TPMDC
White House Takes On Gun Lobby's Health Care Reform Attacks
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
You might not necessarily think that health care reform would end up in the crosshairs of the gun lobby. But you'd be wrong. Gun Owners of America have been raging against the Senate health care bill for all sorts of imagined threats to the Second Amendment, and now the White House has taken notice.
What exactly are their concerns? Well, for instance, "Special 'wellness and prevention' programs (inserted by Section 1001 of the bill as part of a new Section 2717 in the Public Health Services Act) would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles -- and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from decreeing that 'no guns' is somehow healthier."
The White House says: "Section 2717 section creates guidelines for insurers to report on initiatives that improve quality of care and health outcomes, and it specifically lists what types of programs would be involved - such as smoking cessation, physical fitness, nutrition, heart disease prevention. There is no mention of guns, and there is no language that could result in higher premiums for gun owners or lower premiums for people who do not own guns."
You can read the gun owners' gripes here, and the fact-check here.
Comments (116) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Ann Arbor
November 24, 2009 1:12 PM
Can't wait to see the NRA's take on cap-and-trade.!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:54 PM in reply to Ann Arbor
They would mistake it for cap and ball...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
November 24, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to JEP07
got treed on that one.
X2
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 11:52 PM in reply to JEP07
Mmmmm. I think Gun Owners of America have made a worthwhile contribution:
Guns and gun owners should be added to that section of the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mike from Arlington
November 24, 2009 1:13 PM
Under Obama, gun rights were expanded when firearms were once again transportable into state parks.
And what does the NRA do? Keep scaring their mindless followers as spokespersons for the gun lobbies to milk them of every penny they have.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 24, 2009 11:28 PM in reply to mike from Arlington
The National Rifle Association is not referenced in the above report. What is the basis for your statement?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mastershake1
November 24, 2009 11:44 PM in reply to Dimensio
You seem to take an uncanny interest in gun threads on Fark and virtually every social media site out there. But you really seem to go out of your way to defend the NRA. Do you happen to work for or have any relationship with the NRA?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 11:53 PM in reply to mastershake1
Either that or he works for the gun industry, for which the NRA is mouthpiece.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 24, 2009 11:58 PM in reply to JNagarya
You are incorrect. I am employed neither by the National Rifle Association nor by any firearms manufacturer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 12:27 AM in reply to Dimensio
Oh, ok. You're just a dupe of their anti-Constitutionalism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 25, 2009 12:43 AM in reply to JNagarya
Please explain your assertion. To what "anti-Constitutionalism" do you refer?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to Dimensio
This is "canned" but sufficent on the point --
1. The Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything, and never has. When one doesn't avoid the Constitution itself, and the legal authority concerning same -- the legislative history, the debates of that which became, as example, the Second Amendment -- one cannot but recognize that the NRA's Second Amendment lie does not withstand informed scrutiny.
The first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution, populated by Founders and Framers, debated and framed the Bill of Rights; this is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, as codified by James Madison; note especially the last clause:
"The right of the people [PLURAL, as in "We the people"; it is not, "We the individual," or, "I the people"] to keep and bear arms* shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated [UNDER LAW, as the Constitution expressly stipulates at Art. I., s. 8, c. 16] militia [NOT "individual"] being the best security of a free country [NOT "individual"]: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY -- drafting persons into the militia was not unknown**] to render military service [IN THE MILITIA/NOT "self-defense"] in person." Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, paper, 1991), Ed. by Veit, et al., at 12.
_____
*The Bill of Rights was drawn from state constitutions/bills of rights adopted during 1776-77, and 1780. The Second Amendment was drawn from the MILITIA clauses of FOUR of those constitutions/bills of rights. The phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was drawn from those MILITIA clauses, and is directly associated with the phrase, as is also seen in the debates, "Standing armies being dangerous to liberty,".
**The Massachusetts-Bay legislature, populated by Founders and Framers, instituted a draft when confronted with "Shays' Rebellion". Congress, populated by Founders and Framers, instituted a draft when confronted with the "Whiskey Rebellion".
_____
OBVIOUSLY, that posited "individual right" is expressly tied to INVOLUNTARY MILITARY SERVICE. As obviously, that is the ONLY posited "individual right" debated as concerned that which would become the Second Amendment. And, as obviously, that posited "individual right" obviously having been VOTED DOWN, the Second has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything.
2. Even if the Second Amendment "protected" an "individual" right -- which it does not do -- it would not "protect" it FROM regulation by means of law, any more than it "protects" the militia, which is obviously within the scope of the Second Amendment, from the express, Constitutionally-stipulated regulation of it at Art. I., s. 8, c. 16. This chronology substantiates that fact:
A. Completion of ratification of the Bill of Rights, and thus of the Second Amendment, occurred on December 15, 1791.
B. SUBSEQUENTLY, the Congress, populated by Founders and Framers, enacted, on MAY 8, 1792, the "Militia Act," implementing Art. I., s. 8, c. 16, which REGULATES UNDER LAW the militia, regardless the fact that the militia is expressly within the scope of the Second Amendment.
3. The individual "right of self-defense" has ALWAYS been regulated -- limited -- by rule of law, because EVERYONE, not only gun-nuts, has not only that same right, but also the RIGHT NOT to be "defended against" by law-illiterate fools who falsely, even deludedly, assume that the entire Constitution consists solely of the out-of-context phrase ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, . . .".
As a matter of law, pointing even an UNLOADED gun at another is the CRIME of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon".
4. As noted, the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was drawn from the MILITIA clauses of four state constitutions/bills of rights. The US Constitution also includes MILITIA clauses, the first of which -- Art. I., s. 8, c. 15 -- stipulates the three purposes of militia, one being enforcement of law, and another "suppressing Insurrections".
The Founders/Framers established a gov't with CIVILIAN control of the military; as Samual Adams, and other Founders said: the military power is always in exact subordination to the Civil Power. And always, including under the Founders/Framers, all military organizations were regulated UNDER LAW. There is no "right" to have an armed criminal gang running around outside the law and shooting AT the gov't/rule of law.
There is, in short, NO "individual" -- or any other -- "right" to "defend against" the gov't/rule of law. That stipulation by itself makes clear that the Founders/Framers were of the view OPPOSITE that of the NRA and the suckers who swallow its anti-Constitutional bilge.
5. Last but not least, to emphasize: it is obvious, except to the profoundly illiterate, and the profoundly dishonest, that the word "people" is PLURAL, exactly as in the first three words of the Constitution: "We the people". It is not "We the individual" or "I the people".
Creating the Bill of Rights, as cited, is in print and available from such as Amazon. Buy it and READ it, instead of ignoring everything that refutes the NRA falsification of the legal history and law -- which NRA falsification is NOT legitimate "scholarship".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
November 25, 2009 3:51 PM in reply to JNagarya
yeah, except the supreme court disagrees with you. next time save your typing fingers for a better function. you just wasted your time. suddenly a liberal wants a strict interpretation of the constitution. go figure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 4:49 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Activist extremist Scalia disagrees with me. And his decision -- which ignores the legal authority: the Constitution, and the debates of those who WROTE the amendment -- can be overturned, modified, or reversed.
He did get it half right, which hamstrings the NRA dupes who were led by the nose to back a dead-end "argument":
In effort to avoid existing regulations of private ownership the NRA falsified the law on the Second Amendment, and fed that to its dupes. Note, by contrast, that the militia, unlike the pprivate individual, is a PUBLIC institution; which means that each is governed by a separate body of law. If need be I can demonstrate, and substantiate, that fact on the constitutional level.
At any rate, the NRA and its dupes:
The idea, ya see, was that the dupes could get out from under regulation of private ownership altogether by sidling into and under the "protection" of the "anti-regulation" Second Amendment.
That idea was based upon the lie that the Amendment "protects" a right to "defend against" gov't/rule of law; a "right of revolution" -- which completely ignores US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 15, which reads in relevant part --
"[Congress shall have the Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections . . . ."
The problem with that "argument" is as I detail -- and substantiate: it is not only false in its assertion that the Second Amendment "protects" a "right of revolution"; it is also false in its assertion that it protects AGAINST regulation of whatever falls within the scope of that amendment.
That assertion is directly refuted by both US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 15 and 16 -- both of which militia clauses obviously apply to militia -- and the reality of the Militia Act of 1792 -- as I detailed. This is US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 16:
"[Congress shall have the Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States [e.g., gov'ts] respectively, the Appontment of the Officers [by the gov't], and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
And the form of the "discipline prescribed by Congress" is? Statutes, in this instance the Militia Act of 1792, which is self-evidently intended to regulate the militia which is obviously within the scope of the Second Amendment.
That false "argument" got crapped on where Scalia got it right: by expressly stating the obvious:
The regulation of the private ownership of guns is in fact constitutional.
It doesn't take too much intellectual strain, or even research in legal history, to realize that regulation of guns -- both in the hands of military forces, and in the hands of private individuals -- goes back to the advent of guns. It's a simple principle and should be obvious, based upon the fact that public safety (and the stability of gov't and laws) trumps individual right:
No sane society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.
So now the gun-nuts -- they have yet to awaken to this fact, deluded that they got away with a pot of gold, when they got instead either shit or nothing -- have not only to contend with the first set of regulations -- that outside the Amendment they were endeavoring to dodge -- but also, now, a second set of regulations through the Amendment.
Got that? Instead of contending with one set of gun control regulations, which is as it was pre-Heller, they now must contend with two.
So instead of swallowing any old "argument," regardless how obviously intellectually dishonest, fraudulent, and false, simply because it says what you WANT it to say, act like an adult -- you know that slogan about being a "responsible gun owner"? -- and go back and read again my statement of the law above.
Then compare that with the claims by the NRA, and Scalia, keeping in mind that the debates by those who WROTE the Amendment -- which the NRA never mentions; and of which Scalia makes no mention -- are the legal authority to which we resort when we want to determine -- ahem -- "original intent".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
November 25, 2009 7:14 PM in reply to JNagarya
put your fingers to better use, i could make a suggestion. you are boring. the law of the land is that citizens can own guns. you don't like that? tough. go to china, i'm sure not many citizens have guns there. you ain't getting my gun, nor is any politician, including hopey mcchange. now what? you gunna respond with another windbag opinion? why not put those fingers where they can do some good? jeez, you are more boring then john kerry and al gore combined. you make scalia sound like he's the only judge on the court. you must be a lawyer, and a bad one at that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 10:23 PM in reply to jjdjjd
the law of the land is that citizens can own guns. you don't like that?
_____
You are an illiterate jackass who doesn't know how to read.
I didn't say that citizens can't own guns, dipshit. I said and substantiated that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything. AS I SHOWED, asshole, the militia and the individual are governed by entirely different and separate bodies of law.
I'll make it real simple: if you aren't a militia, which is not an individual, then the Second Amendment is irrelevant to your status under law.
And yes, I said UNDER law; no one is above the law, including illiterates such as you who don't begin to comprehend the basics of civil society.
Further, gun-nut: no one is after your fucking guns. Here's the reality of why, blithering fool:
The gov't doesn't care about your pop-gun. The gov't isn't afraid of your pop-gun. The gov't has weapons beyond your capacity, up to and including nukes. The gov't can take you out without being in range of your pop-gun.
But go right ahead cowering under your bed with your thumb in your mouth because the gun industry tells you to fear that which doesn't exist: a plot to grab your little pop-gun.
"A system of law, and not of men." -- John Adams.
The STANDARD, law-illiterate jackass, is THE RULE OF LAW, not the NRA's anti-Constitutionalism, and certainly not your inability to comprehend plain English, or your rejection of the rule of law.
If you can't grasp the clear difference between the personal and the standard, the militia and the individual, and insist upon rejecting the rule of law out of hand because to stupid to comprehend it, then you aren't sufficiently responsible to own guns.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law: for my own safety's sake!
-- A man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
November 26, 2009 4:17 AM in reply to JNagarya
thomas more,[st. thomas more in the catholic church] was just like you, a windbag blowhard who indeed would put the devil on trial. just as hopey mcchange is putting the terrorists on trial. me, i would just shoot him[the devil or the terrorists]. then i don't have to worry about you defending him. we all know what happened to thomas more, hope your ending is more pleasant. are you so caught up in your own self that you can't tell when someone is making fun of you? i pity the thanksgiving table you are sitting at today, you may speak well, talk well, perhaps even know the exact law that the founders wrote or intended to write, but you are a bore. i'll give you a hint, when you find that people are leaving the table it means they are bored with you. no doubt you have had this happen to you, now you know why.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 26, 2009 12:08 PM in reply to jjdjjd
"thomas more,[st. thomas more in the catholic church] was just like you, a windbag blowhard"
Thomas Moor was both ethical and an ethicist -- unlike you as a law-illiterate, irrational, and irresponsible gun owner who adopts the criminal rationale promulgated by the NRA and its brethren in sedition because you are clueless as to the purposes and functions of law.
I've been dealing eye-to-eye and toe-to-toe with your anti-American ilk for over twenty years, asnd you are of that arrogant subset who --
1. Has no education in law, and bases on that fact,
2. The irrational notion that that results in you knowing more about the law than those who do have such education.
And that is both irrational and irresponsible.
". . . who indeed would put the devil on trial."
You clearly don't get it, asshole. This is the legal principle in plain English terms you might get:
We give the worst among us the full protection of the law so that if we should find outself in that position we too will receive the full protection of the law.
Another way to put it:
Because we are all equal before the law (and before "fate," chance, and circumstance), when the rights of one are reduced, the rights of EVERYONE are reduced YOUR rights.
To personalize it:
When you deny rights to others you deny those rights to yourself.
I know you don't believe in the rule of law -- you're of "might makes right" bullying slugdom. But More was pointing to what happens when illiterate jackasses such as you meet face-to-face with the consequences of your rejection of the rule of law. There is no rule of law to protect YOU.
Believe in "self-defense" with a gun being a "right," and without any limits? Then, sucker, everyone else has that same right, to the same degree. Then, fool, you are as liable as anyone else to be the TARGET of that limitless, lawless "self-defense".
That is the fundamental reality to which More, who was educated in law, was speaking.
To apply that to our system of laws:
Everyone under the jurisdiction and control of the US gov't has the benefit of BOTH the the penalties AND PROTECTIONS by which the US is to operate. Becasue that is what the US IS. The US is not one thing for you, and something else for others.
Essential to the existence and survival of democracy is the rule of law. In realty, not only in word, and not selectively according to racist bigotries such as yours. That means everyone under US jurisdication and control is given due process, regardless who they are, and regardless the anti-American opinion of lynchers such as you.
That means, from the outset, that the person charged is presued INNOCENT. We don't simply call a person a dirty name, and substitute that for due process and call it a conviction. Everyonhe has the right to presumption of innocence, on which a fair and public trial is based.
The reason for public trial, asshole, is so that the larger community of citizens can be certain the trial was fair, and the defendant not railroaded as a tyrant -- YOU -- would do it.
Here's your fundamental unsustainable hypocrisy:
1. You reject Constitution and rule of law, and gov't, in the name of "freedom" and "liberty";
and, on the other hand:
2. It is the gov't which prosecutes crimes, and you want that to be done.
In a democracy -- "freedom" -- the gov't must prove its allegations with evidence. We don't know the evidence; we only know whqat the gov't has told us they have as "evidence". That "evidence" needs to be tested in the light of day, and shown to be that it is claimed to be.
That includes scrutinizing the "confession" by KSM that the gov't claims to have. Does it actually exist? We don't know: we haven't SEEN it.
Was it unconstitutionally coerced?
'Course, you don't care about the latter question: to you the entire constitution consists solely of the gun-nut distortion of the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infrined".
And you demand that the Constitution protect that right -- while you simultaneously reject the Constitution, and threaten to destroy it, based upon the lunatic nonsense that the Constitution authorizes its own destruction.
This is also in the Constitution:
Art. I., s. 8, c. 15 [Congress shall have the Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the laws of the Union [including PROTECTIONS of RIGHTS], [and] suppress Insurrections.
And this is the fundamental principle of public safety -- which trumps individual right (and which you invoke against KSM getting a fair trial) -- and of every civil society:
No sane society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.
Only criminals oppose the latter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
November 26, 2009 5:43 PM in reply to JNagarya
oh god, i can't shut this windbag up. i got news for you commie, i would have killed KSM, sadam hussian, and all others i found on the battlefield, on the spot, rather then let you give them a 'fair' trial. how many in NEW YORK CITY will die before this show trail of KSM will be over? we shall see. by the way, this is the first time a enemy combatant has been tried in civilian court. FDR, the darling of the left, even turned german spies over to the military. hopey mcchange stated we will try KSM then give him the death penalty. i'm sure that won't taint the jury pool. as for you, well i hope you lead a long life spouting your drivel and long, boring, legal bullcrap. the problem i have with lawyers is, for a price, they will argue either side of a case. in other words, for a price, you will do anything. we all know what that makes you. i hope you live to be 100, you will have no friends or family, as they would have died of boredom long before you. no doubt you will need a very large headstone, as i'm sure your final words will be longer then 'war and peace'. happy thanksgiving.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 26, 2009 9:20 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Let's try it again, anti-American. Maybe you'll get it this time, though I doubt a self-righteous amoralist such as you has the least ethical capacity to grasp it:
Saclia's Heller -- Scalia authored the decision -- did two things:
1. It falsely -- as I show and substantiate -- held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
You don't care that that's false. All that matters to you is that it says what you want it to say. You reject truth as you reject the rule of law: you'll accept any lie that will advance your sociopathic ambitions.
2. It held that regulation of the private ownership of guns is constitutional -- which should only surprise those who are, frankly, stupid.
Same Scalia, same decision. You reject that out of hand because you don't like it. So as you choose your preferred falsehoods to "defend" rationalize your anti-Americanism, you presume to pick and choose which laws, and parts of laws, you will obey, and reject all the rest. Not because you're law abiding -- you reject the whole of the law -- but because you're an asshole who adheres to the criminal rationale promulgated by such as NRA. A dimension of that:
You have no education in law, therefore insist your knowledge of law is superior to an actual education in law. You know better, of course; but you need that bullshit as rationale.
Actually, of course, you're a petulant whiner.
The reality is, however, that every right -- like it or not -- has limits, that fact symbolized in the reality PRISON. And as there are those, such as you, who couldn't give a fuck less about Constitution and rule of law, let alone others' rights being infringed by you -- that being the criminal's world-view -- there is law enforcement.
As for the criminal anti-Americanism you spew, when it comes to your ass being in the docket -- then you'll whine about due process -- you'll be advised that you'll be free to debate your subjectivist "natural law" gibberish with your cellmate.
You can go away now: all who've been following this exchange see what the law is, and see what you are: an anti-American thug who rejects the rule of law under the delusion that, push come to shove, the law you reject will be there for you. Reread Thomas More's warning on that point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
November 27, 2009 3:49 AM in reply to JNagarya
you have shown nothing. you arrogant ,pompous ass. it is you who presume to know the law better then the supreme court. i think you are a 2nd year law student who thinks he knows it all, when in fact you would wet yourself if you ever have to argue a case before a real judge, let alone scalia, where you would poop your pants. i don't need to reread thomas more, i say 'off with his head'. the only ones following this exchange are you and me, and i'm doing it in the hope your fingers will fall off. if you leave your real name and address, i will send you $100.00 to argue the other side.i mean thats what lawyers do. for a price you all can be bought. thomas more included, they just didn't hit his price. but he had one.you would faint at the sight of a terrorist, while i would shoot them. then, like hopey mcchange, you would put me in jail for saving your life. there is a muslim major in texas, who killed 13, why don't you go and defend him, pro-bono of course.you all have ethics when spouting off, but in the real world you put a price on them. now, have you ever lost a case? i'm sure you did, and i'm just as sure you thought everyone else was wrong and you were right. as for me, with the exception of a few parking tickets, i have never broken the law. i paid the tickets, because i was wrong. so, you don't have to worry about me 'in the docket'. some laws are bad, dred scott, casey, and even roe were poorly decided. some were good, brown v. BOE. our job as citizens is to follow or change them. not to break them. each state has different gun laws, it is my duty to know and follow them, when moving between states. i do. you want to argue, get a wife. you have bored me every step of the way, plus i'm really pissed now, all 3 football games yesterday were duds. begone satan. i could be wrong but in dante's inferno [or was it milton]lawyers are relegated to the 7th level of hell, just slightly better then bankers. hahahahahaha . you are, indeed, certifiable. no doubt a real lawyer or in training to be one. i have had to use them in the past on business matters, they all did what they were told, because, you guessed it, i met their price.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 27, 2009 10:57 PM in reply to jjdjjd
You, having no education in law, presume to judge who knows the specific law better than another does. An education in law includes knowing what is and isn't law, and how to read it. It is about presenting what the law shows; it isn't personal. This is a directly relevant fundamental:
These are legal authority:
Constitutions.
Statutes, by means of which constitutions are implemented.
Regulations, by means of which some statutes are implemented.
Case law.
Legislative history.
All else is NON-law.
Legislative history is the record of the consideration of a law by a legislature. That includes debates. When there is a question about a statute -- a legislative enactment -- the STANDARD is to go to the legislative history to determine that which is termed "original intent".
So, the STANDARD is that when one wants to know the intent of those who W-R-O-T-E, in this instance, the Second Amendment, one goes to the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. Courts also resort to legislative history.
Were Scalia NOT an activist seeking to reach the conclusion he wanted -- Heller is not the first instance -- he would have gone directly to debates of the Bill of Rights. Instead, he ignored the STANDARD.
Same for the NRA: never mentions the debates of those who W-R-O-T-E the Second Amendment. Why would they NOT want their dupes to know they exist? Because, as showed -- SUBSTANTIATED -- the debates show the OPPOSITE of the NRA claims about that Amendment. Here's an example of how the NRA and its shills avoid the debates and what they in fact show:
"Written by James Madison, the Bill of Rights was enacted as a single document. . . ." Shooting Times, "Analyzing the Second Amendment," Don B. Kates, 45, 7 (July 2004), at 60.
In fact, the Bill of Rights was NOT written by James Madison. In between he and ratification of the Bill of rights was CONGRESS. This is the process by which the Bill of Rights came to be:
1. When the effort to ratify the Constitution got to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, it was 50-50 whether it would be ratified. That Convention was als divided almost 50-50. The opposition to ratification, the anti-Federalists, were lead by John Hancock.
Samuel Adams worked out a deal with Hancock: if his faction would support ratification, proposed amendments could be included with the notice of ratification to Congress. And, Hancock would be the first President of the United States under the new Constitution. Hancock couldn't resist, and the Convention ratified the Constituion.
Hancock was also given the reading of the proposed amendments to the Convention, and gave the impression that he had written them. Actually they'd been written by Theophilus Parsons, a prominent Federalist. (Parsons later served on the SC.)
2. Subsequent states ratifying the Constitution also proposed amendments. Madison codified the proposed amendments into a resolution which he presented to Congress for debate. This is the first draft of that which would become the Second Amendment, as Madison presented it:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; a well armed, and regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress) (Johns Hopkins, 1991), Ed. Veit, et al., at 12.
This is a subsequent version as it had been rewritten to the point by the Congress (the Senate was also in the process):
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free States, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
And there is this footnote of direct relevance:
"On August 17, Jackson made a motion in the COWH [Committee of the Whole] to insert "upon paying an equivalent to be established by law" at this point [after the final clause.] On the suggestion of Smith (S.C.), Jackson proposed to change this phrase to, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person, upon paying an equivalent." This was apparently superceded by Benson's motion to strike out "but no person" through "bear arm," which the COWH disagreed to, 24-22. On the same day, a motion by Burke to insert the following at this point was disagreed to, by a majority of 13:
"A standing army of regular troops in time of peace, is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both houses, and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." Veit, et al, at 30.
That formulation reflects the militia clauses in the state constitutions from which the Second was drawn: the concerns about standing army, and it contrast with militia. It also reflects the earlist debates on this issue: how to provide defense without the danger of a standing army. That wasn't a new concern, so it was settled in litte time by choosing the alternative: the existing militia.
In short, as said, the Congress, including the Senate, NOT James Madison, wrote the Bill of Rights. The only posited individual right debated concerning the Second Amendment -- conscientious objection -- was dropped, so the amendment obviously has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything, as the ratified Amendment show:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the securityy of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
You can accept the legal authority and the facts it substantiate: the Second Amendmnet has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything; or you can continue the intellectual dishonesyt of smearing those who wrote it as "Commie," in effort to avoid that fact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
November 28, 2009 4:27 AM in reply to JNagarya
you are a fruitcake, and should be committed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 28, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to jjdjjd
You're no more qualified to diagnose strangers over the Internet than you are to make judgments about the law. And you're without ethics as concerns both. But let's have some fun, shall we?
Above you called me "Commie" for stating facts and law rather than my personal views -- the latter irrelevant to the issue. So let's compare your slur "Commie" with some American history and principles:
1. In 1770, John Adams was the only lawyer who had the ethics and courage to undertake the defense of the British troops involved in the so-called "Boston Massacre". It wasn't because he liked the British -- he in fact loathed them; it was because, as he said, no man charged with a crime should wont for a competent defense.
For doing so, he was subjected to the lawless mob's threats. His response:
"Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics."
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/bostonmassacre/bostonmassacre.html
That website deals with the trials. This was definitive and an instant classic the day published:
The Boston Massacre (NY: W. W. Noerton & Company, Inc., Norton Library, Paperback, 1971), Hiller B. Zobell
2. In 1776, in the Continental Congress, John Adams led the push to declare independence from Britain. Opposed were the conservatives -- your political affiliation -- until they got what they wanted in exchange for their support:
preservation of slavery.
3. In 1780, John Adams wrote the Massachusetts-Bay constitution, which would be the model for the US Constitution.
As did Thomas More, John Adams defended YOUR right to a fair trial, even as you contemptuously oppose both your country -- "a system of laws, and not of men" (John Adams) -- and your own interests.
So if More and Adams were "Commie" for their defenses of rule of law and justice, then I'll stand with them, and the principles they defended against the lawless lynch mob; the same mob today's "conservative" joins against the rule of law and the freedoms it protects.
When you deny justice to others, you oppose it for yourself.
The counter-"principle" you offer? That of the Devil:
Torture is wrong, therefore alleged torturers must be tortured in order to reduce the incidence of torture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
November 28, 2009 7:21 PM in reply to JNagarya
'they're coming to take you away haha' this song may be on youtube, its about you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
November 28, 2009 7:23 PM in reply to jjdjjd
its on youtube, i checked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 24, 2009 11:59 PM in reply to mastershake1
I am not attempting to provide a defense of the National Rifle Association. I am merely noting the fact that the National Rifle Association is not referenced in the above report, and I am inquiring as to why reference to the organization was made.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mastershake1
November 25, 2009 12:19 AM in reply to Dimensio
Based upon other comments you've made on other sites (e.g. here) the suggestion that you're not defending the NRA is laughable.
Instead of pretending that you're Socrates, maybe you should defend a position from the outset. You seem to take great pleasure in taking a dump on gun threads across the Internet by asking questions and then making paranoid assertions, and frankly it gets old. Take your game somewhere else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 25, 2009 12:24 AM in reply to mastershake1
Please explain the specific defense that I have offered for the National Rifle Association. Describe the specific accusation made against the organization, and explain which of the statements that I have made here constitute a defense against that accusation and explain how that defense has been constructed.
Your personal attacks against me constitute neither a logical argument nor a validation of your position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mastershake1
November 25, 2009 12:38 AM in reply to Dimensio
Do you normally accuse people of being a liars when you don't have a dog in the fight?
But I guess it's easier for you to ask questions and pretend that you don't stand for anything than to actually defend your position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 25, 2009 12:46 AM in reply to mastershake1
You have not addressed my inquiry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mastershake1
November 25, 2009 1:16 AM in reply to Dimensio
You haven't addressed my inquiry as to why you troll the net asking questions and then balking when people ask what you stand for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 1:35 PM in reply to Dimensio
You haven't stated a position. You're simply playing games, at the moment that of imaginary Perry Mason, while failing in your effort to sound "legalistic".
But be careful what you ask for -- such as answers to your "inquiries": you might get in response more than that for which you bargained. See, as example, my response to your "inquiry" about my use of the IED "anti-Constitutionalism".
I doubt I've ever seen you anywhere before, outside this thread. But I can invariably smell your ilk regardless your games and peek-a-boo huff-and-puffs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 25, 2009 8:09 AM in reply to Dimensio
Because they have acquired a bad reputation of shilling for whatever the more conservative Rethuglican position may be whether or not it has much to do with gun ownership.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 1:29 PM in reply to Dimensio
Why not? The NRA is in the same America-hating cesspool as Gun Owners of America. That being the fact, and it being the fact that they both push the anti-Constitutionalism originated by the NRA as gun industry front/mouthpiece, any difference in degree of extremism between them are irrelevant.
The only distinction in this instance is that Gun Owners of America made a dumb-ass bullshit statement before the NRA could do so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 1:37 PM in reply to Dimensio
Not yet, you haven't. But that's what you're primed to do -- your use of the word "defense" is a glaring giveaway -- and why you're in this thread.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
November 24, 2009 1:35 PM
If health care is outlawed, only outlaws will have health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
November 24, 2009 11:06 PM in reply to Riesz Fischer
+100
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 24, 2009 2:00 PM
Culture whores- from NRA and talk radio to Bachmann and Palin- want dumbshit "witheys" from "Arkansas" [the majority of the base] to remain at a high level of panic and distress all the time.
I'm sure among real Americans Bin Laden has much much better approval ratings than Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 11:58 PM in reply to kash79
I'm sure among real Americans Bin Laden has much much better approval ratings than Obama.
_____
Well, bin Laden is pro-gun.
Pro-commercial airliners too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
November 24, 2009 2:24 PM
I'm not clear what their point is - if some right-wingers don't want to have to pay for maternity care, why should I have to cover the costs of Cooter not being able to handle a firearm properly?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 24, 2009 2:37 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Good one. I'll try to remember that next time this comes up with a conservative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
November 25, 2009 9:06 PM in reply to ericf
make sure he doesn't have a gun first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 24, 2009 2:39 PM
There are people who believe these claims? Are they paranoid or stupid? I guess both are possible.
On the other hand, I would guess anyone who would believe it already believed in death panels.
In terms of knocking it down, GOA for real or an astroturf group?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
yellowdogD
November 24, 2009 11:15 PM in reply to ericf
It's the trigger. They see us saying no trigger, and figure
If they won't allow triggers how can they allow guns?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 11:56 PM in reply to yellowdogD
Let them keep the guns, but confiscate the triggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 24, 2009 2:42 PM
The NRA stopped being about gun rights and started being a proxy for corporate interests a long time ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
November 24, 2009 5:49 PM in reply to Stroszek
Heck, if the NRA's opposition to the "prevention and wellness program," which really should be called the "employers do the dirty work for insurance companies program," kills the program, I'm all for it.
Plus, you could make that similar to smokers, gun owners live riskier lifestyles than non-gun owners, and therefore should pay higher premiums for their riskier lifestyle. That'll make the NRA go real nuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 12:00 AM in reply to jimbomoron
Discuss:
Could the NRA be made more nuts than it already is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
November 25, 2009 10:19 AM in reply to JNagarya
Yes. They could be the GOA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 1:42 PM in reply to BillMcD
Follow up:
Discuss:
Could Gun Owners of America be made nuttier than it already is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 24, 2009 11:26 PM in reply to Stroszek
Of what relevance is the National Rifle Association to the current discussion?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 25, 2009 8:15 AM in reply to Dimensio
They are part of what gave us Bush and we don't want them to push the country into something stupid like that again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 1:47 PM in reply to Dimensio
Anything involving looney-tune gun-nutism, and its outbursts as verbal articulations in fake approximation of fact, reason, logic, and law, invariably leads back to the originator of that fulminated America-hating gibberish:
the gun industry-front/mouthpiece NRA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
November 24, 2009 4:01 PM
How can anyone take these guys seriously with arguments like that? Come on man you don't need a high school degree to know bullshit when you hear it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
November 24, 2009 5:34 PM in reply to Viva!America!
A substantial percentage of this country is so stupid, it's hard to imagine how they manage to take in oxygen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 12:01 AM in reply to Powkat
They are provided at taxpayer expense constant instruction in how to breathe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mistersnrub
November 24, 2009 9:57 PM
I bet their next attack will claim health care reform forces non-consensual gay marriages.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
November 25, 2009 12:32 AM in reply to mistersnrub
I heard they are going to mandate abortions for embryos that are not mixed-race. But if what you say is true about forced gay marriages, then there will be no more embryos unless they are out of wedlock! So this is where Sarah Palin's daughter comes in. It was really a visionary act of civil disobedience for her to go get knocked up during her mom's campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
November 24, 2009 10:45 PM
But they have a point. Given the stats on self-inflicted injury by gun-owners, why should the rest of us pay their added premiums? If you don't own a gun, you pay less, if you own guns, you pay more. I have no problem with that. No different than someone with a fast sports car paying more than someone with a Prius.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 24, 2009 10:51 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
I'm with this idea. Dangle higher insurance premiums for gun owners in exchange for passing HCR, they'll cave-in. It's ingenious. And to think, these idiots (NRA) came up with the idea for us. Let's run with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 24, 2009 11:31 PM in reply to mophan
Please explain how the National Rifle Association has allegedly conceived of the unreasonable suggestion of increasing health insurance premiums for owners of firearms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 12:04 AM in reply to Dimensio
What irrational discourse does the NRA not have a piece of?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 25, 2009 12:08 AM in reply to JNagarya
I have never observed involvement of the National Rifle Association in advocacy of creationism.
You have not addressed my inquiry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 12:28 AM in reply to Dimensio
Crationism suggests the opposite of destructiveness. So the NRA would likely avoid that like a vampire avoids garlic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 25, 2009 12:50 AM in reply to JNagarya
Creationism is a religious concept that is frequently and dishonestly claimed to be a viable alternative to well-established science. Creationism is also frequently associated with irrational rejection of biological science. As the National Rifle Association's advocacy relates neither to religion nor to biology, it would be inappropriate for them to issue statements relating to creationism. As such, I have addressed your inquiry; creationism is an irrational position, and the National Rifle Association is not involved in discussions relating to that irrational position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 1:52 PM in reply to Dimensio
I'm well aware of the fact that Creationism is "religion" and a a farce. Which is why I stand by my statement that the NRA has a piece of every lunacy which only makes sense to the profoundly illiterate, the profoundly dishonest, and or the profoundly deluded and or brainwashed.
Isn't this fun!?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 25, 2009 8:20 AM in reply to Dimensio
Yes they have. They support politicians who advance that idea all the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 1:59 PM in reply to AJM
Shit, the gut-nutism they promote is a "religion" with as much truth and substance as creationism.
Check it out: "Soldiers for Christ," or whatever such religionuts call themselves, carry in one hand their "bible," in another hand their "science" "text" of creationism, and in a third hand their AK-47, with their NRA membership card stapled to their foreheads.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 25, 2009 8:24 AM in reply to Dimensio
What's unreasonable about it? The Republicans have already suggested making medical care for optional decisions like smoking or child birth more expensive. Gun use is clearly optional and the Gun Owners of America have already conceded that owning a gun makes to less safe. If it made you more safe, the provision they cite would increase the premiums for those who refuse to own guns.
How many here for the proposition all gun owners are liars?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
November 25, 2009 9:12 AM in reply to AJM
Oooooooooh ...
How about car ownership too?
That might be a useful incentive to increase support for putting serious coin into public mass transit infrastructure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 2:01 PM in reply to kenga
I avoid that argument by riding bicycle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 25, 2009 11:08 AM in reply to Dimensio
Explaination to Dimensio
The attempted suggestion of the NRA claiming HCR will enforce higher premiums for gun owners because of the "unhealthy lifestyle" provision in the Senate bill is how. The section clearly outlines what is considered "unhealthy lifestyle" and gun ownership is not one of them.
Therefore, gun totting wingnuts claiming the provision will make them pay higher premiums is something they made up all by themselves.
It is actually an excellent unreasonably extreme idea that I would normally not support, but as Al Gore says, " We have to outcrazy the crazies."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 25, 2009 11:22 AM in reply to mophan
Just read BillMcD below explaining there is a difference between NRA and GOA. So it is the GOA then. I mistook Gun Owners of America as being just gun owners of America in general, and NRA in particular.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 25, 2009 1:21 PM in reply to mophan
Credit where credit is due... thanx GOA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 24, 2009 11:29 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
To what "stats on self-inflicted injury" do you refer?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mastershake1
November 24, 2009 11:35 PM in reply to Dimensio
Do you have a point, or do you just like asking questions without defending anything?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 24, 2009 11:44 PM in reply to mastershake1
I am requesting validation of a previously posited premise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mastershake1
November 24, 2009 11:45 PM in reply to Dimensio
Why is it that much of a concern to you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 24, 2009 11:57 PM in reply to mastershake1
The premise is being used to argue in support of using firearms ownership as a basis for increased health insurance premiums. It is not unreasonable to request that the premise for such a proposal be justified.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 12:06 AM in reply to Dimensio
I'll bet the insurance monopoly would be glad to send you the statistics.
It's you who demands them, so you should go get them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 25, 2009 12:11 AM in reply to JNagarya
In fact, it is the responsibility of those who rely upon the premise stated by JimmyBo, including JimmyBo himself, to demonstrate that the premise is valid. Suggesting that those who request justification of a premise bear the burden of conducting all research regarding that premise is an intellectually dishonest shifting of the burden of proof.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
November 25, 2009 12:27 AM in reply to Dimensio
Some people might consider a 40-year trend of firearm injuries and deaths to be self evident. Others, not so much.
Besides, what person wants to consider such awfulness anyway. Certainly not gun owners or gun makers. Or the policymakers who kowtow to them. They need to protect their beautiful minds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 25, 2009 12:52 AM in reply to Scott in PacNW
Are you making reference to the recent trend of a decline in firearms injuries, and deaths resulting therefrom, concurrent with a trend of increased civilian firearms ownership?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
November 25, 2009 1:01 AM in reply to Dimensio
Don't play dumb.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 2:31 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
He isn't playing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 12:29 AM in reply to Dimensio
You're the one who wants the statistics. So go get them.
I'm sure the NRA will be happy you requested them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 25, 2009 12:51 AM in reply to JNagarya
JimmyBo has asserted the existence of statistics. I have merely requested validation of JimmyBo's claim. Your suggestion that it is my responsibility to validate JimmyBo's claim is intellectually dishonest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 2:11 PM in reply to Dimensio
How is that relevant to the discussion? I've not seen anyone but you who gives a damn about the statistics for the premise that you allege is posited*, when in fact it is only implied, if it even that much of an impression on the lovely smiling face of the universe.
_____
*Yeah!! I avoided aliterating!
_____
The discussion -- and premise -- rather, is about the false gun-nutism that a provision in the Senate health care bill is about charging higher insurance premiums for gun-nutism than for unarmed sanity.
So you're alone in demanding statistics which have nothing whatever to do with that false gun-nutism, at the least because it's nonsense to begin with.
And I'm still awaiting your response to my inquiry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 2:03 PM in reply to Dimensio
I hate aliteration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
November 25, 2009 12:02 AM in reply to Dimensio
Firearms = #2 cause of injury based deaths nationwide (30,000 in 2005): http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/injury99-05/injury99-05.htm
Red states lead the way in injury and death from firearms:
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 25, 2009 12:14 AM in reply to Scott in PacNW
The Centers for Disease Control report that you have referenced explicitly states that firearms have been the third, not the second, leading cause of "injury death" since 2004; your statement is therefore incongruous with reported reality. Moreover, the statistics that you have referenced do not address "self-injury", which was the basis of JimmyBo's premise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
November 25, 2009 12:23 AM in reply to Dimensio
Correct. Firearm injury are only #3 on the list. How silly me for considering 30,000 deaths to be significant. Thank you.
However, you are likewise incorrect in citing the data as being 'since 2004' because the data cited stops in 2005, which was the first year during which poisoning surpassed firearms in injury deaths. No data compiled yet for 2006 to present.
The first link I cited specified the number of accidental firearm injuries and suicide by firearm nationwide in 2004.
Fatalities:
•Suicide: 16,750 / 57% of All Fatalities
•Unintentional Death (Accidental): 649 / 2% of All Fatalities
Injuries:
•Unsuccessful Suicide Attempt: 3,352 (may be incorrect -- actual number may be larger, see CDC website) / 5% of All Injuries
•Accidental Injury: 16,555 / 26% of All Injuries
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dimensio
November 25, 2009 12:42 AM in reply to Scott in PacNW
I in no way claimed or implied that 30,000 deaths is not significant. I can conceive of no rational or honest means by which such a conclusion could be derived from any statement that I have made. Please explain the basis for your conclusion.
In fact, the first link that you provided referenced all deaths caused by injury from a firearm, including intentional homicides. The data from the Centers for Disease Control that you referenced did not reference rates of accidental deaths caused by firearm injury.
I am locating conflicting data regarding actual accidental causes of death; I have located multiple sources ranking injury by firearm as being the seventh or eighth (amongst eight total entries) most frequent cause of unintentional fatalities, but I am also observing claims that such fatalities rank third.
Regardless, my specific inquiry relates to self-inflicted injury.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
November 25, 2009 12:53 AM in reply to Dimensio
Try the CDC WONDER database if you really want the data.
When I queried it, I confirmed that 16,750 suicides by firearm nationwide in 2004.
That includes "Intentional self-harm by handgun discharge," "intentional self-harm by rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge," "ntentional self-harm by other and unspecified firearm discharge." It does not include intentional self-harm by explosion, but we can add that if you want.
Do you want me to get you the numbers for 1999-2003 also? I've got it all teed up for you, chief.
I can probably figure out the accidental firearm injuries, but you sound smart enough to figure that out yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
November 25, 2009 12:59 AM in reply to Dimensio
CDC stats on self-inflicted fatalities by firearm:
2003 = 16,907
2002 = 17,108
2001 = 16,869
2000 = 16,586
1999 = 16,599
I'm surprised at how stable these numbers are. But there you go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
YesAnd
November 25, 2009 6:40 AM in reply to Scott in PacNW
The stats are probably correct and many rational arguments can be made for why gun control makes sense (it does.), but it's precisely the kind of BS argument the gun lobby wants to engage in. They've made a handsome living off of people's fear and they're terrified of it drying up. People like Dimentio? What would else would s/he do with his/her time? It's a tragedy in the making.
I want to say a bit about why I understand people's fear. My brother is a gun nut and the reason why is that when we were boys and living in a housing project, our building was attacked by a mob armed with bats, pipes and hockey sticks. Like the Rodney King riots, like the Watts riots, the authorities drew a line they refused to cross. They abandoned thousands to an uncertain fate. If you found yourself on the wrong side of that line, you were on your own. That's a fact. In a world where, if you're poor and live in a bad neighborhood, and the cops can't be depended on to help, how can you reasonably demand that people render themselves defenseless?
I want to be clear that I despise the NRA. They are a business whose products are lies and lobbying dollars. People like Dementio and my brother make me ill with their willingness to twist the facts and leave common sense behind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 2:29 PM in reply to YesAnd
That's correct: all the "statistics" mumbo-jumbo is a deliberate effort to distract from the real issue:
the NRA's falsification of the law.
That's why the gut-nuts yammer about there more deaths annually by automobile than by gun. Problem with that irrelevancy is that it leads to the issue of licensing.
They then avoid that by dragging in how those deprived of guns will use knives, baseball bats, cat scrtaches, and even in-your-face "oh YEAH!?".
That's why Dementio wants to talk about statistics: he prefers to generalize aay from the specific. Prefers the forest for the tree/s. Prefers lying by omission.
ANYTHING but focus on the NRA's bottom-most premise: its anti-Constitutional falsification of the law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
November 26, 2009 7:21 AM in reply to Scott in PacNW
those numbers will go up if the government takes over healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
November 27, 2009 2:21 AM in reply to jjdjjd
No. The 'death panels' won't permit it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 25, 2009 8:33 AM in reply to Dimensio
WIKI:In countries where firearms are readily available, many suicides involve the use of firearms. Over 52% of suicides that occurred in the United States in 2005 were by firearm.
Next time do your own research for your 6th grade term paper.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 2:35 PM in reply to AJM
You'd think the NRA and its fellow travellers would oppose those as being late-term abortions.
Instead, they couldn't care less: they're prolife/death penalty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
November 25, 2009 9:17 AM in reply to Dimensio
To what "stats on self-inflicted injury" do you refer?
Those which show self-inflicted gun injury rates which are different between people who own guns or live in a household with someone who does,
and those who do not either own guns or live with a gun owner.
People who don't ever clean guns don't ever have gun-cleaning accidents.
Get it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
November 24, 2009 11:45 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
Often home owners insurance premiums are higher if there are guns in the home.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
unknowncitizen
November 24, 2009 10:46 PM
You'll have to pry my health insurance claim rejection notices from my cold, dead fingers!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
November 24, 2009 10:48 PM
The rabid Secretary is right!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
November 24, 2009 11:39 PM
Dimensio is has a point. It's not the NRA saying this. It's the Gun Owners of America. Not unlike what the NRA usually says but they didn't this time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bravo_Kilo
November 25, 2009 1:23 AM
Forget our guns. They want to take away our cigarettes! They can have them when they pry them from my cold, dead, nicotine stained and stinky hands!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckley
November 25, 2009 3:49 AM
I wanna play, I wanna play.
I'll be Dimensio.
Please explain why cigarettes are in any way connected to the current discussion at hand concerning firearms in regards to suicide rates and rising
health care premiums.
(Wow, being a troll is easy)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wake up
November 25, 2009 6:17 AM in reply to Buckley
Being a troll IS easy -- but, you turn to stone at the first touch of sunlight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Virginia
November 25, 2009 8:39 AM
So what the heck is the difference between GOA and NRA?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
November 25, 2009 10:15 AM in reply to Virginia
GOA appears to be the NRA's crazy kid brother.
Think about that for a moment.
According to wiki, they've denounced the NRA for 'selling out' gun owners, and for supporting the 2007 School Safety bill. They've also called for a repeal of the federal ban on firearms on military bases (mind you, the military folks I know totally support that ban), and generally appear to take the stance that the NRA is far too soft on gun rights.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
November 25, 2009 10:17 AM in reply to BillMcD
Sorry, just for clarity, the call to end the federal 'no guns' zone on military bases isn't from wiki, it's from the GOA's website.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 2:49 PM in reply to Virginia
The General Accounting Office, which is a gov't entity, counts money. ("Accounting," get it?)
The NRA is a private tax-exempt special interest front/mouthpiece for the gun industy that promulgates falsifications of Constitution and law in order to increase gun sales.
Through the NRA's lies -- its falsifications of Constitution and law -- it pursues its only actual concern, which is that of the gun industry by which funded and for which it lobbies against public safety:
Selling more guns this year than last, and more guns next year than this.
Both are all about the money. One is about creating social chaos and anarchy in order to increase its annual sales of guns, guns, and more guns. The NRA's motto should be:
"The way to extinguish a fire is to pour gasoline on it."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
November 25, 2009 4:48 PM in reply to JNagarya
Yes, but the GOA isn't the GAO. The GOA is the Gun Owners of America, the organization cited in the article, and, as indicated, far, far loonier than the NRA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 4:59 PM in reply to BillMcD
I was pulling someone's leg. Apparently it wasn't yours. :)
Yes, as I've indicated upthread, I know that Gun Owners of America are loonier even than the NRA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?