The Democrats are doing it again. They are picking a single issue to focus on at the expense of building broad, national support. I am shocked to read about the outrage among many progressive and Democratic politicians and voters that the evil Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, this is the sort of issue that perpetuates Republican strength among voters, many of whom would be happy to vote for moderate Democrats -- except that they want to keep their guns.
The real issue is the right to self-defense, not the tool itself. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention "guns". Even a Taser would be a good thing to have, but the anti-gun people seem to hate Tasers too. Non-lethal self-defense is best because it will minimize lawsuits. But the point is being able to defend oneself against those who would impose their will by force.
I get the idea that the politicians who favor disarming The People are very comfortable with their own level of armed police protection and the cover provided by their wealthy neighbors, many of whom are likely very heavily armed.
Mary Ann M.
Really? You say half of Democrats are outraged over this? How disappointing.
I haven't yet seen the outrage over this ruling, but that's probably because we don't have a Google news alert set up for the Second Amendment. I do listen to a lot of liberal talk radio, but I'm always a few days behind 'cuz I listen by podcast, and I'm still listening to Wednesday. Here in Madison, America's most liberal city, our progressive paper, the non-profit CAPITAL TIMES, editorialized that it was a constitutionally appropriate decision.
Of course, the paper is right and you're right and I enthusiastically agree -- you don't have to be a gun nut to recognize that human beings have an innate, inalienable right to defend themselves. In a society where all the criminals and cops have guns, you and I have a right to own guns as well. This was a rare moment of sunshine for a generally cloudy Supreme Court.
Helen & Harry
I think the best thing for close-up self-defense is a 20 gauge shotgun, but there is a lot to be said for having a full kit of non-lethal tools: taser, shockbox, pepper spray, and self-defense training.
I understand why many people are anti-guns: they don't like the idea of having to be afraid of walking out of their house and getting picked off. There area lot of people who get crazy these days, and if everyone were armed 24/7 we would experience a societal "Darwin" period -- probably lasting a few years, while the assholes go extinct. :-)
After that we would be very polite to each other...
Excerpt: Barack Obama intensified his campaign to appeal to voters on the life-and-death issues of the American heartland yesterday by stepping away from his past support for gun control.
In the latest in a series of policy reversals for the Democratic presidential candidate, Obama came out in support of yesterday's Supreme Court decision overturning a gun ban in the city of Washington that had been a model for fighting urban crime.
He had previously supported the Washington ban, the strictest in the US.
It was the second time in 24 hours that Obama had shifted towards a more conservative position. On Wednesday, he took issue with the Supreme Court for striking down the death penalty for cases of child rape that do not involve murder.
First of all Obama is not even as liberal as LBJ... never was. So this should come as no surprise. Now this that being said, I find it curiously interesting that those dip shits that are so vocal about "gun rights" are the same Neanderthals that also spew out "my country... right or wrong"... "you're either with us or against us" in one breath and justify their "right" to own guns with the argument that the need them to protect themselves from the self same government they so strongly support. That's right. They support and back the government to the hilt, unless of course it sends someone down to interfere with their business. Then they want the right to blow the SOBs head clean off.]
Excerpt: Martian soil appears to contain sufficient nutrients to support life -- or, at least, asparagus -- NASA scientists believe.
Preliminary analysis by the $420m (£210m) Phoenix Mars Lander mission on the planet's soil found it to be much more alkaline than expected.
Scientists working on the spacecraft project said they were "flabbergasted" by the discovery.
The find has raised hopes conditions on Mars may be favorable for life.
Oh God... no wonder there's no intelligent life there. Asparagus has to be one of the most vile vegetables there is. It tastes worse than it smells and it smells worse than stale farts.
Chris M.
Different strokes for different folks, but asparagus is yummy gently simmered in margarine and a dash of seasoning salt. I wouldn't want asparagus grown on Mars, though.
So are you annoyed about the Supreme Court's ruling on gun rights, or just annoyed by the gun nuts?
Helen & Harry
Actually, it's more the gun nuts. As far as gun rights themselves, I'm really neither here nor there. I think their argument does not hold water for a number of reasons. Most of all because any "brown shirts" that one would want to stand against are merely the tentacles of the beast. Cut them off and they just grow back. It's the head of the beast you need to kill and it would take more than a few hyped up people with "pop guns" to perform the task.
Chris M.
I'm concerned about defending my self, my home, and my loved ones from ordinary free-lance crooks. For that use, the Second Amendment still comes in handy.
But the notion of using guns against official, government-backed crooks, yeah, I have to agree, that's mostly a pipe dream. With just about every American police department more heavily armed than a Japanese battalion during World War II, the unpleasant reality is that any time the cops want you dead, you'll be dead. Being armed would just delay the inevitable, and perhaps allow the well-armed civilian to take down a few of the aggressors, à la Waco.
Ma'am, the problem with the justice system today (well, one of the problems at any rate) is not the gender or particular mindset of those who put the laws to paper but the separation of the judge, jury, and prosecution from the context in which laws are broken.
We've developed a preference for a 'cut and dried' approach to crime and punishment and many of those who honestly wear either the badge or the robe believe their hands are tied by what is written into law.
No matter what else happened there is the flat and unpleasant fact that the girl had engaged in sexual relations with a minor. When you think about it, the boy might well have claimed upon confrontation that she raped him and it becomes a matter of he said/she said that can only be resolved once the trial is underway. When laws to protect children from sexual predators were written nobody was expecting the children to be the sexual predators.
At its base it appears absolute and inflexible, but laws do not take extraordinary or utterly bizarre circumstances into account at the time they are written and we don't typically have a how-to guide explaining the best way to proceed with such cases. Examples would include people attempting to commit suicide ending up accomplice to their own murders and people being in possession of stolen property when it was theirs to begin with. Look around, you'll find all kinds of craziness.
Common sense has lost its place in the automated society we've created for ourselves and that's what really needs fixing. When we've got that back it will be easy for any lawyer or judge to look over the facts of the case and call bullshit.
If I were tramping through the forest and happened upon a bear, chances are good that I will survive the encounter. But if it is a momma bear with a cub, chances are good that I won't survive. Momma bear has an animal right to do whatever she needs to do to protect her young as does every animal on this planet... except for humans. I think parents have an animal right, a divine right, to kill anyone who threatens their young. You and others may believe in letting law and order prevail. I believe the law, like a lot of things, has become too polluted and convoluted.
Like this debate on the 2nd amendment. I personally have never been without weapons. I believe I have an animal right to defend myself, not to wait for the police to fill out a report after the fact and maybe the universe will line up in such a way that the offender will go to jail for awhile. I have one life. Justice after the fact doesn't do me any good. Same for the children who lose their childhoods and the women raped a second time by a callous male dominated legal system. What is the spirit of justice after all? To simply prevent the next crime or to have the offender pay for what they did?
MonkeyMan
I love a good argument, so I'm eagerly hoping somebody will write in and tell me how wrong the Supreme Court's decision on the Second Amendment was. I think it's a landmark of uncommon good sense, and I'm hoping it'll finally quell what seems to me the false but widespread worry that liberals want to confiscate everyone's guns. I haven't met more than a handful of liberals who are adamantly opposed to gun ownership rights, but I hear the stereotype at least several times weekly...
And speaking of a good argument, we may be on the verge of one. Let me see if I grok where you're coming from:
You see a predator coming after a kid, and to defend the kid you claim the momma bear's right to kill. I don't have any problem with that -- squeeze the trigger six times and empty your gun in the predator's head, and I'll pat you on the back. If the prosecutor charges you and I'm on the jury I'll vote "not guilty" with an exclamation point.
But I'm not sure I'm correctly catching your implications. Are you claiming the same right to kill, even after the danger has passed and the perp is arrested and turned over to the "callous male dominated legal system"? Are you telling me your Momma bear's rights are extended in perpetuity, and you have the right to pull a Jack Ruby and plug the alleged perp before, during, or after his trial or imprisonment?
Helen & Harry
But to my way of thinking it fits.
The psychopaths who rape children or anyone aren't one hit wonders. There is a serial pattern that escalates. If you kill one of these psychos you save the next person that would be attacked. So life in prison, death, or a medical alteration to make them safe to be around people, any of these would make me happy.
I am very liberal on most issues until it comes to crime. Remember that I served as an MP in the Army. I was in a combat support unit, so I did mostly soldier stuff with a little police work in between. I am cursed with permanent images of children whose parents did unspeakables to them. So I know that I may lean toward the unreasonable when it comes to this issue.
OK. That's enough. I'll try to lighten up a little. Ya'all have a great weekend.
Excerpt: A quarter of the entire adult population of the United Kingdom will be mandated to pass a state check operated by a newly formed government agency to have any physical contact with children under the age of 16 in public -- including their own kids.
The U.K. and the U.S.A. are competing with each other to see which country has the most asinine leadership. We're still #1, but the Brits are working hard to catch up.
SirJ
I want one of those foam rubber fingers people wave at ball games, "We're number one!" The Brits can try and try, but the US sets the pyrite standard.
There's an annoying interstitial ad here, which when skipped then sends you to the home page rather than the article linked. BUT...clicking your back button takes you to the article.
Our front page is free from nudity and profanity, but interior pages and external links may not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want
it published, say so plainly. Of course, we publish all incoming hate mail.
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication.
We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong.
But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else.
When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever.
If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread.
If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
YOU CAN HELP
We try not to whine too much or too loudly, but we are poor and this site eats a lot of time
and especially money. Just a buck or two can make all the difference and help keep Unknown News alive.
