SILLY PUTTY BULLETS – YouTube
Silly Putty made into a slug and put in a shotshell is a lot more destructive to what it hits then one might think.
Second Amendment
Why Are Gun Companies Moving?
Is anybody really that surprised?
Tie Voting Rights to Gun Ownership Rights
There is a lot of debate today on who should have the right:
-
To Own Firearms
- To Vote in Elections
Obviously, as a democratic society, which strongly believes in the second amendment and the right of individuals to own firearms for personal protection and hunting, as many people as possible should have both the right to vote and own firearms.
Some people argue to prevent future massacres and murders, we need more gun control. And yet others say, we should have more clamping down on elections, to ensure those who shouldn’t be voting, don’t. Dangerous and insane people, after all, could influence close elections, and cause party control to be thrown from one person to another.
Basic fairness suggests that if you are a citizen of a society, you should keep your basic rights. If for some reason, a citizen commits a serious or infamous crime, they should lose all of their rights. Once they have completed their sentence, and are viewed once again to be safe to be returned to the street, then they should have all rights restored – be it second amendment rights or voting rights. Dangerous people do not belong on the street. If somebody lacks the ability to know right for wrong or is morally corrupt, they should either be locked up behind bars or executed by criminal justice system.
A double standard makes no sense.
Gun Regulation vs Abortion in NPR’s Eyes
I have long had an interest in the use of political messaging, and how media frames a new story to benefit one political party or ideology. National Public Radio, a partially publicly funded radio station, is known for being a left-of-center bias, typically favoring liberal social policies, such as abortion and gun control. I thought it would be interesting to compare the article NPR ran after the passage of New York’s SAFE Act to Texas’ Abortion Regulation Act. New York passed it’s new law in response to the Newtown Shootings, while Texas passed it’s law in response to Kermit Gosnell’s Dirty Abortion clinic where he murdered live-born children.
Headlines After Passage on NPR:
N.Y. Governor Flexes Political Muscle To Pass Tough Gun Law
Abortion Rights Activists Plan Challenge To Texas Measure
Pictures:
The Lead in the Articles:
N.Y. Governor Flexes Political Muscle To Pass Tough Gun Law
On Tuesday, New York became the first state in the nation to pass a tough new gun control law. Gov. Andrew Cuomo convinced his state’s Legislature to act, even before President Obama took executive action to limit access to guns.
The governor’s legislative victory followed his impassioned State of the State address earlier this month, delivered the first day of the 2013 legislative session.
In the speech, the Democratic governor, who owns a hunting rifle, exhorted the Legislature to act quickly. “No one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer,” he said.
Just days later, Cuomo was signing the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, which he calls “common sense,” into law. “No one else has to die,” Cuomo said the night before Tuesday’s signing ceremony. “No more innocent loss of life.”
Abortion Rights Activists Plan Challenge To Texas Measure
In a major victory for the anti-abortion movement, the Texas state senate passed a sweeping bill early Saturday that has become a flashpoint in the national abortion debate. Gov. Rick Perry is expected to sign it in short order.
But the fight is not over. Abortion rights supporters say that the new law attempts to overturnRoe vs. Wade in Texas, and that’s why they plan to take their fight to the courts.
“What this does is completely reshape the abortion landscape in the state,” says Elizabeth Nash, who follows state issues at the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights research group. “With this legislation, Texas will become one of the most restrictive states in the country. And Texas really matters.”
First, Texas is the second most populous state in the nation, with four major cities and 5.5 million women of reproductive age. It also has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation.
And symbolically, Texas was home to Jane Roe, whose fight for a legal abortion went all the way to the Supreme Court — which decided in 1973 that abortion is a woman’s fundamental right under the Constitution.
Under the new law, abortion doctors must get admitting privileges at nearby hospitals; abortion clinics must upgrade to surgical centers; abortion-inducing pills can only be taken when a physician is present; and abortions would be banned 20 weeks after fertilization.
All of these measures have been passed, piecemeal, in other states, where the Center for Reproductive Rights has fought them all, says Julie Rikelman, the group’s litigation director.
“This law can absolutely be stopped. It is a cocktail of restrictions that have been blocked by other courts around the country,” Rikelman says. “It’s clearly unconstitutional and I do believe that courts will find it to be unconstitutional if it’s challenged.”
Roll Call Policy
With the Senate voting comfortably Thursday to take up its most ambitious gun control legislation in nearly two decades, all eyes turn to the “open amendment process” that Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised.
What is An Appropriate Amount of Gun Violence?
There will be some who say: Zero.
Of course, that is not a realistic answer.
There always will be some amount of crime, some amount of violent individuals, and some amount of people who die every year from gun violence. Even countries and states with very strict gun controls have gun violence. While it’s hard to argue in favor of more gun violence and more death, we have to accept a certain level that is consistent with our society’s values. Some people are going to die from gun violence. It’s sad, and quite troubling, but it’s a realistic part of society.
Nobody wants to see children gunned down. But accepting a certain amount of carnage may be required to protect our rights and liberties as a free people. A politically unpopular position, but the reality is our civil liberties rights have consequences — and if we as a society believe that every individual should has a constitutional right to own a firearm, then a certain amount of carnage must be acceptable.
Before we debate gun control, we should first all put forward what appropriate number of carnage is every year.
We must all realize that freedom is not free.
The Problem I Have With Enhance Background Checks on Gun Purchases
Like many others, I have some reservations about the mandating of background checks for all gun sales, including ones within a family. While its important to keep guns out of the hands of truly dangerous people, the background check system needs to be fair, and reasonable. It needs to work for farm families, far away from the near big city, and also those who live in a metropolitan-area. It also needs to protect an individuals’ right to bear arms to protect himself and his family from an attack by those wishing to harm them.
They Have to Work for Rural Residents and Shouldn’t Be Burdensome
If two private individuals want to sell firearms, they should be allowed to do as such. In the era of the Internet, a person should be able to do a check of the government’s prohibited persons list, for no cost. If a person comes back clean, they can print the certificate up, and be required to hold the certificate for 10 years. If a person loses the certificate of sale, they should be subject to a $500 fine. This would keep honest people from accidentally selling firearms to those who are disqualified — and provide an criminal prosecution option for when a person knowingly violates background check provisions.
Federal Government Should Only Regulate Firearms in Interstate Trade
It’s not at all clear where the constitutional powers are given to Congress to regulate private sales, between two individuals within a state. In contrast, Congress could push the states to pass stronger background checks for intrastate commerce of firearms, but they can’t create a federal law that requires such a thing.
Background Checks Should Be Fair and Reasonable
If you are going to require background checks, then the list of disqualifers should be clear, and the list of people who are disqualified should be public knowledge. As Bill of Rights makes the second amendment a fundamental right, the reasons for being disqualified should be extremely limited, and narrowly targeted to avoid imminent harm to others. Banning felons, who have not had their rights restored, or those are mentally ill and pose an immediate danger to public, makes sense. But others who have shown reasonably good behavior, and are not posing an immediate and real threat of violence, should have the right to own firearms for self defense.