How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Circus in Tucson   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Circus in Tucson

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


50 posted 01-15-2011 03:48 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

quote:
In 1776, Uncas, there weren't any state laws because there weren't yet any states


I stand corrected  Ron, they weren't called states at the time, they were called colonies.

The thirteen colonies - independent entities that became the first states - each had their own laws based on English law and the colonists all had the right to bear arms as laid out in the English bill of rights.

Better?

  

My point was that the proto-states restricted rights by the application of laws before 1776.

quote:
Three hundred years later, the state laws STILL don't supercede the Constitution.


I agree, constitutional law supersedes state law where state law acts to contradict the Constitution.

The devil though is in the detail. The constitution laid out the broad bullet points but the devilish detail of implementation, the real power, was handed to the states to deal with by enacting state law. Which could also be why the constitution is a little bereft of detail.

If the motor car existed in 1776 there might have been a "right to drive a car" clause but the states would have been responsible for creating their own laws filling in the precise details. Details like how old you had to be to own a car, whether you needed a permit or license to drive one and also when that right could be removed or suspended - if you were mentally incapable for instance or had a history of reckless driving.

These restrictions could be tested by the supreme court, which would look at the bullet point of the constitution and determine if the framer's intent was being contradicted by removing the right of a mentally incapable person to drive a car. I think the result of such a test would conclude that the state law was constitutional.

If a state law resulted in mentally incapable people driving on the highways and byways of America I'm guessing that most people would see the sense in changing the state laws to reduce the chance of it happening. As in the above example I don't believe that enact such laws would contradict constitutional law. So why the hullabaloo about trying to ensure that mentally unstable folk don't get to carry guns. I don't see a difference.

Sure there's a possibility that the definition of "mentally unstable" is hard to define and that the sliding scale of who is, and who isn't, mentally unstable could be open to abuse. Which I think is your point, and it's a very relevant point. That's not to say that we can't build a system that also reduces the possibility of abuse - it is after all what the framers of the constitution intended.

  

[This message has been edited by Uncas (01-15-2011 04:42 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


51 posted 01-15-2011 03:50 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Denise:

quote:

The Raw Story's Headline mischaracterized Humphries statements



L.R.:

quote:
Why should that matter Denise?


Mischaracterizing someoneís remarks by stating that they said something that they didnít say is not only shoddy journalism but a lie as well. Thatís why it matters.

I donít find the denials of the White House credible.  There is documentation that the slogan was one from the 2008 Obama campaign, which was shown in the link that I provided. Obama/Team Obama holds the intellectual property rights to it. Permission to use it would have to have been obtained for its use and the venue in which it was to be used, I would believe. I donít think that the University just went ahead on their own and decided to co-opt it without permission to put on t-shirts that would be handed out with the President in attendance.

Denise:

quote:
Truly profane. They have no shame and not a shred of common decency.


Ron:
quote:
Okay, you didn't like it. Why not say that instead of blowing it up into something much, much worse? Why not berate what was done instead of ending your post with a gross exaggeration of the people who did it?


I donít see that I did that, Ron. What was made of the event was profane to the memory of those who died and those responsible for it being profane exhibited that they had no shame and no decency when it came to turning a memorial service into essentially a pep rally. With the exception of this one and the Wellstone Memorial, all that I have seen have been solemn and respectful, with the focus solely on the departed and the bereaved, which is supposedly the point of having a memorial.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 01-15-2011 04:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Right, Denise. Anyone who thinks that the University taking the bullet for the White House by declaring it was all their idea is deluding themselves. It is much more reasonable to acknowledge that the White House worked hand in hand with the University in every step of the planning of the event. The Truth-O-Meter could use a little maintenance.
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


53 posted 01-15-2011 04:19 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

Moonbeam- My reply to you was as respectful and to the point as I could possibly make it, and yet, it seems that I am not afforded that same courtesy?
A bit ago, you might remember, this forum was sealed for your protection against the likes of m,yself and others who were resorting to derision and snide comments instead of respect and understanding. Unless this is your intention, which I do not believe, I tend to be a bit confused about your reply to me.
Please, in the interest of total fairness, allow me to restate my response so that it might not be as confusing as I musthave made it before:

No, my dear 'beam, there are no weapons that are safe once the trigger has been pulled 5-7 pounds to the rear and the firing pin has hit the primer of the round in the chamber. It is simply not possible.
As I explained further down in my post, there are ways to enable the weapons to be as safe as possible until that point:
1) All of the weapons are locked in a closet that is in my room, and is blocked by my Marine Corps footlocker
2) Each weapon is in it's own LOCKED case
3) Each weapon has a trigger lock
4) Each weapon has the firing mechanism (the firing pin) removed from it and they are all stored in a location away from the weapons
5) The ammunition is stored away from the weapons and the firing pins

In order for any of these weapons to be fired, you are going to have to go through an extensive process in order to make them able to fire. you have to be knowledgable enough to know how to take them apart, put the pin in them, and put them back together.

Aside from traveling to Mordor and throwing them into the Mountain of Doom, can you tell me of anyway to make them safer?

And as for "killing yourself a few animals"...
It's legal, it's ethical, it helps maintain the population of the animals that would otherwise starve in the winter months without enough food, and I use the animal to feed my family, and to put into the local economy...
Which part of that are you objecting to? The part where I am able to put meat on the table for myself, my girfriend, and our combined 6 kids more economically than going to the store and buying a pot roast? The part where I am putting food on the table that is healthier than the stuff in the store with chemicals and hormones, and other such in it? The part where I am giving the animals a chance for survival- I can always miss them- over forcing them to live in pens until someone comes along with a .22 and shoots them in the head at point blank range?
Respectfully, just exactly what is your objection to me having the skills and the ability to feed my family legally, morally, and ethically?

Just thought I would ask.

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


54 posted 01-15-2011 06:00 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Mischaracterizing someoneís remarks by stating that they said something that they didnít say is not only shoddy journalism but a lie as well. Thatís why it matters.



Gee Denise, let's see how you feel about these: http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/002061.html


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 01-15-2011 06:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So pointing a finger in another direction is supposed to provide some justification? If you want to go back and discuss those topics, LR, perhaps another thread would be in order. I don't see where that has anything to do with the topic at hand. We are trying to stick to the topic at hand, are we not?

( I would actually enjoy a thread on those "death panels" your link refers to, in light of current event.)
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


56 posted 01-15-2011 06:15 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Um.  Mike. In case you didn't notice -- I posted those in another thread.  That's where the link takes you.  To, another thread.

LOOK -- here it is again:
http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/002061.html

another THREAD
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


57 posted 01-15-2011 06:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That's fine, LR. Then, if you want to make references to those points, there's a thread available for you to do so. They have nothing to do with this topic.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


58 posted 01-16-2011 01:35 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I agree -- that's why I posted them in another thread.

But what does have bearing is WHY does it matter Denise?  What difference does it make?  I'm not talking about the morality of skewing someone's words here -- I'm talking about outcomes.... what happens?
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


59 posted 01-16-2011 07:02 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

"One must assume, moonbeam, that your main purpose of such a comment is to insult and irritate."

You can assume what you like Mike, but it's actually an outpouring of frustration mixed with some serious points. My bad no doubt.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


60 posted 01-16-2011 07:05 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Ringo

Sorry if I came over insulting, you are right, I didn't mean to be, I just find the whole issue of guns and killing very, umm, "stirring".  Nothing else but this topic would have got me back here posting at all.

Apologies, again.  I'll try and frame a calmer response to your latest post when I'm less pressed for time, later, tomorrow or Tuesday.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


61 posted 01-16-2011 09:08 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

OK, Denise, please explain why truth matters...and do it disregarding morality, of course. One must assume that lying is acceptable if the liar gets the outcome it desires?  Does that fly in Philly?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


62 posted 01-16-2011 01:25 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Gee, that's a tough one, Mike. I don't think it really can be separated from morality, since the desired outcome of the lie can't be separated from morality either.

The headline (the lie) put words into the mouth of someone. It isn't revealed what he really said until I think the sixth paragraph. The intent of the lie (the headline) was to create the false impression that the subject of the article was blaming the congresswoman for her own shooting, giving fodder for the left (some of whom may not have bothered reading through to the sixth paragraph) to defame the subject of the article, putting him, and by extension, the tea party groups and conservatives in general, in a bad light.

Defense of such tactics can only fly with people who adhere to a philosophy of relativistic morality, the 'ends justify the means' type of thinking.

And yeah, we have them here in Philly too!

Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


63 posted 01-16-2011 01:51 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

I agree - the headline was misleading.

The speaker's point was that Giffords obviously wasn't worried about any risk otherwise she wouldn't have turned up at the event - not that turning up and putting herself in harm's way was evidence that she only had herself to blame.

The point he was trying to make doesn't make any sense but neither does trying to characterise it as something it isn't.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


64 posted 01-16-2011 02:52 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

His point was that if she were truly worried she wouldn't have shown up at the event without a security detail.

That seems like a logical point to me.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


65 posted 01-16-2011 03:44 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


It sounds like a guess to me Denise, and not a particularly good one.

It's a fair assumption that politicians are aware that the decisions they make and the views that they hold makes them a target for violence, even without additional heated rhetoric from their political opponents. History is littered with tragic examples to remind them. To a politician it's an occupational hazard that they have to live with, yet most of them, in a bid to be accessible to their constituents, don't wander around in tanks or surrounded by bodyguards.

That's day to day Denise. If something changed to increase the risk they'd presumably reassess the situation on a case by case basis. When the risks outweighed the possible benefits they'd make appropriate changes to minimise those risks.

That's not to say that if they don't hop in a tank and surround themselves with bodyguards they don't think the risk has increased, it simply means that they're brave enough to accept that risk and to carry on as normal.

I don't know if any of that is true in Giffords case Denise, it's just a guess. Then again neither does the person who tried to claim that she didn't feel that the remarks against her increased the risk of an attack, based on the evidence that she decided not to turn up in a tank.

She may just as easily have decided that the increased risks were outweighed by the benefits.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


66 posted 01-16-2011 04:19 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

He was just giving his opinion, that's all. I guess people have a tendency to offer their opinions when asked for them by the press.

I'm personally surprised that she didn't have any security at all, though. Any event that I have ever attended here in Philadelpha,in Delaware and D.C., there were always security types, at least lurking in the crowd and on the perimeter. Maybe the mindset regarding security is different here than in Tucson, I don't know. I think it would have been wise for the local law enforcement to have some sort of detail assigned to the event, whether she requested it or not.

Any so-called heated political rhetoric, from either side, had nothing to do with the tragedy. They guy was a nut with a delusional vendetta against Giffords going back to 2007.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


67 posted 01-16-2011 06:28 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Any so-called heated political rhetoric, from either side, had nothing to do with the tragedy. They guy was a nut with a delusional vendetta against Giffords going back to 2007.

The guy was indeed a nut, Denise (though almost certainly not legally insane). He was a loaded gun and it was only a matter of time before that gun was discharged. However ...

Something or someone caused that loaded gun to be pointed in a pretty specific direction. I don't think it's unfair to explore why that particular direction was chosen or why it was chosen now. When the nut cases shift their focus from post offices and McDonald's to our elected officials, you can be fairly certain there's a reason for it.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


68 posted 01-16-2011 06:59 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Even he doesn't know what motivated him, most likely. One of his friends related that he had a serious grudge against her since 2007 because she didn't answer one of his questions 'correctly' and that it was festering in him since then. Who knows? Maybe he did it because the sun was shining that day.

Asking questions is fair. What wasn't fair was the assault by the media on the right, attempting to make them accessories to murder for exercising their right of political expression in disagreeing with the policies of the current administration. People can't live their lives worrying whether something they say in disagreemnt with the government may set off a madman. It would be a futile exercise, anyway, when nothing or anything could set them off.

If it weren't so hard to have adults with mental illness commited against their will, we would have less tragedy caused by them, in my opinion. But the answer isn't in putting the rest of us in straight-jackets for fear of setting off a lunatic.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


69 posted 01-24-2011 01:12 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

"They was a brave on a ridge, against the sun. Knowed he stood out. Spread his arms an' stood. Naked as morning, an' against the sun. Maybe he was crazy, I don't know. Stood there, arms spread out; like a cross he looked. Four hundred yards. An' the men--well, they raised their sights an' they felt the wind with their fingers; an' then they jus' lay there and couldn' shoot. Maybe that Injun knowed somepin. Knowed we couldn' shoot. Jes' laid there with the rifles cocked, an' didn' even put 'em to our shoulders. Lookin's at him. Head-band, one feather. Could see it, an' naked as the sun. Long time we laid there an' looked, an' he never moved. An' then the captain got mad. 'Shoot, you crazy bstrds, shoot!' he yells. An' we jus' laid there. 'I'll give you to a five-count, an' then mark you down,' the captain says. Well, sir--we put up our rifles slow, an' ever' man hoped some-body's shoot first. I ain't never been so sad in my life. An' I laid my sights on his belly, cause' you can't stop a Injun no other place--an'--then. Well, he jest plunkered down an' rolled. An' we went up. An' he wasn' big--he'd looked so grand--up there. All tore to pieces an' little. Ever see a cock pheasant, stiff and beautiful, ever' feather drawed an' painted, an' even his eyes drawed in pretty? An' bang! You pick him up--bloody an' twisted, an' you spoiled somepin better'n you; an' eatin' him don't make it up to you, 'cause you spoiled somepin in yaself, an' you can't never fix it up"

John Steinbeck - Grapes of Wrath

Ringo

I haven't got time for a long explanation right now, but that passage begins to sum up what I feel about guns and the way they tend to degrade humanity.

Best

R
Daddy Goose38 will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Circus in Tucson   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors