Ayuh,.... Which follows through pretty much all of the Progressive Liberal's campaigns,... Most All of their causes are of the smallest populations, SCREAMIN' the Loudest...
I'm a progressive liberal with plenty of guns. If you don't have guns when the big crash happens, you're just going to be a victim. It's the cons that are the loudest minority.
I live in Pierce County Washington. We are part of the base that keeps Patty Murray in the Senate. Bring up tougher gun control laws at a Democratic caucus or convention here, you might as well be prepared to be laughed out of the room. There are an amazing number of armed liberals running around here. I have a WA CPL and 19 firearms in 15 different caliber, and I am an expert with a pistol, very good with a rifle and an embarrassment on the trap range.
As with other topics, the nitwits at both extremes dominate the discussion. I am totally opposed to banning the private ownership of handguns. I am equally opposed to allowing every nitwit in the country to have machine guns, hand grenades, and nerve gas. Remember the hullabaloo when a mental health clinic required patients to check their guns at the front counter. The gun nuts said that was an infrngement on their rights. The question isn't are you up or are you down but where you draw the line. One line I draw if my property line. My opinion is that my 4th Amendment property rights trump your 2nd Amendment gun rights. If I don't want your gun on my property, it won't be there.
Buzz Kill No. But it would be real neat of you to share Pat T. That is sensible, your house your rules. Any part of the BOR is a good footing to be on. Would it be OK if I left my Second Amendment Right in my secured vehicle when visiting?
Good for you. Remember a Japanese officer fearing that there would be an armed American citizen behind every blade of grass if Japan invaded the CONUS. We just didn't realize it was going to Toyota and Honda . Peace is best secured from a position of strength.
You come close to understanding the problem, but still want to blame the gun instead of the felon. If you want a solution to crime, we should adjust our criminal laws and justice system to the way it was over 100 years ago. What happened to the assassins of Presidents Garfield and McKinley? After a fair and SPEEDY trial, both were executed within months of their deeds. Fast forward to the present time. In the last 50 years, have any of the assassins of the Kennedys, MLK, Malchom X, or any of the attemped assassin of Ford or Regan been executed by the criminal justice system? No to all, and some were even freed to walk the streets again. We need instant executions with short appeals for such brazen killers more than instant background checks.
[video=youtube;jP-Iq-eZusg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jP-Iq-eZusg[/video] Now this is real Control ... any idiot can shoot a Gun.
That would generate perverse incentives (i.e. the marginal cost from committing an additional murder effectively falls to zero) and also provide an ideal means for government to commit democide. Very authoritarian of you!
Anyone caught red-handed murdering a person, such as the case with Robert Kennedy's assassin, should be allowed to quickly tried and put to death as the members of the offended community see fit. Endless appeals and waiting periods were not the vision of the Founders. The laws and criminal proceedings here in the US have been horrifically raped and sodomized by liberals in the last 100 years. Those convicted with overwhelming physical and/or eyewitness evidence do not deserve wasting the people's time and money with any appeal past the state level. One year should be the longest any such convicted murderer/terrorist should be allowed to wait before final justice is served. Crime went up over 300% in the 1960's as a large part due the liberalization of the criminal justice system. Liberals can only bemoan the relative few lynchings and other muders that occured before that time, as they are insignificant compared to the thousands of extra murders occuring each year since their laws and rulings help create this carnage. In fact, I believe the judges at the Salem Witch Trials were far more competant, and had a better understanding of law and justice than Justices like Ginsburg and Beryer or members of the ACLU and Project Innocence. As far as the "democide" you fear, it is already occuring--- at the hands of the violent felons who remain unpunished. BTW, do you agree with "the Hero of Abbottabad" President Obama's allowing enemy combatants like the Kenyan Underwear Bomber to be given full legal rights and endless appeals?
Sounds like you want a lynch mob, not justice (or deterrence). I'll sum it up for you: Mr Politician: "He did it, caught red handed" Greataxe: "Fair enough, what ever you say guv" What a load of hogwash. Bet you can't refer to one scholarly empirical source that makes that conclusion. Don't bother replying if you can't!
http://www.ou.edu/cls/online/lstd2323/pdfs/unit4_st229pdf. Crime and Punishment in America: 1999 by Reynolds. In the changing world of Psychiatry, Sociology, Economics and Criminal Justice, even peer reviewed Journals that you obsess over are filled with subjective material and political agendas. Ideas are not always the same as facts.
I asked for a scholarly empirical source. That would require a review of the deterrence literature, using that to then derive an appropriate empirical methodology. Your source achieves neither. Its an opinion piece that uses raw data and 'assumes' a hypothesis has been tested. We'd need, for example, to be careful with cohort effects (found to be a significant feature in crime trends in sociological studies)
It does seem that the biggest libs in the Dem party are the gun control crowd but the rest of the Dems don't want to be routed because of it. They lose their own voters when they do.
If the only ideas, theories, or hypotheses you will pay attention to are some from a few select sources that have their own journal (and their own biases) then you are a waste of time responding to.
The problem for you is that I know what I'm talking about. To be honest though, you chose such a poor source that I didn't have anything to do. Note also you failed totally in responding to my post. Wasting time? That will be all you and your chums
No, you don't have to leave your 2nd Amendment right in your car but you do have to leave your gun there. You do not have a Cosntitutional right to bring your gun into my home so that isn't in play.
Actually, you do have a constitutional right to bring a gun into your house, but you also have a constitutional right to property and to do with it as you please.
