Saturday, July 12, 2008

2nd Amendment

Alright Eric. John and I watched Bowling for Columbine last night by Michael Moore. Even after watching it, I still don't think that Americans should have their guns taken away. But, maybe limit what kinds they can own. I don't think the average person needs a semi-automatic anything. Also, I don't feel that John or I will ever own a gun. There are several extreme republicans we know out here in Lansing that we met through church who carry hand guns on them. To class, to church, to family fun friendly church activities. One time, one of the responsible gun holders had his gun fall out of his pants while playing kickball at a get together. It's a little ridiculous.
There is a quote from this movie that I like- it goes something like this: "when a kid can get a gun and take it to school and kill other kids, there is a problem".
But here is a VERY enjoyable cartoon that was in the movie that I liked.

Tonight, we'll be watching "The Big One" by Michael Moore and we'll let you know how we like it.


mamadoula said...

i really liked bowling for columbine. i'd love to see it again now that i've been to flint. i think mm made some good points in the movie, though he can be over-the-top sometimes. (fahrenheit 9/11 was NOT very good, IMHO.)

the problem with gun control these days is that is easy and cheap to get guns off the black market (or at walmart). anyone can get a gun... and that's a little scary.

i haven't seen "the big one," let us know what you think--i'm sure you will!

the terrys said...

I thought farenheit 9/11 was alright. But I didn't need a movie to tell me any of the related information.

Brooke said...

"I don't think the average person needs a semi-automatic anything"
I agree. Why have to settle when the fully automatic option is available? O.K., I'm kidding (mostly).

Janee said...

Oh gosh, don't even get me started on this - this was my moot court issue :)

First of all (and I'm going to sound very liberal here and I'm not) I HATE guns! My interpretation of the language of the 2nd amend leads me to believe it is not an absolute right and should be amended to apply to modern times. I'm a strong advocate for gun control.

I've done the research but I'm not about to list a bunch of supreme court cases on here. If you want the sites I'll give them to ya.

Brooke said...

How about all the cases in which guns saved lives? Gun control keeps people from legaly obtaining guns. How does that limit the criminals who do not obtain their guns legaly?
Have you ever fired a gun?

Brooke said...

" My interpretation of the language of the 2nd amend leads me to believe it is not an absolute right and should be amended to apply to modern times."
I'm glad people who truly understood the the language in the 2nd amendment ruled on it in regards to the DC gun ban, and also gave their understanding.

Janee said...

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I don't understand the 2nd amendment. My interpretation is not uncommon. I guess we should just pretend that whole "well-regulated militia" part is not there.

Furthermore, this was a 5-4 decision, hardly a landslide, but I suppose that should be ignored as well as the valid arguments made in the dissent. The decision still does not make the right to bear arms unlimited.

Guns save lives? Research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death (FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

As far as the criminals are concerned - FBI Crime Reports indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, most of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, are now in the hands of criminals. What happens is the guns bought legally are then sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally.

Yes, I have fired a gun - at summer camp when I was 12 :)

Do you know anyone who has lost a child because the child found Daddy's gun, played with it and shot themself? I do.

Brooke said...

The "well regulated militia" part supports the individuals right to keep and bear arms, if you understand the phrasing. Read the link. All of it.
No, it does not make it unlimited, as it shouldn't.
How many thousands of people each year are killed by cars? I guess we shouldn't have any of those either. The problem not being the guns or the cars, but the ignorance and disobedience regarding existing laws and regulations on the part of those that own and operate them. How many cars are stolen and used in crimes that result in injury or death? Do you know someone who has had a child die in a car accident?

An unarmed citizen is a subject. One of Hitlers first actions was to dis-arm the population. Rights are just words if they cannot be defended from those who would take them from us by force.


the terrys said...

"The problem not being the guns or the cars, but the ignorance and disobedience regarding existing laws and regulations on the part of those that own [or steal] and operate them."

Ok- how do you propose to fix that???


Janee said...

Your rebuttal is an analogy between cars and guns correct? I understand the point you are attempting to make, however, cars and guns are totally different so your argument is moot. It's just a bad comparison, sorry. I'm really not trying to be snarky.

Yes, I am very familiar with the case and opinion and I still don't agree that the language of the 2nd amend supports an individual right. "Well regulated militia" relates to when arms are necessary to be borne (militia = group)if a standing army threatened our liberty. The 2nd amend right has no relation to private possession for personal activities like hunting or self defense. Hence, it is not an individual right. That is my opinion - and the opinion of half of the Supreme Court.

I have yet to hear your argument in favor of an individual right to bear arms. Is it self defense? The ability to overthrow the government? Having a gun just to have a gun? Guns don't kill people, people kill people? I've heard them all...what is your stance and your reasoning? (valid backup for your position would be nice but I've seen a trend in your comments on this blog that you don't really support your arguments. Fair enough. Again not trying to be snarky, just merely an observation.)

The rights in the Constititon are not set in stone, absolute, or unlimited. They can be changed to meet the needs or lack of needs of the people and should.

This is fun, I like debating with you :)

Janee said...

"The problem not being the guns or the cars, but the ignorance and disobedience regarding existing laws and regulations on the part of those that own and operate them."

You are absolutely right - and that is exactly my point. People are dumb and thus, shouldn't have guns :)

"How many cars are stolen and used in crimes that result in injury or death?"

Ok so going back to the cars and guns analogy...the correlation between cars being stolen and then used for violent crime as it exists with guns is simply not there.

I would be happy for you to show me some statistics showing that stolen cars have just as high correlation to injury and death as guns (stolen or not stolen). I love to learn new things and be proven wrong but I'm confident you won't be able to.

Brooke said...

Give me a while. My trend to lack supporting material is due to my lack of time to research. I usually post while I have a second at work waiting for a system to complete one function or another. I will try to improve this, because it irritates me when people have an opinion that appears to be un-educated.

the terrys said...

Only an honest person can admit when they are in need of supporting research.

It is much better to say - "Give me a while . . . to research" then to make something up.


Brooke said...

"Improvised" statistics can be used to prove anything, 43.5% of people know that. I'm 90% certain.

the terrys said...


You said: "One of Hitlers first actions was to dis-arm the population".

Is this to imply that anything Hitler believed or did was bad/wrong?

Hitler also didn't like gays. He also made his Nazi's wear uniforms. Are gays and uniforms bad? Are those who dislike gays and enforce uniforms bad like Hitler?

It's funny how it is implied that anything Hitler did or believed in was bad.

So, since you oppose gay marriage, and I KNOW you dislike gays, are you bad like Hitler too?


Brooke said...

LOL... O.K.

No, not everything Hitler did was bad or wrong. Dis-arming the people made it easier for him to do wrong things. The jews knew what was going on when men came to take them for "questioning". Had they been armed, there would have been a gunfight at each and every residence. Jews would have had the ability to form a militia. They would not have exterminated so quickly, quietly, or easily.

I do not dislike gays as people. I dislike illegal imigration, so I guess I'm a racist too, huh? I guess I'm just one of those angry white guys who "cling to their guns and religion."

the terrys said...

Dude, if the Olsen family had a reality TV show, and just ONE episode aired where we are having family dinner, America would think the Olsens are the most racist and discriminate family in America.

I don't think there is much substitution or joking involved when you or dad make racist or biggoted comments towards gays. I know I've done it in the past, but I'm not going to join in anymore. I just don't think it's the whole truth when you say you don't dislike gays or people who aren't white. I'm REALLY not being mean at all. I really don't care if that's the way you feel, because I feel that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs or feelings. Just own up to it. It's all good.

Brooke said...

The Truth about Doctors

A. The number of physicians in the

B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
per yearare

C. Accidental deaths per physician

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
Health Human Services.

Now think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the U.S.
(Yes, that's 80 million..)

B. The number of accidental gun deaths
per year, all age groups,

C. The number of accidental deaths
per gun owner
Statistics courtesy of FBI

So, statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."



the terrys said...

The number of accidental gun deaths per year in the U.S. is NOT 1,500. It's somewhere around 11 thousand. The highest in any country in the world. And what about all the guns obtained illegally by criminals who aren't registered gun owners?

Remember: "'Improvised' statistics can be used to prove anything, 43.5% of people know that. I'm 90% certain. Eric"