Im taking my first look at my gradproject in a long time. Heres a fun picture.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
John A. Noble's trial
Please read the articles so you know what I am talking about:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_585805.html
http://kdka.com/politics/John.Noble.Noble.2.1085210.html
The article explains pretty much everything; he was arrested for carrying a gun near the Obama rally. Some people might think that makes sense but that would mean they don’t know that carrying a gun is not against the law. Open carry is legal in Pennsylvania and the fact that he was close to an Obama rally isn’t even relevant. He didn’t try to take the gun where it was not allowed. He didn’t take the gun out of its holster at any point. They are saying he was causing a disturbance but those who found it disturbing are ignorant, and didn’t know that people legally carry guns for self defense all the time. They are saying he shouldn’t have taken the gun to the rally and I say welcome to America. He eventually was proven inocent but the fact that this whole thing even happened shows how differently people interpret the Bill of Rights
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_585805.html
http://kdka.com/politics/John.Noble.Noble.2.1085210.html
The article explains pretty much everything; he was arrested for carrying a gun near the Obama rally. Some people might think that makes sense but that would mean they don’t know that carrying a gun is not against the law. Open carry is legal in Pennsylvania and the fact that he was close to an Obama rally isn’t even relevant. He didn’t try to take the gun where it was not allowed. He didn’t take the gun out of its holster at any point. They are saying he was causing a disturbance but those who found it disturbing are ignorant, and didn’t know that people legally carry guns for self defense all the time. They are saying he shouldn’t have taken the gun to the rally and I say welcome to America. He eventually was proven inocent but the fact that this whole thing even happened shows how differently people interpret the Bill of Rights
Monday, July 13, 2009
The 2nd Amendment
“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”
What do you think that means? Some people think it does not cover any individual’s right but a collective right that refers to police/military. The rest of us can say that if the Bill of Rights consists of individual freedoms, this one is no exception. That comma causes some confusion.
There are 2 different points in the 2nd amendment:
1. A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state [COMMA]
This is true; we need a military to defend our country and we need police to enforce our laws. Regulated- Meaning well equiped. Not as in limitations.
2. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
They say the people for a reason. It was written by our founding fathers, who at that time were the people. They just fought for 2 years against a state militia (the British) and they knew that our independance would have been impossible if they did not have the arms needed to fight the militia. They knew that a time like that would come again eventually, so they guaranteed the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms incase they had to do it again.
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance"
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
- George Washington
What do you think that means? Some people think it does not cover any individual’s right but a collective right that refers to police/military. The rest of us can say that if the Bill of Rights consists of individual freedoms, this one is no exception. That comma causes some confusion.
There are 2 different points in the 2nd amendment:
1. A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state [COMMA]
This is true; we need a military to defend our country and we need police to enforce our laws. Regulated- Meaning well equiped. Not as in limitations.
2. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
They say the people for a reason. It was written by our founding fathers, who at that time were the people. They just fought for 2 years against a state militia (the British) and they knew that our independance would have been impossible if they did not have the arms needed to fight the militia. They knew that a time like that would come again eventually, so they guaranteed the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms incase they had to do it again.
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance"
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
- George Washington
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Assault weapons ban
The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and prohibited the sale of some semi-automatic guns that fell under the new term "assault weapons". The assault weapons ban (AWB) targeted specific firearms. Assault weapons have nothing to do with assault rifles or automatic guns, but are guns that have a detachable magazine and meet at least 2 of the criteria mentioned in the ban. The criteria include folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, and threaded barrels. I don’t have the statistics but I’m not sure that bayonet’s are really a problem in this country. All of these things are for the shooters comfort, or cosmetic additions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control schemes, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."
Well of course the AWB didn’t affect crime rate. The guns were still being made legally and sold legally. All manufactures had to do was change the name of the guns and sell them without a threaded barrel. These guns look almost identical and performed exactly the same. After the ban was passed the AR-15 became the XM-15, and the tec-9 became the AB-10. The gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress tried to ban in 1994. For this, they were criticized as attempting to circumvent the spirit of the law by many gun control groups and even president Clinton. Pro-gun groups responded by pointing out that the manufacturers made and sold exactly what was permitted, and that they could not be held to any standard higher than the law itself.
Don't support another AWB. Why ban guns because they have a lot of crap on them that has nothing to do with crime rate?
This dudes not killing anyone...
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control schemes, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."
Well of course the AWB didn’t affect crime rate. The guns were still being made legally and sold legally. All manufactures had to do was change the name of the guns and sell them without a threaded barrel. These guns look almost identical and performed exactly the same. After the ban was passed the AR-15 became the XM-15, and the tec-9 became the AB-10. The gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress tried to ban in 1994. For this, they were criticized as attempting to circumvent the spirit of the law by many gun control groups and even president Clinton. Pro-gun groups responded by pointing out that the manufacturers made and sold exactly what was permitted, and that they could not be held to any standard higher than the law itself.
Don't support another AWB. Why ban guns because they have a lot of crap on them that has nothing to do with crime rate?
This dudes not killing anyone...
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
and IM BACK!!!
Well I didn’t get anything done over break. This trimester is about to end and I still have not done any work on my grad project but I have been keeping track of the possible "Assault Weapons ban part II!" After all this time away from my grad project, coming back to it I realize that my position could be taken the wrong way by some if it is not explained.
I support the lawful ownership of firearms of all types for many reasons. I am against the unlawful sale and possession of illegal firearms. The main point I want to make is gun crimes are committed by criminals. Gun laws obviously target the law abiding. A criminal isn’t going to acknowledge a gun law anymore than they will acknowledge laws against armed robbery or murder. I have no reason to disagree with a law that calls for stricter penalties for gun offenders; this is in fact one of the alternatives to gun control. Getting illegal guns off the street is much different than keeping guns from an otherwise defenseless citizen. That a difference many fail to recognize.
If the anti-gun nuts get their way, who will be left with the guns? The criminals and the police; I’m not a violent person but honestly I would rather shoot someone than die with a phone in my hand trying to call the police.
I support the lawful ownership of firearms of all types for many reasons. I am against the unlawful sale and possession of illegal firearms. The main point I want to make is gun crimes are committed by criminals. Gun laws obviously target the law abiding. A criminal isn’t going to acknowledge a gun law anymore than they will acknowledge laws against armed robbery or murder. I have no reason to disagree with a law that calls for stricter penalties for gun offenders; this is in fact one of the alternatives to gun control. Getting illegal guns off the street is much different than keeping guns from an otherwise defenseless citizen. That a difference many fail to recognize.
If the anti-gun nuts get their way, who will be left with the guns? The criminals and the police; I’m not a violent person but honestly I would rather shoot someone than die with a phone in my hand trying to call the police.
-Peace
picture found at: http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=6519
Friday, April 3, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Some Quotes
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -- Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942.
You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. - Rush Limbaugh, in a moment of unaccustomed profundity 17 Aug 1993
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
