for Columbine," and a man being interviewed answered the question by stating that it was his constitutional right. The film's heavy anti-gun bias used this statement and other visual cues to portray gun owners as paranoid militiamen preparing to overthrow the government. Law abiding citizens own their firearms for many reasons including hunting and target shooting, as well as personal defense. Most gun owners own their firearms not out of fear of the government, but for fear of criminals. The anti-gun crowd has implied that ordinary citizens don't need firearms for personal protection because they have the police to protect them. Gun rights advocates can easily prove how flawed this thinking is by having you perform this quick experiment:
• Grab a stopwatch and a cell phone
• Place the cell phone on a table and start the stopwatch
• Now pick up the phone and call your home phone
• Wait for the phone to ring 3 times
• Hang up and look at your stopwatch
This simple experiment will take over 30 seconds to perform. After the 911 operator picks up you would have to quickly explain your emergency. Since your cell phone is not instantly traceable you will have to have to give your address. Now sit and wait in silence for and additional 3 to 5 minutes to allow the police to respond to your home. While you're sitting there, imagine an armed robber has already kicked in your front door or shattered a window outside of your bedroom. Do you feel safe?