Michael Moore is a Liar and a Fraud.. If you dont believe that check these two web pages.
I Support the US Constitution
First im a lefty. Not a righty. Bush is a liar and a scumbag to make the point clear.
The right to bear arms is about the sovereignty of the individual.
The societies that have banned private firearm ownership have done so not due to a concern for the safety of the individual but rather as a means of control.
This notion goes far back in history, in particular english, chinese and japanese history where only nobility were allowed to own weapons. The major modern examples we have of banning firearms are Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, South Africa (unarmed native africans are much easier to control) et al. In none of these cases was disarmament implemented to protect the citizenry but rather to control the citizenry. Its an easy argument that the black majority in south africa and the jews,black and gypsies in the USSR and Nazi Germany would not have suffered their respective holocausts and enslavement if they had been armed.
The right to bear arms disuades criminal behavior.
A rapist, robber, or murderer is much less likely to attack a person or home which is likely to contain an armed individual. One clear but anecdotal proof of this is the rise of "carjacking" and "home invasion" in heavily antigun California vs the near total lack of this form of crime in the southern and "midwestern" US where gun ownership is common. Those who care to make arguments about population figures might wish to check their census for just how big and advanced southern cities like Miami,Tampa,Atlanta, Nasheville, etc etc are. False arguments are made comparing US murder rates to British murder rates.. usually with false statistics. This argument can be quite easily flipped on its head by comparing Britain to Switzerland.. which has extremely high gun ownership and extremly low crime. However as these statistics stand the junk science of the antigunners on its head they ignore them
The right to bear arms is constitutionally protected and has a long history in the us.
The book which claimed otherwise has been widely and soundly torn to shreds for its junk science. Two particulars are the claims that americans didnt historically own firearms and that the right to bear arms didnt mean what it said. Every reputable historian who has examined the claims has called the claim that americans didnt own firearms junk science. In fact with the exception of large cities like New York and Chicago a major source of food for americans was hunting, along with farming. The claim that the 2nd amendment doesnt protect the individual right to bear arms has been defeated by reputable historians who note that the first phrase .. which is a justification and description.. not a limit.. on the right to bear arms.. was added to the second amendment as a compromise between Monarchists and Democrats. The monarchist fearing an armed population and in fact opposing the idea of democracy altogether. Anyone who cares to research deeper might be suprised to find that not all our founding fathers believed we should be a democratic republic. One might also note that in many states laws which have still yet to be changed declare all males of age to be part of the militia. The national guard is not the militia. The national guard is indeed currently and adjunct of the federal military. The militia at the time of the signing of the Constitution consisted of , in general, all white adult males in the united states. And lastly the phrase has been analysed by professionals in the english language. One particularly memorable analysis i have personally seen was by a linguistics professor who was in fact nonpolitical on the issue. His conclusion was that the first part of the phrase in no way affected or limited the citizens right to bear arms.
The arguments against the right to bear arms are most often racist.
The lastest attacks on firearms ownership are against "cheap guns". And example is the pbs (and washington glitterati) attacks on manufacturers of "cheap firearms". The aim and effect of this is clearly to disarm the poor. And as in america a majority of the poor consist of minorities it makes it pretty clear this is a pretty openly racist strategy to disarm blacks, hispanics et al. If southern (and northern for those of you not versed on real history) blacks had not been systematically denied firearm ownership after 1850 you can bet there would have been many fewer lynchings and many more dead klan terrorists. If german and soviet jews had been armed it seems likely the holocaust would have been much harder and more costly for the nazis to accomplish. One might notice the Black Panthers in the 60's used the right to bear arms to face down police in NY who's aim was to attack and then arrest them. One incident involved police preparing to assault a planned black panther march being met by panthers bearing shotguns and refusing to disarm themselves. If i recall correctly the police simply backed off and the assembly (another constitutional right oft refused to 'unpopular' groups) went on peacably.
The assault weapons ban was exactly the same type of strategy. When people think "assault weapon" they think machine gun. Machine guns have been illegal for private ownership without very special very expensive federal licensing for nearly 70 years in the united states, but the antigun groups attempt to confuse the population into believing this was not the case. The assault weapons ban outlawed things like pistol grips on rifles, flash supressors (which by the way.. dont) etc. Cosmetic items. The difference between a ".308 semiautomatic hunting rifle" a ".308 assault rifle" is typically that the "assault rifle" has a handgrip instead of a stock grip.
The right to bear arms keeps the government in check.
Regardless of ones political persuasion, unless you view a feudal or totalitarian government as a positive development, the fact the citizenry is armed disuades the government from becoming abusive of the people. Whether the danger is right wing fascism or left wing stalinism the danger does exist. The united states was never granted a special dispensation against tyranny by god. Those on the left might consider that we have an unelected president governing us selected by far right judges appointed by his father. Those who worship "unusual" religions such as mormonism, 7th day adventists, atheists, wiccans et al may take note that the racist Randy Weaver's wife and baby were shot through a door by a government sharpshooter for the crime of sawing off a shotgun barrel for $50 at the request of ATF agents. He was targetted because of his repulsive (but constitutionally protected) political views. You might also take notice of the children burned to death at Waco when the ATF served a warrant usually served by a knock on the door resulting in a coupe days in court with literally truckloads of heavily armed and armored agents. They were targetted by the ATF for their unusual religious and political views. It could as easily have been catholics,protestants,southern baptists,wiccans or the religion of your choice. Or the unpopular political group of your choice.
Banning firearms will not in any way lessen the availability of firearms to criminals.
Firearms manufacture is not complex. A mac 10 can be made with simple sheet metal and a few tools available at every home improvement store in the nation. The STEN Mk 2 can be made in under a day with hand tools and is fully automatic. As an experiment several people have made semi-automatic pistols with hand tools, sheet metal, some files, pipe and a drill. The most "complex" part of the operation was, according to one account, the magazine.
Cases such as the LA bank robbery (ala "44 minutes") and the "DC sniper" have been cited as evidence guns should be banned. In fact the weapon in the "dc sniper" case was stolen. In addition to that it was the worst possible weapon for the job. The AR15's 5.56 cartridge is a SHORT range cartridge which becomes inaccurate at about 1/3 of the range of a hunting round. The shots were typically from 100 yards. A hunting rifle in a standard round such as 30'06 is accurate up to around 1000 yards. Did i mention the weapon was stolen and hence illegal. In the LA Robberies every weapon with the exception of the pistols used was illegal. The ak47's were machine guns.. not assault rifles. Full auto weapons are only legal with a special federal license that costs $200 and involves an investigation of the applicant as well as review by local law enforcement. In fact what was actually "dangerous" about hte robbers wasnt the weapons.. it was the body armor they wore. They continued their spree not because their weapons were so effective but that their body armor was so effective at stopping the 9mm pistols the lapd equipped.
Armed citizens deter crime. Unarmed citizens promote it.
There seems to be the idea that if you make guns illegal criminals wont carry firearms because they wont need them. Evidence says the opposite. Two of the most dangerous jobs on the planet are Cab Driver and Convenience store clerk. Very few of either are equipped with firearms yet criminals regularly rob and kill them with firearms. A knife would be just as effective yet they use firearms. Consider the following. A man and woman are alone in a deserted parking lot as she leaves work. The man decides to rape her. If he is armed with a knife, gun, or even his bare hands and she is unarmed she cant resist and will indeed be raped.. losing her dignity, her sense of self, her sense of safety, and probably her ability to have meaningful trustful relationships. If however she is armed with a firearm it is very unlikely she will be raped. The likely scenarios include the rapists death, the rapist fleeing, wounding of the rapist, or holding him for police. None of those scenarios is possible should the victim be unarmed. If she is unarmed and firearms are legal however.. there is always, in the wouldbe rapists mind, the chance that she is armed and thus less chance of his deciding to rape her in the first place. 99.9% of rapist surveyed preferred their victims not be allowed to bear arms.
The police will protect you.
The federal courts recently ruled in fact that the police DO NOT have the duty to protect the individual. They reasoned that it is the job to protect society in general but that the police are not legally obliged to protect individuals. As additional , but anecdotal, evidence for this its not uncommon for it to take 30 minutes to an hour for the police to respond to even the direst of emergency calls, especially in poor urban areas where there is pretty clear evidence the police view response as less critical. The wealthier ,older, and whiter one is the more likely to vote and the more likely to contribute to political campaigns. This isnt anecdotal but statistical evidence. Hence the police are systemically motivated to respond faster and with more force in traditionally white upper class neighborhoods.. where one might note the antigunners dont seem to have a problem with firearms ownership.
Note: Charles Schumer. The man whos made his career on antigun hysteria is accompanies at all times by armed guards. Diane Feinstein.. patron saint of those who want to "save the children from evil guns" herself has a concealed carry permit. Sarah Brady.. another "hero" of the antigunners made a straw purchase of a rifle for her son.. most likely violating federal law. Apparently the laws they would have for the "commoners" arent viewed as binding on the Elite. (One might note it was Feinstein and Brady who wanted the purchase of firearms as gifts outlawed as 'straw purchases'.. only to publicly have Brady's organisation defend her right to make the illegal purchase).
The movies arent real.
Hollywood , while decrying evil handguns deciding to kill people, seems to have a love affair with violence and firearms. If you consider the number of hollywood movies put out in any cycle in which violence is used, particularly firearm violence its pretty striking the hipocracy of arguing movie violence doesnt promote real violence and crime, yet arguing that inanimate tools do cause crime and violence. How many films have you see n this year in which nooone was shot, noone was killed?
The solution to criminal violence is simple. If a person is convicted of a crime of violence you put them in prison and dont let them out. Period. Ever. Legalise drugs and you'll see the end of organised crime, gangs, driveby shootings, the criminalisation of black males, and a 60% reduce in the prison population. We can fill those beds up with those who attempt to harm others.
This was a thought out , calm, rational, factual post and id appreciate it if any responses were likewise. Im truely not interested in screaming fits or those who consider themselves qualified to make divine pronouncements from the mount to us lowly mortals.
One last note. Im a lifelong democrat. A southerner. Ive owned and used firearms since i was a kid. The most disgusting thing i think a person can do is aim a firearm at another. And frankly in my opinion this antigun idiocy is an attempt to rip out a part of the constitution without going through the democratic process outlined in the constitution to do so. Stalin and Hitler followed the same practice. The klan had its own "good ol boy" enforcement of exactly the policies you want. Consider your company in this stance.
Work is Good for You
A friend of mine just said this. Of course its also all you hear from congressmen these days. They talk about the people "sponging off the system". Of course theres the implication "we all know im REEALLY talking about those dark people" but noone actually says it. This in itself is ridiculous.. are you aware that illegal aliens put more into the system than they get out? Are you aware that welfare is targetted at children? Are you aware that most minorities do indeed have jobs, do indeed work all their lives , and do not (indeed) ever commit a crime? But thats not really important. Whats important is it sounds good.
You wont hear these congressmen examining their own lives. Typically supported by an upper class or upper middle class family til theyre in their late twenties. Sent to the best schools with allowances that would make the average factory worker drool with envy. Of course then they have to figure out something to do with their lives. Usually its a nice cushy whitecollar job provided via nepotism.. or they start a business with dads money and.. fail miserably (ref: Bush). It appears its about this time most of them figure out they need a new gig and decide congress is the ticket. With a few frat buddy supporters and daddy's money and connections they get "plugged in". Whereupon they hit the floor of congress running. Braying their vehemence about "hard working americans" ..decrying illegal aliens and the "lazy immoral poor" when theyre not worshipping the "capitalist" hero of the moment. And then introducing bills to hand the "hard working capitalist" a handout. Which is funny because a true conservative free-market believer's ideals are violently opposed to just this sort of interferance with free trade. So we get Bill Gates and Kenneth Lay paraded as "hard working heroes" while Joe working third at the quickymart is .. lazy. Imagine that...
The thing that makes this whole "work ethic" thing almost laughable is that the entire concept of "capitalism".. which actually has nothing to do with free-trade, promises a way Out of it. The whole idea is that capital is easy to access.. allowing the individual or business to borrow money to create new enterprises.. which make the economy grow.. and the entire system work even better. Which pretty much clearly makes the whole point NOT to work. Is there a millionaire somewhere on an island paradise sipping margaritas thinking "MAN if only i could work second shift at lighting factory somewhere" ? I think not. Is there a billionaires grandson sitting at Harvard thinking "this is really immoral i think ill throw away daddies money and try to pay my tuition myself". So lets all just stop this "work will set you free" thing. If it were true jobs in kentucky coal mines would have long lines of people begging to work them for free.
Just a note: i havent "worked" in 5 years. I have my own business. Which at times i spend literally 20 hours a day working at. Other times .. zero. Its not work though.. its an endeavor. Its something i choose to do that provides me freedom, money to survive and satisfaction. A lot of business owners are the same way. But its not work any more than a congressman taking phone calls and eating powerlunches with contributors is. Work is the guy who drives a rig, cooks at a restaurant, works in a factory. You people in washington.. and you right wing businessmen cheering their idiotic lies need to learn to recognise the difference
Gregory Peck, one of the greatest actors of my lifetime has died. He was a brave man, taking roles like To Kill a Mockingbird when many in hollywood were terrified to touch it. He spent his career and life entertaining and enlightening us all and i for one am saddened that we've lost him.
Are you Better off under Bush?. As these graphs show.. Herbert hoover did a Much better job with the economy.. and he presided over the beginning of the Depression (ps Thanks FDR for getting us out of that). Of course if you combine Bush Sr and Bush jr you almost break even on job creation. Using that method combined the two of them created almost as many jobs during their tenure as Bill Clinton did in his first week in office.
And Colin Powell continues to claim there is both evidence and intelligence backing up administration claims the Iraqi's had WMD. Though the Brits, through both their Press and their Government, hold Tony Blair to a much higher standard than the US media and government holds Bush and Cronies.The London Observer reports that MI6 and others have been ordered to examine the supposed "mobile biowar labs" after suggestions that they were actually used to fill artillery weather balloons with hydrogen. Both the US and British administrations still deny this though, ironically, the suggestions actually come from US and British intelligence.. The difference in the levels of press scrutiny in the US vs Europe and the world is brought into stark contrast when one considers a partner in Cherie Blair's law firm has prepared an legal brief contending British involvement in the Iraq war was illegal. A legal position that, if successful could theoretically lead to the prosecution of Tony Blair as a war criminal.
Eric Margolis very clearly and accurately sums up the reasons for the anger at Bush and companies lies. From lying to us, to the use of forged documents, to setting up a "special intelligence office" aimed specifically at creating 'intelligence'.