Thursday, December 20, 2012

2'nd Amendment Rights and Modern Realities... Do They Clash?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


With the debate on where the nation goes from here on gun control Mayor Bloomberg strikes a somewhat reasonable stance. Neither side of the debate is likely to agree fully. However, the Mayor is at least sensible and that should provide a reasonable starting point. Given the current mood of the nation there is little doubt but what something is going to change with respect to gun laws.



CBS - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg today placed partial blame on the National Rifle Association for the Connecticut elementary school massacre in which 20 children and six adults were gunned down last week.

"We're not trying to take away your right to advance the interests of gun owners, hunters, people who want to protect themselves," Bloomberg told "Nightline" anchor Cynthia McFadden in an interview today. "But that's not an absolute right to encourage behavior which causes things like Connecticut. In fact, Connecticut is because of some of their actions."

In the days after the massacre, the NRA has remained silent, only speaking up Wednesday to announce it would hold a press conference on Friday morning. But in the meantime, people with various stances on guns, from stark anti-gun advocates to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., a pro-gun politician who famously shot a cap-and-trade bill with a rifle in his 2010 re-election ad, are clamoring for something to be done.

"I think the public has finally come to the conclusion that, what the Supreme Court said you can do is have reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, is something that our society finally has woken up and said, 'We are going to do this whether you like it or not,'" Bloomberg said.

In 2007, Bloomberg was one of 50 mayors who gathered in Washington, D.C., to demand that Congress eliminate a law that restricts the ability of local police to trace criminals' weapons. At the time, gun advocates claimed the law, which was an amendment attached to the House appropriations bill in 2003, infringed on their Second Amendment rights. {Read More}

A firm believer in the right to responsibly own firearms, although I haven't owned in years since giving up hunting and target shooting, I must acknowledge that as a nation we need to continue to insure the right to bear while at the same time increase the safety of our people in regards to gun violence thus reducing the number of deaths caused by gunfire. This should be our goal

Admittedly it won't be an easy undertaking.

Via: Memeorandum

9 comments:

  1. I call BS on Bloomberg.

    He said: "But that's not an absolute right to encourage behavior which causes things like Connecticut. In fact, Connecticut is because of some of their actions."

    What did the NRA actually do, yer honor, to ENCOURAGE Adam Lanza, dead social retard, to kill innocents? What, did they send him subliminal messages through satellite transmissions? Did they kidnap him and brainwash him, implanting the killer impulse into his psyche that was activated by a code word? Did they give Adam Lanza guns and tell him to kill those school children and staff?

    How, your honor? How did they encourage it? The NRA defends and supports the Second Amendment against government trying to limit private and legal gun ownership. Is that how the NRA encouraged Adam Lanza?

    You ignorant piece of fecal matter. Stick to creating a Fascist State in NYC and leave the really real world alone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Especially with you, not being able to define your stance on the 2nd amendment using the words of the amendment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you quit being paranoid RN, if I ever have anything to say I will say it as TAO or Tao Speaks; quit trying to pretend that every "Anonymous" is me...

      Besides, don't be so damn lazy, you have a live feed widget to figure out where Anonymous is visiting from. It really is that simple.

      Delete
    2. You will note the question mark. I'm not paranoid because really I don't care. There are a lot of folks who, unlike me, are either 1) smart enough not to use their real name (for security reasons obviously), or 2) just don't want to be bothered for whatever reason getting a Google account or whatever. As far as figuring it out? Like I said I really don't care enough to take the time to figure it out.

      Anyhoo, glad you stopped in. Have a Merry Christmas in case we don't run across each other again before then.

      Delete
  3. I agree with Donald. Lots of BS being hurled at the NRA, very little solid facts.

    I read Bloomberg's article, and agreed with most of it. He put the focus where it should be: On gun traffickers and illegal purchases.

    This debate will hinge upon how each camp defines "reasonable restrictions."

    What the anti-gun screamers want cannot be accomplished without a wholesale ban, and as England and Australia have shown us, gun bans do not decrease gun violence.

    I'll leave you and your readers with a few links:

    Britain instituted its now famous gun ban in 1997, and gun crime went up, according to the BBC, which reported the official government statistics.

    Australia instituted a similar ban around the same time, and their violent crime rate went up as well.

    For those who like to dive deeper, here is the link to the official Australian government figures:

    Australia Crime Facts & Figures

    Figure 3 is especially instructive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for leaving the links. I mostly agree with Bloomberg as well. I solidly support 2'nd amendment right to bear arms. We do however need to arrive at a national consensus on how best achieve what I believe is the goal of everyone. Bloomberg has the right idea.

      Delete
  4. I found the conflicts with what SF posted:

    From the Washington Post's report after the Aurora massacre:

    On Wednesday, [prime minister John] Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia’s footsteps. “There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit,” he concluded. “But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path.”

    So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.
    The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn’t statistically significant.

    What is significant is the decline the laws caused in the firearm suicide rate, which Leigh and Neill estimate at a 74 percent reduction for a buyback of that size. This is even higher than the overall decline in the suicide rate, because the gun buybacks’ speed varied from state to state. In states with quick buybacks, the fall in the suicide rate far exceeded the fall in states with slower buybacks."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why does anyone care what Bloomberg say's or thinks, besides those that have the misfortune of living in his jurisdiction?!
    We all have the ability to see from the outside what his vision of the US would be! High crime, taxes and high cost of living!
    Credibility? ZERO...

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.