Today we mark the accomplishments and passing of a great man, Martin Luther King, Jr. He was a man of tolerance, non-violence, and equality. He was also the victim of assassination by firearm. In his memory, let us look around us for a better way to understand each other and bring each other together to reduce violence and intolerance.
A link to King's website and some of his greatest speeches, including his "I have a dream" speech, my favorite of all time:
One of my favorite quotes from his "I have a dream" speech: "But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."
ReplyDeleteText of the speech: http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html
I just read that a bomb was placed on the MLK Day Parade route in Spokane. If bombs, which can kill dozens of folks, are illegal, why aren't high-cap extended magazines and assault weapons like AK-47s and TEC 9s? And, folks, if you need to insist on using "magazine" instead of "clip", I understand pedantry but you really need to get over yourself and deal with the blood on the hands of the nra.
ReplyDeleteeumenides, because a bomb isn't very useful in self defense. Can you describe how a woman is going to use a bomb to protect herself from a rapist, or how a man is going to use a bomb to protect himself and his family from a violent criminal attack?
ReplyDeleteIf you support restricting or eliminating the right to keep and bear arms, the blood of victims made defenseless by gun control laws is on your hands.
Orygunner, you seem to miss Eumenides point. Her point is that the destructive power of a small bomb is the same as an assault weapon or firearm with an extended clip -- excessive.
ReplyDeleteAs to your last point, restricting assault weapons and extended clips will not prevent anyone from purchasing another, legal firearm for self-defense. Further, as I've said so many times before, the gun control movement isn't about banning all firearms. No one is made defenseless by these common-sense regulations, unless they are a felon.
There is no such thing as "excessive" power. There is only moral and immoral use of that power. You may object to me having a weapon useful only (in your mind) for killing large numbers of people, but so what? You are confusing capability with intentions. In doing so you are insulting millions of people who have no intention of harming anyone.
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
ReplyDeleteAs to your last point, restricting assault weapons and extended clips will not prevent anyone from purchasing another, legal firearm for self-defense. Further, as I've said so many times before, the gun control movement isn't about banning all firearms.
So you would be okay with the government banning blogging and websites, right?
After all there are other legal means of free speech, right?
No one is made defenseless by these common-sense regulations, unless they are a felon.
When a local law enforcement official decides not to issue a purchase permit, people are made defenseless.
When the laws restrict firearms to higher cost models, people are made defenseless.
When people are required to pay hundreds of dollars to legally carry a firearm in public, people are made defenseless.
When cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C. ban possession of firearms in the homes, people are made defenseless.
When states like Illinois bans every form of carrying firearms outside the home, people are made defenseless.
Sean, it's too bad you feel insulted by our desire for public safety.
ReplyDeleteAs example, I feel a little insulted, too, when I have to walk through airport security. How dare they assume I, a law-abiding citizen and peace activist, might be a terrorist! Of the millions of fliers that pass through airports every day, how many are terrorists? But then, I remind myself of the necessity of it, to prevent tragedy on a large scale.
The same goes for restricting the most violent weapons. Is everyone who owns one or purchases one really a bad person out to do harm? Of course not, almost none are, but the few that are can do a great deal of damage in a very short time, and even if law enforcement is able to respond in time they might be outgunned.
You can desire "public safety," but your actions do not lead to public safety.
ReplyDelete"The same goes for restricting the most violent weapons"
there are no "violent weapons, there are only violent people. Like most gun control proponents, you are attempting to control guns instead of controlling violent people.
"even if law enforcement is able to respond in time they might be outgunned."
Why do you wish the police to have the civilian population "outgunned?" What do you plan on doing to us that requires us to be disarmed? It's always amazing to me how often the Left sings the praises of state power, when they are pretending that they stand for the power of the people.
@Baldr wrote: "Sean, it's too bad you feel insulted by our desire for public safety. "
ReplyDeleteLet's look at that phrase, "public safety," shall we?
When safety measures are implemented with a specific goal, there is usually a proven result, correct?
Take eye injuries and safety glasses. In work environments where there is moderate to substantial risk of eye injuries, when rules requiring safety glasses are implemented, you will see a DEFINITE and substantial decrease in eye injuries. It is easy to see by the facts and statistics that the safety measure does in fact meet its goal and make the work environment safer.
The same with hearing injuries and requirements to wear earplugs.
The same is seen with auto/motorcycle accidents and seat belts/helmets.
The point is, to claim something is being done for safety, if it, or something similar has already been tried, shouldn't that be evidence of whether or not the safety measure being suggested can actually be CALLED a safety measure?
So since there is no evidence from anywhere in the world that any gun control laws have EVER made any society safer by REDUCING firearm-related violent crime... How can you suggest any gun control is actually for "public safety" ?
...Orygunner...
Orygunner, the data has been presented many many times showing that increased firearms regulation increases public safety, including on this blog. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't mean it isn't so.
ReplyDelete@Baldr: No, you've proven no such thing.
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to your bubble graph posted on January 12, that only proves correlation, not causation, between firearm-related deaths and gun control. It's a specific small set of data gathered purely to SUPPORT a specific claim, rather than consider ALL the data for a period of YEARS to determine if gun control is a benefit or a detriment to a society.
You've proven nothing, and just because YOU choose to believe it doesn't mean it is so.
The comments on that post have pointed out enough legitimate doubts and flaws that haven't been addressed, and actually CAN'T be addressed with the facts.
Now, would you care to identify where gun control has been proven to actually WORK as a safety measure where it's been implemented? To do so, you have to show where firearm-related crime has actually BEEN EFFECTED in the years after gun control was introduced.
...Orygunner...
Sean, are you seriously suggesting that some weapons do not have more potential for violence and carnage than others? Get real, man.
ReplyDeleteAgain, get it straight: I am not suggesting disarmament of all people of all guns. Gun banning is *not* what the gun control movement is about.
And I can only shake my head at your suggestion that our law enforcement shouldn't be better armed than the bad guys. Your distrust of authority suggests paranoia.
@Baldr wrote:
ReplyDelete"Again, get it straight: I am not suggesting disarmament of all people of all guns. Gun banning is *not* what the gun control movement is about"
That is untrue on so many levels.
First, many of those leaders of anti-gun rights organizations and politicians supporting gun control have made public statements that they DO want all guns banned. Perhaps YOU personally do not want ALL guns banned, but you support those who do.
Second, You've said yourself you support the re-introduction of the "Assault Weapons" Ban. So you don't support banning ALL guns, but you do support SOME being banned. The problem is there's absolutely no logic behind it.
Just like the phrases "Saturday Night Special," and "Cop-Killer Bullets," the misnomer "Assault Weapon" is a description designed solely to incite a negative emotional reaction, to try and gain public support for a ban.
There's multiple logical reasons the whole idea of the "Assault Weapons" Ban is only a "feel good" move with no results.
Consider the FACT that almost everything that defines an "assault weapon" is COSMETIC and doesn't relate at all to its function or make it any more dangerous or more powerful than firearms that are NOT on the list of "Assault Weapons."
Next, the firearms listed as "Assault Weapons" are only responsible for roughly 1% of violent crime. The argument that police officers were "outgunned" by "assault weapons" on the street was a total lie, as NO police officers had ever been killed by a firearm classified as an "Assault Weapon" until the 2009 Oakland shooting.
See, if the people that want to ban these firearms were really concerned about dangerous, powerful weapons, they would try to ban all semi-automatic firearms. They would try to ban ALL firearms that shoot rifle cartridges (the average deer rifle is much more powerful than almost all kinds of "assault weapons"). Such drastic attempts would get most lawmakers who supported it voted out of office, because the American people won't stand for it. Those that want to take away our right to keep and bear arms (and you're kidding youself if you don't think that's who's the major supporters of gun control), understand they have to "boil the frog" and nibble away our liberty a little at a time... If they take too big of bites of our freedom, we bite back...
...Orygunner...
Baldr, Keep up the good work, man. I don't know how you can stand the antagonism. On second thought, yes I do.
ReplyDelete