's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Liberal media bias(65 posts)

Liberal media biasBikingViking
Feb 4, 2002 10:43 AM
It would appear the liberal media slant has been at it again. I have recently discovered that the Appalachia Law School shooting was finally thwarted by students who had retrieved legal pistols from their cars, confronted the deranged shooter and subdued him. There was no mention of this in the media (Foxnews included), barring the Richmond, VA and Charlotte, NC local papers. The esteemed John Lott wrote a NY Times article about this omission of fact. What else is being withheld from the public?

I know the Internet is rife with misinformation, but if I can find such news at more than one source and they are reputable sources, I take it for its worth.


Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A militia of one?PdxMark
Feb 4, 2002 11:03 AM
Folks citing the second amendment as supporting individual gun rights always seem to overlook the reference to a militia, such as a state militia, which was the historical context in which the Bill of Rights was written.

Any comments on how to interpret the second amendment to reconcile the explicit reference to "militia" with individual gun rights?
two different thingsDog
Feb 4, 2002 11:46 AM
The 2nd Amendment says that those two things shall not be infringed, the militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. To read it as some do, that the arms are only for the militia, would be superfluous - as a militia necessarily implies the use of arms.

2nd Amendment: obsolete?weiwentg
Feb 4, 2002 12:10 PM
as I understand it, the writers of the Constitution wanted people to be able to bear arms so that if a tyranny arose, it could be overthrown. in modern days, with a large state-controlled army, that simply is not possible - not in the U.S. anyway. non-violence is a better option ...
anyway, in Singapore, firearms are outlawed. you can't even bring air guns in. and it's a hell of a lot safer ... perhaps there is something to be said for outlawing firearms.
Feb 4, 2002 12:26 PM
In a practical sense, especially with regard to the federal government, it may be. We are simply out-gunned. This wasn't the case in the 1700's.

However, on a smaller scale, it may not be. There might still be those areas of the country where some local tyranny might exist.

The law is the law until it is changed, which in this case would require a constitutional amendment. I doubt that will happen.

Don't forget that in many of those "safer" countries, they have extremely harsh punishment for any crime. That alone eliminates a lot of criminals or deters would be criminals. This country is fairly soft on crime, so not only are there more criminal types on the streets, but since there are not enough police to protect everyone, we need our own arms to do so. Unless we adopt draconian laws and punishment to go along with gun bans, it will be open season on law abiding folds.

Also, guns can better equalize a fight where a smaller or weaker person ordinarily would always lose, especially women. Sure, 250 pound lunatics would like nothing better than to be able to terrorize women in their homes and not fear the use of a gun in response.

soft on crime?MJ
Feb 5, 2002 4:09 AM
the US locks up more of its population than any other western country - how is that soft on crime?
soft on crime?Dog
Feb 5, 2002 6:24 AM
In China they shoot you, first offense, for relatively minor crimes.

soft on crime?MJ
Feb 5, 2002 7:36 AM
oh China - the model of humanitarian ideals and social policies - I think they were 'tough with criminals' back in the Dark Ages too - maybe we should look at developed countries
Lose a handMcAndrus
Feb 5, 2002 6:57 AM
In Moslem countries, you can lose a hand for theft. Seems kind of harsh to me and a pretty good deterent too.
Lose a handMJ
Feb 5, 2002 7:39 AM
hey - if you think that's the best wat to deal with criminals and don't enjoy the developed world - move there and enjoy 'low crime rates'
I don't think so...Brooks
Feb 4, 2002 3:27 PM
Granted, the 2nd Amendment is awkwardly worded from a grammatical point of view. However, it is my understanding (and you are a lawyer and can look this up) no court from Circuit Courts, Appellate Courts, and the Supreme Court has ever ruled that the 2nd Amendment allows individual citizens to own guns. And in reading the Federalist Papers, etc. it is clear to me that the framers of the Constitution feared a federal government that was too strong and that states had the right to defend themselves (a well-regulated militia). State militia have evolved into the National Guard. So, if you want to own a gun and abide by the 2nd Amendment then join the Guard! Just like all the draft dodgers during Vietnam.

I don't think so...Dog
Feb 4, 2002 4:40 PM
My cursory search does not reveal an opinion stating that the Second Amendment means that individuals have a right to own guns. However, there is no case stating that it does not mean that.

Speaking of grammatical point of view, check this out:

Sure, it's posted on a pro-gun website, but the linguistic analysis seems fair.

I think the Second Amendment cannot be dismissed on the grounds that militias are not needed any more. That's a pretty complex issue, though. One would have to imagine some extreme circumstances before they would, but then again I can conceive of some.

I don't think so...BikingViking
Feb 5, 2002 5:41 AM
It still doesn't account for the second part of the amendment "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

There is no way to interpret that statement.

The Fifth Ciruit Court of Appeals said the very same thing

While that right can be tailored because of individual criminal activities, law-abiding citizen have the right to defend themselves with firearms.
I don't think so...MJ
Feb 5, 2002 5:55 AM
let's say you're right in your interpretation - though it doesn't address the standard argument that the 'People' gain the right only via a well regulated militia - you can't pick and choose which part you think is best

but if your interpretation is right the point then is whether or not the law should be changed? - is the law moral/effective/ does it have unforseen consequences?

the rest of the developed world doesn't seem to have the same attachment to such a right they also don't have any of the disastrous results
how about muskets?MJ
Feb 5, 2002 3:49 AM
I realise that you think the world is a better place with less health care/public services and more high powered weaponry - it's great so many stereotypes in one person!!

so do you think the illustrious founding fathers (slave owning white guys who didn't want to pay taxes - you shoud get a checkbox to see how much you have in common with them...) meant that any idiot can go out and buy weapons that can take down aircraft?
what about the words?Dog
Feb 5, 2002 6:54 AM
We can only go by the words of the Constitution until it's changed. If we begin interpreting solely based upon historical context, we could come up with just about any desired meaning.

For example, did the founders realize when drafting the First Amendment freedom of speech and press provisions that there would be television, satellite broadcasts, and the internet? Of course not! Therefore, should we interpret the First Amendment in historical context to mean only newspapers and public speakers?

what about the words?MJ
Feb 5, 2002 7:43 AM
when it comes to killing people I'd err on the side of Aristotle's Golden Mean and assume that freedom of speech is not inherently more dasngerous by greater power - whereas weaponry is - by your line of thinking the tyranny of the govt; which you and Bikingviking (isn't he part of the govt?!) think is plausible should be countered by Joe citizen having an aresenal - the logical conclusion of your train of thought is that Joe Citizen ends up with ICBM's... it doesn't work...
re: Liberal media biasDINOSAUR
Feb 4, 2002 11:04 AM
I was watching the local news last night and they had an editorial regarding a Book that a CBS News Journalist had written, "Bias". It pretty much addresses what you said. We are not getting the complete news. Click on and read for yourself:
DUH!~ And you think Rush L is unbiased? (nm)eD lOVER
Feb 4, 2002 11:21 AM
he's not mediaDog
Feb 4, 2002 11:42 AM
Rush isn't media in a news sense. He's an entertainer and commentater. He readily admits to that. He admits to bias. His gripe is that some news people pretend to be reporting objective, unbiased news, when they are not.

Your rightHappy
Feb 4, 2002 11:59 AM
Rush knows he is full of sh@t. The trouble is that most of his listeners think he's telling some sort of truth and fact. Opinions that are presented as facts are not facts.
He is not a NETWORK NEWS commentator (topic of book)NMDINOSAUR
Feb 4, 2002 12:15 PM
re: Liberal media biasbikedodger
Feb 4, 2002 12:28 PM
I read an opinion piece on the book 'Bias' that pointed out how the book itself was biased. People select and cite only facts/rumors that support their personal biases.

re: Liberal media biasXenu
Feb 4, 2002 12:32 PM
Doesn't matter...News comes from everywhere and you can't just claim that some are "offial newscasters" and others are "entertainers". Some people belive that the Weekly World news is honest reporting.
re: Liberal media biasDINOSAUR
Feb 4, 2002 7:00 PM
"People select and cite only facts/rumors that support their personal biases"...I whole heartedly agree..this means the person who wrote the review of the book "Bias" could have been biased?

I think the problem we have is an overkill of information and Networks fighting for ratings instead of just telling the news such as it was in the days of Walter Croncite "The Most Trusted Man In America" (during his tenure).

Now we have access to news at our finger tips on the internet. I recently find myself asking why I am sitting through a whole TV news broadcast when all I have to do is click on the internet or pick up a newspaper. I like reading the editorial responses, they get as heated as internet forums. I find just about all the news shows, network and local, are getting to be dog and pony shows with a bunch of smoke and mirrors, fluff and puff. They are starting to look like episodes of "Current Edition" rather than a news broadcast.

But then again, maybe that's what the American people want. I can only imagine where this all will lead us in about twenty years or so. They now have on the spot coverage, and recently events unfold as we watch.

I'd rather just sit in my comfortable recliner and read the newspaper and drink a cup of joe..

On the other hand you have Geraldo Rivera...(just kidding).

Just rambling...
Some people will believe anything ifnm
Feb 4, 2002 11:47 AM
it suits their agenda. Here are some facts. A quick net search gave me CNN, Washington Post, ABC, CBS and many other stories on the shooting. All those stories say that the gunman was subdued by two students that tackled him to the ground. According to Cathy St.Clair the news editor of the Virginia Mountaineer (the local paper in Grundy where the shootings took place) the shooter was tackled to the ground by two students neither of which had guns. A search of the New York Times shows no articles by John Lott. Mr. Lott happens to be the author of the book "More Guns Less Crime". Mr Lott is NOT a reporter with the NY Times.
what if...mr_spin
Feb 4, 2002 12:04 PM
...while all the tackling was going on, a band of liberals snuck in and stole the guns away? That way, it would look like the tackling students didn't have guns.

Those liberals, not so dumb, huh?

And since liberals naturally are in control, they had John Lott and his family snatched away and killed, then they erased every trace of him from all computer systems.

Those liberals, pretty crafty, huh?

Whenever I hear someone talk about "liberal media bias" I know I can stop listening to what they have to say. Give me a break. It's my automatic buzzword detector turning on. As if there is some global conspiracy. I'll bet I can come up with "evidence" to prove the case either way, which makes the whole thing moot.
There's something I'd like to seeMcAndrus
Feb 5, 2002 7:05 AM
Evidence of a conservative media bias? I'd like to see that evidence.
It's not that hardmr_spin
Feb 5, 2002 8:28 AM
If we can accept the supposed non-coverage of a story as evidence of liberal media bias, it shouldn't be too hard to find evidence of a conservative media bias. If I put enough effort into it, I could probably assemble enough evidence to prove that there is a green party bias. It would be a lie, but all it takes is careful selection and ommission of articles, and targeted interpretation of the results.

That's my whole point. There is no real evidence either way. It's based purely on the reaction of the viewer/reader. If you take a small enough sample (Dan Rather, for instance), you can prove anything you want.

I don't believe the media cares one way or the other. They just want to sell papers.
You're rightMcAndrus
Feb 5, 2002 9:00 AM
Actually, I was trying to be ironic but I failed.
Some people will believe anything ifBikingVIking
Feb 4, 2002 12:09 PM
My bad...the article is in the NY Post, not Times.

I know Mr Lott is not a reporter. His book is based on a thorough of FBI crime statistics. There are those that may argue with his statistical handling, but the 2nd amendment cannot be more clear as to our rights.

It always makes me wonder why people think a person is more trustworthy to handle firearms AFTER they become part of the Government.
re: Liberal media biasBikingViking
Feb 4, 2002 11:48 AM
"Any comments on how to interpret the second amendment to reconcile the explicit reference to "militia" with individual gun rights?"

A militia is a band of loosely organized citizens for common defense.

The CRUCIAL part of the 2nd Amendment is "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It says nothing about the right of the "militia" to keep and bear arms. The "people" are all of us. We are the last line of defense against governmental tyranny. Why would the Founding Fathers entrust the protection of the People against the State, to a State organization (militia)? The National Guard argument won't work either. It wasn't created until the early 20th century (can't remember the specific act/date), so the Founding Fathers weren't thinking of them when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Yes Rush is biased and he is quite open about being biased, unlike other media components. If the rest of the media were so honest, it would be refreshing.

governmental tyrrany?MJ
Feb 5, 2002 6:01 AM
man you must be high or something...

read the above post - you can't pick and choose the sentence - you get the whole thing or nothing

it's not the NG either - they were thinking of groups like the minutemen and volunteers in an organised/regulated militia -they didn't mean the Bikingviking should keep an aresnal in his closet

also - since we're not lioving in the 18th century anymore - maybe we should move with the times and start thinking outside the box - like making some changes to inappropriate parts of the constitution
Constitional changes?Dog
Feb 5, 2002 6:37 AM
Oh, I could propose a few:

*Taxes upon income from any source shall only be levied in equal percentages of income.

*The right of the people to keep and bear small arms shall not be infringed.

*"Cruel and unusual punishments" as provided in the Eighth Amendment shall be defined solely by Congress or by the States.

*The power to regulate or prohibit abortions shall be reserved to the States.

That's a start.

LOL - you'd probably get alot of votes with that platformMJ
Feb 5, 2002 7:47 AM
maybe you could run for Pat Buchanan's party or start your own 'rich white christian guy's party'
He's got my voteMcAndrus
Feb 7, 2002 2:05 PM
But that's probably not a surprise :-)
I'm with you on one thing ...scottfree
Feb 6, 2002 6:17 AM
... trying to intrepret the Constitution with a headful of crack is not advised. "Hell, we'll just dump the first part of that sentence and focus on ..."

HOWEVER, I shudder at the thought of opening up the Constitution to 'modernizing.' Good God. We'd likely end up with worse than even Doug proposes below. (A flat tax and 'Alabama shall be the judge of what's cruel and unusal punishment' in the Bill of Rights?)
I'm with you on one thing ...MJ
Feb 6, 2002 8:13 AM
agreed - those are bad ideas indeed - luckily Dog's platform could only win in a few constituencies - even most conservatives would recoil at those attempts to 'modernise' - the sentiments seem more in line with that film 'Falling Down', the militia, Robert Mugabe and fundamentalist christians who can't read...

reinterpreting/modernizing is dangerous, particularly in the current US political climate - but it seems the right don't want to deal logically with guns - they can't even be intellectualy honest about reading the sentence, much less about the problem

the funniest thing is that Bikingviking who mentioned 'government tyrrany' is in the military!! does that make him a tyrant, confused, or jusy angry with himself?
ah, but do you know the motive?Dog
Feb 6, 2002 8:54 AM
At first blush my proposed amendments look a bit reactionary. True.

I'd also like to banish the death penalty, for many reasons. However, I do not think this will happen as long as people demand vengeance for murders. So, if we removed an obstacle to having meaningful punishment, including life imprisonment under harsh conditions, then people might accept doing away with the death penalty. In other words, leave the power to decide what is "cruel and unusual" to the people via their legislators, not a handful of judges. Make sense?

Funny you mention others not being able to read. Take a look at your post.

Another point was, do you really want to start messing with the Constitution? It's sort of scary. Everyone would want their pet issue addressed. Besides, it is so difficult to amend that only the most innocuous proposals make it any more.

ah, but do you know the motive?MJ
Feb 6, 2002 9:39 AM
judge's are ideal for making such decisions - unless you want mob rule - wasn't that the theory behind the electoral college anyways?

my post seems literate enough... am I missing something? - happy for you to rub my nose in it...

no I agree with you and Scottfree the Constitutuion is a great, flexible document - the difference I have with the pro-gun lobby is that I don't agree with the interpretation of the 2nd amendment - maybe when everyone gets sick of the slaughter the public will demand an end to frontier spirit interpretation that isn't applicable for modern arsenals

if the object is to defeat gov't tyranny you need tanks and missiles - a few guns is just enough to keep the body count up on non-combatants...
Feb 6, 2002 10:40 AM
How many people are in the military? A couple million? If they got really out of control, which admittedly is extremely unlikely, it could be 290(?) million against 2 million. We are talking about weird, extreme scenarios here, but just that possibility might help to keep things in check if some extremist took over and ordered some stupid things. I would think liberals would be just as supportive of individual rights to help keep some extremist government from getting out of control.

By 'individual rights' I assume you mean gunsscottfree
Feb 6, 2002 11:03 AM
and the weird thing is, as an old-fashioned power-to-the-people liberal I tend to agree. I thought it was great when the Panthers carried guns to protect themselves against the government.

My brother and sister liberals tend to forget there have been times in our history when the government (or rather, some agencies within the government) was out to get US.

I know this isn't what Doug meant (doubtful he thinks scary black guys in berets are cool when they tote carbines and wear bandeleros!) but I'm consistent & equal opportunity on this. I think -- gasp -- David Koresh and his little cult in Texas was justified in having weapons to protect themselves against the ATF busting up their religious observances. Seems they were protected by the First Amendment. So I'm in a certain amount of agreement with the real nut-case right wingers on that issue.

Still, preserving the right to own guns on the (remote) premise that you might have to take up arms against a future despotic government doesn't mean a current non-despotic government shouldn't have some minimal licensing requirements/controls over weapons that have only one conceivable purpose -- to kill folks.
government action and inactionDog
Feb 6, 2002 11:26 AM
I agree with a lot of the fundamentals of what you say. I would have hated to have been a black man in the south in the 50's, worried that the KKK would come and get me, and that the authorities would do nothing. Government inaction, or even the inability to protect everyone, is another good argument for permitting us to have the ability to protect ourselves.

Yes, I agree about some controls. Waiting periods and background checks are good ideas. Keep the guns out of the hands of criminals who would use them illegally.

Guns are made to kill things. The vast majority of them, aside from hunting, are for self-defense, not murder, though. I'd be afraid to leave my house over night if I did not know that my wife could help to defend herself if some nut broke into the house. If that means using a gun to kill an intruder, so be it. I'd like to think that the mere possibility of that happening would make some nuts think twice before even attempting it.

Feb 7, 2002 1:26 AM
lots of people site that very reason (self-defence/wife at home alone scenario) for having guns - that doesn't explain the fact that most firearms owned by law abiding citizens are not used against intruders but rather used intentionally or accidentally against members of their own family and themselves

I like the Black Panther & KKK & future & despotic govt analogies - but don't think that's a legitimate justification for anybody to have an arsenal at home = grasping at straws
In fairness to my right wing friends ...scottfree
Feb 6, 2002 9:10 AM
Even though I could be considered on the Left in most political matters, I'm just as scared of my own people when it comes to 'modernizing' the Constitution. Think of the nightmares that would ensue if the lefty commissars of Political Correctness seized control of any Constitutional Convention!

America's America because neither extreme controls the fundamentals. We'd be terrifically worse off if Doug had free rein to rewrite the Bill of Rights. We'd be in an equal pickle if I did. The good old Constitution is right down the middle, and that's where it belongs.
pretty much agreeDog
Feb 6, 2002 9:20 AM
Yes, and it has enough ambiguity to have some built in flexibility over time.

Those guys really knew what they were doing, didn't they?

In fairness to my right wing friends ...scottfree
Feb 6, 2002 9:31 AM
Even though I could be considered on the Left in most political matters, I'm just as scared of my own people when it comes to 'modernizing' the Constitution. Think of the nightmares that would ensue if the lefty commissars of Political Correctness seized control of any Constitutional Convention!

America's America because neither extreme controls the fundamentals. We'd be terrifically worse off if Doug had free rein to rewrite the Bill of Rights. We'd be in an equal pickle if I did. The good old Constitution is right down the middle, and that's where it belongs.
Any chance we could rise above this and talk issues?cory
Feb 4, 2002 11:56 AM
Couple of points:
1. I'm a gun-owning liberal, vote Dem and Green most of the time and taught both my kids to shoot. I know Republicans who are conservative on most issues, but are pro-gun control because they can't ignore 34,000 deaths a year. If you want to solve the problem instead of just ranting about the Second Amendment, how's about avoiding liberal/conservative name-calling and talking about solutions?
2. Regarding the liberal bias in the GOT the story from the media, right? So it WAS printed, and in The New York Times, a newspaper sometimes criticized as liberal. I'm constantly amazed at people who quote "facts" they say the media are covering up, yet they read the story in a newspaper or heard it on television. This isn't hard: IF YOU SAW IT IN THE PAPER, THE MEDIA DIDN'T COVER IT UP.
Common misconceptionMcAndrus
Feb 4, 2002 12:16 PM
It's become the norm for people to say "the liberal media" when they really mean a certain axis of Big Media: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and a few others.

Yes, there are many middle-of-the-road and conversative media outlets and I think their influence is growing and the Big Media influence is waning. But it takes a generation or two for this to become obvious.

And, as a former media guy (a newspaper reporter) I can say two things with certainty: most of the media people are more liberal than the general populace and the one thing media people like is conflict. Conflict sells stories and where there is no natural conflict in a story, reporters will create it.
Any chance we could rise above this and talk issues?BikingVIking
Feb 4, 2002 12:23 PM
For all of the coverage the story got, it's my opinion that omitting such a fact is a bias. Yes I did find it through other media outlets, but why wasn't the COMPLETE story reported by the mainstream media? I am willing to entertain other reasons why the story was incomplete. Any reporters have an insight on this?
Let's see what I can rememberMcAndrus
Feb 5, 2002 7:19 AM
I can't specifically address this story as I haven't followed it. I can speak from my reporter days, which were back in the 70s when I was a reporter on a daily newspaper in Wyoming.

The most important thing we looked for in a story was drama because that's what people want to read about. Natural disasters and accidents provide their own drama. Stories about disputes between persons or groups are not inherently dramatic - particularly at the local level where the dispute is something like a zoning ordnance.

So, a reporter will go out of his or her way to find the conflict in a story. I used to cover stories like zoning changes. It's an extremely boring topic but it gets covered. Imagine your a reporter and you're trying to find conflict in a zoning change? Now there's a challenge.

What I did (and I'm not proud of this) is find someone most people would label a kook and get the kook to render an opinion. The opinion was kookie but the headline would read "Smith Calls Zoning Board Idiots."

Writing stories that way worked then and it works today.

As to the bias question, how does bias works its way into a story? Both explicitly and with sublety.

A few reporters I worked with were openly liberal, would express their liberal opinions, and I could see from the way they slanted the stories, were omitting facts that others would include. Often an editor cannot see this as a newspaper editor is usually too rushed to fact check a story every day. The editor may become suspicious of a reporter but that takes time.

In particular there was one rather comely young lady who openly said her goal was to "bring down the system." Whatever that meant. The last time I saw her she was trying to land a gig with one of the muckraker columnists out of Washington D.C., Jack Anderson. For all I know she's still out there trying to bring down the system.

So, I have personally seen reporters omit facts from their stories. If I were the editor and I saw something an agregious as the gun fact in this story, I'd be having words with my reporter real soon.
re: Liberal media biasTim.
Feb 4, 2002 12:10 PM
I live about 30 miles from where this happened and all of our local papers and news stations reported from the beginning that the two students did retrieve pistols from their cars. Another thing that may not have been mentioned in other papers that these students were off duty police officers.
re: Liberal media biasBikingVIking
Feb 4, 2002 12:30 PM
Good for them! It doesn't matter WHO stopped that rampage, it just shows that a properly armed person can stop a potentially greater tragedy.

The COULD be a rush to judgement saying only the police should have firearms, but there are estimated to be 500,000 to 1,000,000 crimes thwarted each year by citizens simply brandishing their firearms at their assailants. I wonder how many murders are prevented by this each year.

re: Liberal media biasBikingVIking
Feb 4, 2002 12:32 PM
Good for them! It doesn't matter WHO stopped that rampage, it just shows that a properly armed person can stop a potentially greater tragedy.

The COULD be a rush to judgement saying only the police should have firearms, but there are estimated to be 500,000 to 1,000,000 crimes thwarted each year by citizens simply brandishing their firearms at their assailants. I wonder how many murders are prevented by this each year.

Pure speculation with no hard evidence...Brooks
Feb 4, 2002 3:33 PM
that up to a million crimes are thwarted each year compared to the number of innocents "accidently" killed. Granted the statistic I'm going to cite is over five years old, but according to the Justice Department statistics, you are 8 times more likely to have your gun used on someone you know that on a stranger (burglar). Unfortunately, Pandora's Box has long been opened in this country with regards to guns and it would be nearly impossible to close the box up.

You're right - the private use of guns for good IS news!Me Dot Org
Feb 4, 2002 4:06 PM
Really a "man bites dog" kinda thing...
re: Liberal media biasMJ
Feb 5, 2002 3:41 AM
I didn't realise those students were in the National Guard and carrying muskets

maybe they know the same 'liberal media' who helped crucify Clinton

reach out grab hold of those reigns and pull hard - the horses appear to have gotten away from you

hey Scott aren't you a Cop or something - wouldn't it be nice to reduce the amount of guns on the street? or do you and your (other conservatibve) colleagues enjoy getting shot at?
re: Liberal media biasBikingViking
Feb 5, 2002 6:04 AM
I am all for the reduction of guns in the hands of criminals. Instant background checks are a good tool to ensure guns aren't legally sold to criminals. Richmond has a great program where years are added to your sentence if you commit a crime with a gun. Don't misunderstand me...we need to get guns away from CRIMINALS, not law abiding citizens. I just get tired of all the feel-good gun laws that get passed. For example, the proposed "gun show loophole" law is a farce. The Justice Department surveyed a number of criminals in 1997 and 79.8 percent of them got their guns from family/friends/illegally.
re: Liberal media biasMJ
Feb 5, 2002 6:12 AM
any realistic proposals on how to tget the guns from the criminals? feel good gun laws don't help anybody - but neither does the feel good factor associated with the rare use of guns for protection - most often they are used againt family members - blah blah blah - youve heard it before - but feelgood works both ways

and what about my muskets point?
re: Liberal media biasBikingViking
Feb 5, 2002 1:44 PM
Short of using Kristalnacht-type tactics searching every home and confiscating every weapon, we will never get rid of guns. In England, Washington D.C. and NYC, there are very strict laws in place, yet gun crime still occurs. Firearms are used to commit terrible crimes, but they are also used in noble and brave acts, saving the lives of many people each year.

Just because over 50,000 people die on the roads each year does not mean we should ban the automobile. They can be used for both good and bad, but we cannot ban them just because a portion of the population thinks they are bad.

I will entertain the idea of muskets when we all start going back to the horse and buggy. Life and technology moves forward...
just ban everythingDog
Feb 5, 2002 1:57 PM
While we're at it, just ban everything. Ban anything metal, as it could be shaped into a weapon, and requires Mother Earth's resources to produce. Ban farming, as it's unfair to low wage labor, could be controlled by large corporations, uses harmful chemicals, and destroys habitats for wildlife. Ban anything electronic, as it requires electricity, produced by limited natural resources, warming the globe, from dams that destroy rivers, or dangerous nuclear power.

While were at it, ban hunger, ban violence, ban hatred, ban disease, ban natural disasters (no, those are ok), or best of all, just ban people! People are responsible for all Earth's problems, so just do away with them.

Some people just love to ban "things." Things are not bad or evil, some people are. Punish and deter people from doing evil, don't punish the good people.

And death. What's up with that?McAndrus
Feb 7, 2002 8:00 AM
Why haven't we done something about death? I mean, that's really giving me problems with my long term plans. :-)
Obtaining gunsBrooks
Feb 5, 2002 9:10 AM
I think your comment proves the opposite of your veiwpoint. Criminals seem to be getting their guns from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (family/friends/theft). By making guns harder to obtain for everyone, wouldn't the amount of guns in criminal hands go down?
I forgot somethingBikingViking
Feb 5, 2002 6:07 AM
I am a 39 year old Air Force Master Sergeant who drives a 1992 Trek 1200 w/RX100 components.

OOPS! I just put bike stuff in the wrong forum! :o)
I forgot somethingMJ
Feb 5, 2002 6:20 AM
sorry - couldn't remember if you were Police or military