U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 18, 2007 03:25 PM UTC
94 Comments
if they’ll kiss my ass!
Democrats are better lovers.
Ever hear of a great piece of Elephant?
Article from Prison planet-
The loudest message sent by what happened at Virginia Tech yesterday is that government cannot and will not protect you. (my comment…you can add the Katrina fiasco to this line of reasoning as well.)
Contrast the events at VA Tech with the 1966 UT Tower shooting, which was until yesterday the deadliest shooting massacre on a University campus in America.
The shooter was Charles Whitman, a Marine Corps sniper who carried out his killing spree enjoying “a nearly unassailable vantage point from which he could select and dispatch victims,” according to Crime Library, armed to the teeth with an arsenal of high powered weaponry.
The Virginia killer was able to dispatch twice as many victims as Whitman despite having apparently little firearms skill, using only two relatively weak handguns and being surrounded by police and other civilians who could have attempted to apprehend him at any point.
The difference?…
http://www.prisonpla…
Yes I’m back!
unbelievably offensive. “Civilians who could have attended to apprehend him at any point”. So the point here is to blame the victims?
They could have apprehended him at any point? So I guess if you were chief of police in Blacksburg things would have gone different?
What a bunch of BS bravado.
is so easy, isn’t it?
The only thing this event proves is that we are a violent nation (Cho lived here most of his life) that looks the other way from the obvious virus, handguns.
Is the basement-dweller’s Pat Robertson. He gives credibility to paranoids’ illness – for a price. Shame on you for posting garbage like this.
so when you say something good and logical and full of mother’s apple pie, I must also say, “Kudos!”
Thanks.
but I like you. Even when you tell people I’m incapable of independent thought. If you had any idea who I really am, you’d laugh yourself silly. I think my name contributes to the animosity sometimes – people think I’m laughing at them, and that was never my intention with it.
Oh, well. Cheers.
Sometimes, LB, you draw the strangest conclusions. What I’ve called “connecting widely spaced dots” elsewhere. It’s sort of like, “Caeser was killed in March so let’s have scrambled eggs for breakfast.”
When you aren’t doing those conclusions that make my head hurt, you are really a level headed guy with good input.
I hope you take this in the spirit with which it is intended.
There were clowns at the National Review and at Human Events spewing the same “blame the victims” garbage yesterday.
But don’t you think his sheer tally disproves your statement that he “had little firearms skill?” It tragically seems like he had the kind of firearms skill that would have made him a certified marksman. Besides the professor who did save lives blocking the door (and dying in the bargain), are you so sure that others didn’t attempt to apprehend him? You know, among the dead victims?
That’s a nutjob posting on the National Review site. It has the same credibility as the post above, but also has the same attachment to NRO that the idiot post above does to Coloradopols.
He starts off calling himself “NRO’s designated chickenhawk.” An odd self-description, to be sure, but he seems to be saying he’s part of NRO.
I think he’s just a poster.
Which doesn’t make what he said any less idiotic…
First, Derbyshire is a writer for NRO and NR, not just a poster on th Corner.
Second, his post was designed to throw an outlying argument into the debate. Hence the “designated chickenhawk” tag. That’s sort of his role on the Corner, and by putting the “designated chickenhawk” moniker into the mix he’s tacitly acknowledging at the outset that this is going to be a bit beyond the pale. If you read the Corner, you’d have read that as synonymous with “as NRO’s designated devil’s advocate, let me throw out something extreme here…” You don’t get that context or personality with a standalone link.
Finally, NRO is about as far from the “right wing fringe” as you can get. They’re conservative, but they’re pretty diverse. Neocon, paleocon, cruncy-con, Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-amnesty, pro-enforcement, pro-Iraq war, anti-Iraq war. I don’t think there’s an issue on which they don’t have lively discussions, both pro and con.
Incidentally, I love NRO. It’s much closer to the middle than, say, Coloradopols.
Well, actually Mother Jones is probably about as far from the “right wing fringe” as you can get. 😉 And you’re right, I don’t regularly read The Corner. I found the link from another blog. At this point I’m too hot under the collar to read it as anything but rubbish, but I’ll bear your comment in mind and check it out again in a few weeks. (Got it bookmarked.)
It should be “about as far from the ‘right wing fringe’ as you can get while still being a conservative website and magazine.”
Either way, ideologically they’re all over the place. It makes for a fascinating read.
……reminds me of Archie Bunker’s solution in the ’70’s to airline hijackings. Flight attendants should pass out handguns to all passengers over 18 and then collect them at the end of the flight (presumably, along with the headsets). Nobody would dare try anything with a plane full of such heavily armed other passengers.
and everyone lived happily ever after
The fact that no one had the combination of opportunity and extraordinary courage to tackle this guy doesn’t hold any lesson other than that no two scenarios are precisely alike. I don’t think government is any less able to protect its citizens than ever before (it probably is a little more able to, due to constantly improving techniques and training). And I think it’s silly to indict groups or individuals for failing to protect citizens from a nutcase who opens fire. There is only one thing that can protect citizens from such tragedies in the future: Stricter gun control.
The second amendment of the constitution clearly states that the reason for the freedom to bear arms is so that states can have militias with which to oppose the federal government if need be. Obviously, interpretation is for the courts to decide, but it seems to me that as long as states have armories protected from confiscation by the federal government, that criterion is satisfied. (Personally, I think the whole notion is an anachronism: If we get to the point where the states feel the need -again- to oppose the federal government with arms, I think all is lost in any case. The virtue of this country, to the extent that it is virtuous, lies in the strength of ideas, not in any victory of arms. As the world becomes ever more explosive, the necessity to promote those ideas by peacefull means only becomes ever more necessary).
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The notion that people should be allowed to buy guns at will is one of the great tragic absurdities of this country. It contributes far, far more to human suffering than to human happiness, and contributes nothing to liberty other than the liberty to take life. That’s a liberty I would happily deny myself and my fellow citizens. The imposition of strict gun control in England, for instance, has not led to any increased denial of civil liberties there, and is not likely to. It just led to vastly increased public safety.
And the slogan “guns don’t kill, people do,” is one of those transparently stupid pieces of rhetoric that gratifies those who want to believe it without adding any intelligence whatsoever to the debate. The truth is that there is always a chain of causation in any event, and that all links of the chain are involved in the event. People decide to kill: Guns make it far too easy. Anyone who doesn’t realize that sharply limiting access to firearms would vastly reduce the homocide rate in this country is simply ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence and logic to the contrary. This kid in Virginia would not have managed to kill 32 people with a knife, and may well have not had the guts to even try.
Some day we’ll awaken from our long national psychosis. I just hope it happens before one of my loved ones has their life tragically stolen from them (and from me).
Here’s another: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
You are right, the only long term solution is changing our culture by changing our laws. These morons that suggest increasing firearms presence to stop crime are, well, morons.
Two points,
First there’s the conflation of a hunting rifle to outlaw handguns in the cliche above.
Then, there’s a presumption that we can’t control the illegal guns. We can, we just don’t have the political will to do so. The fact that DC and NYC have strict gun laws that fail is due to the lack of similar laws around them. Don’t like our puny CO fireworks? Drive north an hour to Wyoming.
If we had a federal law mandating handgun (definition needed!) registration with state authorities AND making posession of an unregistered or defaced serial number gun a felony with mandatory time, there would be some teeth in the law. Also, perhaps, a registered ballistics fingerprint for all handguns.
This modest proposal would not stop citizens from owning or using guns. The second amendment, as it’s been interpreted for 200 years is not being subverted. It has no prohibition on controls of firearms. Over time, it would be the decent citizens who would have the firearms (not that I think that is a good idea, but I’m talking pragmatics here) and the criminals who are eventually behind bars or learn to not own an unregisted pistol. It must be done federally so as to prevent the leaks from low control states.
I have no problem with hunting or similar firearms. Israel has an exception to their handgun ban for businessmen who carry large amounts of cash or jewelers, for instance.
We are one sick culture. It’s time for some surgery.
How do you propose to make our society gun-free?
Obviously, once the technology for something exists, there is no way to rid the world of it completely: As long as people can acquire the materials and the knowledge necessary to putting those materials together, all of our inventions are with us forever. But, by controlling the production and distribution of vital factors of production, including knowledge of the techniques involved (in the case of highly sophisticated devices, such as nuclear weapons), “proliferation” can be contained (to some extent).
In the case of guns, as we’ve already said, defining bullets as contraband, to the extent that it is enforced, would render the guns themselves useless. Sure, smuggling of bullets across international borders would become a thriving business, and little enterprises producing illegal rounds domestically would pop up, but it is not a trivial process, doing so without being detected will be very difficult, and the costs of the rounds would sky-rocket while the supply would plummett.
From a practical, political point of view, we’re a long way off from being able to implement such policies. But there is either an outright majority or a very large minority in this country who strongly support moving in that direction. So, it is not politically off the map either.
I say that with the caveat that is what I heard on Thom Hartmann. I do not have primary source info. That was before VT.
Breaking News:
A Virginia court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was “mentally ill” and potentially dangerous. Then the state let him go.”
Should the state be sued by surviving relatives? Isn’t there an opportunity here to create a database to prevent individuals found to be “mentally ill and potentially dangerous” from purchasing firearms?
Oy
on Lib Radio, like Jay Marvin, that are pushing the mental health issues vs. gun control. Cho is a perfect example of someone brought into the MH system, but short of locking him up in the state hospital, what could they do?
We can try to train 300 million people, those people always changing with births and deaths, to be nice people and not to shoot others. Bloody fat chance.
Get rid of the problem, hand guns.
A few random comments: The way to effectively control, or eliminate, handguns is to control, or ban outright, the production and importation of bullets. You can’t find and confiscate every gun that’s been squirrelled away, but rounds aren’t reusable, and if they become contraband, and an effort is made to enforce the laws, their availability would sharply decline. At the very least, the “outlaws” would have to carefully consider upon whom they want to expend their pressure bullets!
One problem with ballistic fingerprints for every gun sold is that the fingerprint changes over time (with use). But it would still be a useful contribution to law enforcement.
And, though I believe that we could ban private ownership of handguns within the context of the 2nd amendment, if we can’t, then we can REPEAL the 2nd amendment!
After the Constitutional Convention, the framers hoped that they had cobbled together a set of compromises that would work for a generation or two, at which point it would be improved upon (i.e., replaced). Since then, we have turned it into a sacred document. I have great respect for the Constitution: I think it is a far more brilliant work than the framers realized. But they, at least, had the good sense to know that they were just a handful of human beings stuck in a particular historical context dealing with their own contemporary political challenges. We don’t need to scrap it, and perhaps never will (though never is a long time…), but we can permit ourselves to feel more at liberty to use its conservative amendment procedures, even in regards to the Bill of Rights, when circumstances require it.
Our belief in the constitution has served us well, but has also created a foundation which is stronger and deeper than the document itself. It will always provide a useful reference point, and a useful authority to which to refer when (as now) there are those in power who are undermining its spirit. But it does not have to shackle us to dysfunctional anachronisms. We have the power, the right, and the duty to continue to use our minds, and to keep the document alive by keeping it relevant.
I think we’ve made the Bill of Rights sacred. While that has its downside, I believe more good will come of keeping the Bill of Rights untouchable than harm. We already have a federal administration doing its best to ignore it (other than the precious Second Amendment) but messing with the Second Amendment will only open up the door to messing with all the rest.
But I’ve seen the “restrict bullets” idea before and it sounds like a good one – a gun is at best a blunt instrument without them. But it might not still prevent tragedies like this from happening. Cho got his gun and bullets a month ago, and mass murderers like him daydream about their crimes months or years before they commit them – plenty of time to build an arsenal, even with legal restrictions. Still, it can be argued that some would be prevented. (Anyone remember the Seattle mass shooting just a year ago? If not, it’s because we are getting used to these massacres.)
The Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Amendments, are every bit as much of the Constitution as the original, unamended Constitution is. To make it otherwise would require, umm, a Constitutional Amendment.
but, to my knowledge, none of the 16 later amendments altered a word of the first 10. We do treat the Bill of Rights separately from the rest of the Constitution, and although it’s in our power to change it I don’t think it’s wise.
… it’s an amendment to the Constitution and carries the same weight as the Constitution – it is the new Constitution. (That’s why the bar is set so high for amendments).
Opening up the Bill of Rights to revision isn’t something to be taken lightly. In this case, it probably isn’t even necessary. But I think, over time, societies need to become more dependent on reason, and less dependent on mythologies. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, to some extent, benefit from their mythological status, and that has served us well. But I’m not sure it is in our best interest that we defer to mythologies indefinately. Our unwritten, internalized constitution is very strong and well-defined. We still depend on the written one in many ways: The courts are very well occupied with its implications. But it is the one we hold in our minds that is of the most vital importance, and, over time, the more we are able to defer to reason, if reason differs with what was written 220 years ago, the better off we will be, as long as we don’t lose that constitutional core that continues to guide us.
But it is a very complex issue, and I am not sure that you are not completely right. Why fix something that has been so remarkable not-broken for so long? Except, in this specific instance, I think it is horribly broken. Guns in our culture are a virulent disease. I think we can do much, much better.
I think so too, and I think it can be accomplished legislatively and constitutionally. But whether we can enact the laws is the $64,000 question… I’d like to think so.
I read a comment on another blog that stated that some states, like Alabama, have lax (and possibly nonexistent, as far as enforcement goes) laws regardging handgun sales, so gun manufacturers flood these states with more guns than existing demand can account for, knowing that they’d make their way into other states via, shall we say, grey market means, states with real restrictions. I think restricting the manufacture and sale of new guns and ammunition would help, but change would come slowly.
What’s really needed is culture change. That can’t be made into law, not unless something really sweeping (and thus burdened with unrealistic chances of passing) came into being. For that, I don’t have any answers. I’m of the opinion that you can’t restrict culture through law. People who want to ban video games should keep in mind that school massacres and mass murder existed before computers did, just like people who want to ban pornography should know that rape and infidelity both existed before Hustler did. Outright bans on guns may help prevent massacres by making it more difficult to obtain the means of carrying them out (which, personally, makes it worthwhile to me)0, but that won’t make sick individuals well, and it won’t make gun fetishists decide that there is anything wrong with guns, or the old cultural idea that violence is an acceptable means of settling disputes both real and imaginary.
that violent video games aren’t the ultimate cause of school violence, but I also think that that’s sort of beside the point: They may well be a contributing or exaccerbating factor. I also agree that cultural changes are needed and that they can’t be legislated, though legislation can affect culture to some degree, over time: Social institutions are tightly bound together, and all tend to affect each other in complex feedback loops. More accurately, cultural changes and legal changes occur in tandem, with the cultural affecting the legislative more profoundly than vice versa. Obviously, the more deeply a problem can be addressed, the better, but I’d still prefer marginally effective superficial solutions to no solutions at all.
But I’m in basic agreement with you that the core challenges are cultural, and are difficult (though not impossible) to address.
Extremely good points and phrasing.
I will maintain that laws can change the culture. Look at the civil rights movement, the anti-smoking movement. The laws came first and then the people adjusted. There are too many more to take the space here.
The fact that there is something terribly amiss in our culture was the point of Bowling for Columbine. More guns per capita in Canada and yet, a far lower gun homicide rate.
I remember a kid bring a rifle to school so that he could make a new stock in woodshop. No big deal. I want that society back.
Oh yeah, a comment on gun finger printing. I would bet that the majority of handguns don’t get fired enough to alter the finger print. Maybe a few, but not most.
I think it’s important to keep in perspective that this incident still isn’t any kind of a common occurrence. I’m not minimizing it, but I feel (and hope) that there just aren’t too many Chos and Klebolds out there.
I couldn’t imagine trying to get handguns off the streets. It might be easier to get them off the streets of Baghdad.
For me, I have to be pragmatic. I realize the ease with which a sick person can get a hold of a weapon, but I don’t see that changing, even with incredibly strict regulation. In fact, I think you’d end up taking the guns out of the hands of everyone that might actually be responsible gun owners who would be willing to protect society if called upon.
I wonder what could have been possible if a professor had a weapon that they were well trained to use. It seems crazy to me, but maybe less crazy than metal detectors and searches. My God, what is happening to us?
It seems to me that at the least, that there should be some sort of a lengthy hold on purchasing any firearms if you’ve been ‘red flagged’ by a mental health professional. It seems doable, but would require some major privacy concessions from the pro-gun folks.
To paraphrase Hamlet, that is the question.
But to think that escalation by arming others could have done anything is, um, fantasy. And to think that someone who has a weapon would respond in appropriate, precise manners is likewise.
Far better to get the guns off of the streets. Making hand gun ownership a felony w/mandatory jail time would slowly winnow out the guns and the gangstas. The greatest source of illegal weapons is theft. Make the bullets the contraband, maybe, but we must try something other than doing nothing.
so why can’t we? Admittedly, there is probably no case of a country trying to ban handguns in which so many guns were privately owned, but that just means that the process will take longer. I have no doubt that we can, in the course of time, rid this country of hand-guns. Virtually no one in England owns a handgun, and there are virtually no homicides by handgun in England. And gun ownership was permitted there several decades ago.
Peace by MAD can be momentarily effective, but when it breaks down, it breaks down badly. And the more decentralized it is, the more often it breaks down. The Cold War version benefitted from involving basically two (or three) players, completely devastating consequences, and social institutions to limit caprice. And it very nearly failed on at least one ocassion. The Appalachan Country of Kentucky and Tennessee maintained peace in the 19th century by a system of “Tit-for-tat:” If someone was wronged, his family sought revenge. People were very careful not to wrong each other! But, all it took was one little mis-step (a bride being stood up at the alter) for the Hatfields and McCoys to slaughter each other for three or four generations.
Personally, I don’t relish the return of the Wild West. Or, should I say, the continuation?
But I respectfully disagree with you guys on pragmatic lines. The bad guys are going to have guns long after you force through regulations demanding the return of handguns from law abiding folks.
I’m a very well trained CCW holder, and I’m grateful to have it. I know that fundamentally puts me at odds with your philosophies, but I hope we can continue the dialogue. This is an issue where the nuts on both sides ruin the actual debate that really needs to take place to find the best solution.
Our ability to have this dialogue, with mutual respect, is a victory in and of itself. How much better this world would be if we could just, en masse, take that first step! The more people who are able to express their arguments *and listen to the arguments of others,* the better.
And I do agree that “the bad guys are going to have guns long after” they’re taken away from law-abiding folks, though I think that the right policies and the right degree of commitment can mitigate most of the liabilities inplied by that fact. In economic terms, “the transaction costs” of shifting from one paradigm to the other are very large. But the benefits continue on indefinately. Personally, I think the paradigm of a society without handguns is worth a large investment. But I respect your right to hold a different perspective.
I know Gecko is pro-gun – he said he had a “fuckin arsenal” once. Where are you, big guy? You’re viewpoint is needed, and maybe your swearing too.
after showing some respect for the deceased by lowering his confederate flag to half mast……
As a liberal gun owner, my allegiances are somewhat split on this one. I feel handguns are made solely for killing and any argument for using them for self defense is a bunch of hooey. Why can’t you defend yourself with a legal/sane shotgun?
However, I don’t believe the 2nd amendment should be repealed or altered. It was put in place originally to ensure a “well regulated militia,” which is obviously outdated. But it serves another purpose as well. Guns are a part of American culture for better or worse. England can get away with banning guns because they don’t have a large sportsman population. Also, the right to own guns was secured because Americans are especially intense about the sanctity of private property, and it gives them the willies to think about a government agent confiscating their guns. But most importantly, I buy into the slippery slope argument when it comes to altering the Bill of Rights. If it becomes common place to strike down an amendment in its entirety, that’s bad news for our civil liberties.
Guns should be regulated and controlled, but not banned. And don’t mess with the Bill of Rights.
are notoriously bad, and notoriously easy to exploit to defend any position. Gay marriage shouldn’t be permitted because, obviously, people will be marrying farm animals next (I’m okay with that, as long as it’s a tasteful ceremony, and the farm animal can say “I do”). Realistically, do you really think that repealing the second amendment would result in a sudden flurry of activity repealing the others as well? There is so little willingness to touch the Bill of Rights that if it were ever touched, it would probably be a very isolated instance rather than a slippery slope. I don’t think it’s necessary to repeal the 2nd amendment to ban private handgun ownership, for instance, but I do think a discussion of what the Constitution is, and what our relationship to it should be, is a healthy one. Personally, I always worry about a sacred cow becoming just a little too sacred….
I don’t think this would cause a “flurry” activity, but it defiantly becomes more realistic to strike down other amendments. For example, let’s say we created a new amendment that voids the 2nd (because you can’t just strike them down) because it’s been outdated due to social and technological progress. It suddenly becomes feasible to strike down the 4th amendment. We now live in a society where obtaining a warrant to search a person’s private property could potentially incredibly negative consequences. Some law enforcement officials will argue that social change (i.e. the introduction of global terrorism) and technological advancements (i.e. nuclear weapons)have outdated this amendment and require that they have the right to warrantless searches and arrests because it simply muddies up the system. After all, our forefathers couldn’t have imagined this scenario when drafting the constituion. Given that the American legal system is based on precedent and we just struck down the second amendment for the exact same reason, it becomes possible to throw out the fourth as well.
I agree in general that slippery slope is a dangerous argument. The NRA uses it while defending their right to own assault rifles (today they’re taking my AR-15, tomorrow they’ll take my hunting rifle). But when dealing with significantly altering the constitution, I think it holds water.
that a lot of people think we coddle the guilty, that too many get off on technicalities, and so on, and so, you may be right that the 4th would be vulnerable. Still, I think the strength of resistance to tampering with the Bill of Rights wouldn’t be greatly diminished by actually tampering with it, if necessary. In fact, it might even be strengthened. It would cause a huge, resounding shudder of national angst, and an enormous movement to protect the constitution.
Remember, amending the U.S. Constitution is not that easy to do (if only that were also true for the Colorado Constitution!).
hunting used to be very popular in England.
Those Fancy Lads sure did love to get all dressed up and chase down foxes.
I am totally pro gun. In fact, my dad’s old bumper sticker “An Armed Society is a Polite Society” still rings true in my humble opinion.
I too am sick at what that nut job did to those people. But we have to be realistic. Making guns illegal, or just bullets illegal will not happen. And if it did happen, how could it ever be enforced?
Guns and bullets will not be illegal world wide. Therefore the business of buying guns or ammunition via the internet from say Italy, will flourish.
Are we supposed to inspect every single package that enters the US?
And what about the fellows that load their own ammunition? I have a buddy that has more guns than I could ever dream of. He loads his own shells. Are we going to have to make the shot and gunpowder illegal too?
I have no clue what the solution is. Maybe stiffer penalties for gun crimes. Like a one strike law? But as it is now the prisons are so overcrowded that we have people sleeping in tents outside (CJC in Colorado Springs is an example).
But making guns against the law is not the answer.
Any more than making it illegal to NOT carry a gun is an answer.
PS: I’m not hugging Sir Robin or Coloradem1. Thanks anyway.
the impossibility of controlling the international trade of contraband is an argument in favor of not outlawing anything: Heroin, chemical and biological weaponry, you name it. If we say we can’t outlaw something because we are incapable of controlling access to it, then we are really giving up entirely on our collective future.
The current practical (political) reality is that the best that can be hoped for is a little bit of headway in the right direction, and the gradual reduction of the power of the gun lobby.
Every situation is the same.
Your posts are consistently thoughtful and well-reasoned.
(does the honor come with a new car?)
No! Darn it!
Life is so unfair.
http://tancredowatch…
go out to GOPpundit, Haners, and my main man Gecko!
Soundin’ mighty gay there, ya know? 🙂
I hope you have a wonderful, happy day. God bless you.
Hugs all ’round! I’ll agree with an earlier post, that alluded to a higher quality of thought and posting from you. May we all be blessed with more civility, more patience, more empathy, more universal wisdom and more peace in our lives.
Up yours, you freak.
Just kidding. I meant it – have a great day.
Although “freak” might be getting pretty close! :), SR
Happened just the other day. My freak flag flying!
God bless you.
http://www.breitbart…
Kennedy, the key vote, essentially said that if someone can bring a case showing that banning the procedure threatens the health of the mother that he would find the law unconstitutional. In addition, there are alternative means of having an abortion that are not affected by the ruling, only the so called “Partial Birth” abortion is affected. The number of legal abortions will not likely change due to this ruling. There will only be a slight change in the type of abortions.
“Partial birth” abortions are required in most if not all late-term abortions. Late-term abortions are pretty much always performed for the health of the mother.
The logical conclusion is that “partial-birth” abortions should have a legal exception for the health of the mother, which the Federal law does not provide.
Ruling after someone is injured or has died from a procedure recognized as necessary by the American College of Ob/Gyns is to me a cold and calculating legalism.
But he essentially says because there is a safe alternative means for a late term abortion, the health justification doesn’t apply here. I think that means that if anti-choice proponents try to ban these alternative means as well, Kennedy would switch sides and strike down the ban for not allowing an exception for the health of the woman.
to toll the bell for the death of abortion rights. But it’s crucial that John Paul Stevens outlasts the Bush presidency and that a Democrat, any Democrat, be elected president next year.
But I don’t necessarily agree with the legal reasoning Kennedy followed. It’s not like a doctor can now come along and get a pre-emptive ruling allowing him to perform an IDX procedure on a specific patient if in his best judgement that’s the only way to safely perform the surgery. And it may be too late for the woman if the doctor winds up slicing her internals due to the nature of the pregnancy complications…
From the opinion, Kennedy (and Alito and Roberts, from the lack of a separate concurrence?) would switch and vote the PBAA down if a situation proved him wrong, nevermind your scenario if attempts are made to further limit a woman’s options in the scenario where IDX could have been used.
I thought that the Republican strategy was always to pass these draconian measures which had a fatal flaw which would render the legislation null and then the Republicans could blame the “independent judiciary” and appease the prolife crowd without ever limiting abortion.
It will be interesting to see if this has any impact on abortion. All abortion procedures, past the 1st trimester, are grusome when described. I had understood that partial birth was the safest for the mother and least painful for the fetus…anyone know for sure???
Right after the court decision, some organization of gynecological docs issued a statement. I heard part on the radio. A lot had to do with the so-called PBA being safer than Caesarian and chemical abortives.
Can’t tell you more than that, but I would think those doctors know a bit more that ideologue legislators.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, I mean the question honestly.
Do you see a problem with being “pro-choice” on abortion but “anti-choice” when it comes to handguns?
….terrible. No one in this nation is “pro-abortion”, BTW. I know that you didn’t say that, just taking an opportunity to keep that out front.
I would offer that abortion is a facet of our biology and sexual selves. Women have been aborting for thousands of years for whatever reason. I do not believe that a blastocyst is a human being. It is a potential one. I do believe that this embryo becomes a human being well before birth, nothing about viability or self-consciousness. So early on, I don’t have a problem with letting a woman and a doctor make a decision.
Guns are human creations, have no natural existence or purpose. We can live quite well without them, and we suffer consequences when we have them (in our society.)
http://www.dailymail…
“If guns are outlawed only outlaws will accidentally shoot their children.”
LOL!
Romney loses to Richardson in Rasmussen Poll.
With that news in mind, hugs go out to all you Romney fans out there – and all you other GOP types, too.
The other day-brightener in that same poll is that Edwards now beats every other Repub contender, FWIW.
I’ve been meaning to post on this board more than I have since the election where many of you left / right geniuses claimed up and down the Dems were going to work with Bush to end the war. Even your dog wasn’t that stupid! …but that’s another story. Hell, Pelosi’s daughter is making PR films for Carl Rove. They are laughing at you.
First of all, I’m offended all the time by some of the BS people are saying. I WILL defend their right to say it. So stop your whinning. There ARE people in Blacksburg who lost someone who DO agree with the crux of the article.
Second, I don’t even own a gun but, I’m smart enough to know that the idiot criminals out there aren’t sure if I’m armed and if he / she ‘knew’ I wasn’t…Adios Amigos! I also Know the comie yo-yo’s out their have been saying (and writting about it) for years… “to bring down America is to disarm it’s citizens”. Mao Zedong and Hitler talked the same garbage about their own citizens.
Third, I hear a lot of talk on this thred about using (government) Laws to ‘condition the public’. Most of us would call that Psyops! Man you guys scare me more than that piece of filth shooter in Blackburg.
Fourth, Herion, Crack, Ice. Meth, Cocain… are all illegal and they are all shipped in by the truck load. Since the ‘war on drugs’, usage’ and supply has tripled. Governments own stats. So what do some of you pro government geniuses think will happen when gun ownership is illegal? I know, more government funding! You love it.
Fifth, and the crux of my post…Word on the street in Blacksburg is there are plenty of cops P.O.ed with the bureaucrats who kept them back. They knew they could have taken this guy out long before he could rack up the numbers he did. This sort of policy goes back to Columbine. While every situation is in some ways IS different they are ALSO similar. Here is a news flash for you… ‘we learn from history’. I know some of you may be perplexed by that. Ray Martinez wrote a book about the UT college shooting. Law enforcement officials should read it. He’s the U.S. Marshal who took out the scumbag who went on a shooting rampage at UT. He made it very clear it was the ‘armed’ citizens NOT the local police that kept the killer from killing more than he could have. He couldn’t believe the cops were just directing traffic around the campus while the guy was shooting up students.
those starving Chinese peasants all had guns……
Rumor, innuendo, “word on the street.” What bureaucrats?
Armed citizens at UT? He was shot by Austin policemen. Directing traffice away from the scene – I”m taking you at your word here – would be a very reasonable attempt to minimize damages and buy some time to figure out what was going on, Rambo.
Don’t forget, there were no two ways then, and virtually no campus police.
You can’t possibly be serious. I haven’t heard “commie” since I watched Dr. Strangelove.
Who is it exactly we’re supposed to fear? The “comies [sic]” or the Empire?
Point # 1 – If there are victims’ families who agree with the article, does that automatically make it correct? What about those who don’t?
Point # 2 – If you think that uncertainty about whether you’re packing heat is what has kept you from getting mugged to date, I’m very sorry for you for suffering under that delusion.
Point # 3 – Laws don’t equal psy-ops. If you don’t understand that simple point then I’m sorry for you a second time.
Point # 4 – Drugs are all derived from cultivated plants; in other words, they grow on trees. Do guns and bullets grow on trees? ‘Nuf said.
Point # 5 – How is it that you’re privy to the “word on the street” in Blacksburg, and what makes that word credible?
# of dead in VA….33
# of innocent civilian dead in Iraq…(conservative est,) 68,000
I’ll leave it to all of you smart people to make sense of this.
My father was at a barber shop just off campus during the UT shootings, he called home to give us updates. Officer Martinez came to our house when I was a kid. I can’t remember why he came over, but I remember meeting him.
..and chicken little:
When Bush takes his show n the road tomorrow, his message to teenagers:
fear for your lives.
The Detroit News reports:
White House spokesman Alex Conant said Bush will tell the audience that “the consequences of failure in Iraq would be death and destruction in the Middle East and here in America.”
Pathetic.
Just of general interest.
http://www.livescien…