Concealed Carrying Bystander Nearly Killed Innocent Man During Tucson Shooting

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OPTIONAL777, Jan 13, 2011.

  1. olias

    olias

    Good article. I'm not sure how people can be so quick to dismiss it.

    How can you ignore this "the difference between this country and practically every other industrialized nation, which has a tiny fraction of the gun violence as we have in the US, is that “we don’t have more madmen, we have more guns.”

    who can argue with that?

    And yeah, it does sound like this dude was very close to shooting an innocent man. He's can't be compared to a cop who pulls his gun because the cop has way more training...and probably bullet-proof clothing, so he's not going to be as on-edge as your average gun-toter.
     
    #11     Jan 14, 2011
  2. 377OHMS

    377OHMS

    I can.

    We have a constitutional right to own firearms.

    If that doesn't suit you I'm sure you could find some country that bans all guns. That way you take care of the problem for yourself instead of forcing your liberal views on 300 millions others.
     
    #12     Jan 14, 2011
  3. olias

    olias

    The great thing about America is the ability to change. I suppose you would have us just stop using our brains and trying to make things better, right? 'it is what it is, if you don't like it you can leave'...? Is that your position?
     
    #13     Jan 14, 2011
  4. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    when it comes to the Constitution, yes.
     
    #14     Jan 14, 2011
  5. 377OHMS

    377OHMS

    Yep.

    The constitution has been in effect for 235 years. Its not like it was just sprung on you yesterday.

    Yet your family stayed here and built equity and a decent life for themselves and you.

    Evidently the other freedoms preserved by the constitution are agreeable, you just want to tweak that pesky second amendment.
     
    #15     Jan 14, 2011
  6. olias

    olias

    it's all fair game my friend. That is America. Even the constitution can be amended. 235 years.....things change. Maybe the rationale for the right to bare arms is no longer valid.....

    To say it's not debatable is pretty weak
     
    #16     Jan 14, 2011
  7. olias

    olias

    I hope you'll read this book, then we can continue the debate:

    http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/reviews/2010/02/founding-fathers-reconsidered.html

    "In the passage that perhaps best summarizes the spirit of this book, Bernstein says:

    At a distance of more than two centuries, it remains difficult to disentangle the founding fathers from their principal achievements – the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government and a body of liberties that, they hoped, would be a model for the world. Because these achievements were the product of collective deliberation, we remember the founding fathers as a group: many historians, politicians and jurists have praised them as the most creative and learned gathering of statesmen in American history; among the greatest such gatherings the world has ever seen. At the same time, especially beginning in the second half of the twentieth century, we have come to recognize the founding fathers’ limitations and failings, and we have struggled to balance gratitude with recrimination in assessing them. (p.116)

    Bernstein reminds us that the constitution is the result of compromise among heroic, but human characters. Despite its success, the constitution they produced has its flaws. Given the current constitutional crisis in California and the outbreak of shock and public hand-wringing over the special deal cut in the Senate to win the support of Nebraska Sen. Nelson for the health care bill, a book such as Bernstein’s could not be a more timely reminder that the founders’ constitution was designed to control, not perfect politics.

    In Chapter 1 (“Words, Images and Meanings”), Bernstein establishes his point of departure. Acknowledging a 1916 speech by Warren Harding as the first recorded reference to the “founding fathers,” Bernstein notes that the reference is protean and includes many characters in addition to the seven key leaders noted by Richard Morris (Franklin, Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Jay, Madison and Hamilton). Nonetheless, Bernstein uses Morris’ roster as his guide throughout this monograph.

    In Chapter 2 (“Contexts: The History that Made the Founding Fathers”), Bernstein discusses a colonial political milieu characterized by a “cautious, transforming egalitarianism” (p.26). He emphasizes the diversity of thought and intellectual traditions that informed the [*64] American enlightenment. Laying the groundwork for a key theme of the book, Bernstein maintains that this diversity and the differences of opinion that it caused among the colonists belie any attempt to suggest that the Founding Fathers adhered to any one, discrete intellectual framework (pp.34-38).

    This, I believe, is the most important aspect of THE FOUNDING FATHERS RECONSIDERED. Bernstein eloquently discusses the contributions, struggles, flaws and virtues of the seven key founders throughout the book. However, if there is a constant theme, it is that they were divided over many issues. While they were unified in the common cause of rebellion, they divided (not surprisingly) about the minutiae of constitution making and the philosophical details and interpretations that gave meaning to the new nation’s form of government. Accordingly, at various points in the book, Bernstein takes pains to dismiss notions of a clearly defined, coherent “original intent” of the Founding Fathers. "
     
    #17     Jan 14, 2011
  8. 377OHMS

    377OHMS

    The UK is just sitting there waiting for you. No guns there. If you have safety concerns why not take your family there? Their laws and customs seem more aligned to your outlook.

    But somehow that is not an option. You would rather stay here and change the rules.

    Many would regard the abrogation of the second amendment as grounds for a revolution.

    America has firearms. Cope with it or leave.
     
    #18     Jan 14, 2011
  9. Gun violence has nothing to do with people who legally carry concealed weapons, and very little to do with legal gun owners in general. (There are over 4 million people in the US with permits to carry concealed weapons. How many of them committed violent crimes in the last year?)

    Most gun violence is perpetrated by criminals, not by legal gun owners. I just saw some data from Los Angeles recently where 80% of all gun homicides were gang-related. I can assure you that none of the guns they used were legally acquired. Criminals commit crimes. They don't obey gun laws or any other kind of laws.

    The only gun regulation that would have prevented the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords would be making it easier to have someone legally declared mentally incompetant so that they couldn't buy a gun (i.e., so someone like Jared Loughner wouldn't pass the background check). If you try to get more people restricted from buying guns based on their mental health status, the fiercest opposition will come from the ACLU, not the NRA.

    You have no way of knowing how close Zamudio came to shooting anyone. Did he draw his gun? The story doesn't say. Was his finger on the trigger? The story doesn't say. It simply says that his hand was on the weapon. In that position, his trigger finger would be on the rail, not the trigger. The fact is, he did everything correctly and he didn't shoot anyone. It's too bad he wasn't there when the shooting started. He may have been able to save lives.


     
    #19     Jan 14, 2011
  10. There's a process for changing the Constitution. If you want the Second Ammendment removed, go for it.


     
    #20     Jan 14, 2011