A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Ah, but the constitution doesn’t explicitly protect marriage and vaginas. The guvment has free reign over anything not explicitly covered in the constitution… unless it interferes with me making buttloads of cash, then they better stay out of my business.
You’re forgetting this comes from the same people who insist that if it’s not explicitly listed in Article 1 Section 8 then it’s unconstitutional for the government to do it.
The guvment has free reign over anything not explicitly covered in the constitution…
Failed to read the constitution. I suggest a quick perusal of the 9th and 10th amendments, followed by a thorough read of the entire shebang.
The SCOTUS has determined in a number of decisions over the past half century or more that the Constitution does guarantee a right to privacy, although this right is currently being shredded by the applications of the “Patriot Act.” That said, a persons right to marry whom they please, and the right of a woman to control her own body (including preventing unwanted/unnecessary vaginal probing) would certainly seem to be protected by the Constitution.
But what about those of us who don’t want to regulate any of that stuff?
Simple: this meme is not directed at you.
The 9th Amendment begs to differ.
@Daniel & Willy Wonka,
Tell me more about your plans to infringe other people’s rights under the pretext of fear and blind emotionalism. Sounds lovely.
Tell me more about how a right to own weapons which is clearly stated to apply for the purpose of being able to draw up a militia in a draft-like form applies to all manner of weapons acquired for nearly any purpose under the sun.
Tell me more about how a right to bear arms means the government cannot impose safeguards like uniform background checks, licensing/registration (as militia weapon owners were often required to do), liability insurance requirements (as we require with other , eminently more functional items that also carry risks, like cars for example), or safety training requirements to ensure people handling weapons are less of a risk to society and more likely to handle them properly and safely.
Tell me more about how a right twisted to a new purpose effectively nullifies the responsibility normally assumed to go along with the exercise of that right…
I really really hate that argument about militias. It’s like the freedom of the press only applies when you are talking about pressing ink onto paper. It also ignores the Supreme Court’s interpretation of that amendment. To bring it up now when there are other perfectly good reasons and ways to enforce gun control just seems fucking dumb.
Please explain to me why you don’t also have the right to bear arms in the form of rocket-propelled grenades and nuclear warhead equipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. Please. Go right ahead and explain to me why the government shouldn’t limit the type of arms you can bear to things that are actually useful in self defence.
If anyone was seriously clamoring for the right to use RPGs and Nukes I’d treat it as a serious question. Instead I’d just point you to the Insurance companies and wonder aloud how much your premium is going to go up.
Oh, so the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech, religion, and gun ownership? Tell me more about your fascination with controlling folk one disagrees with…..
and I’ll “point” you to the business end of my .22 rifle.
Suck it up, buttercup.
Do not post comments which contain a threat to shoot somebody. You will not be warned again.
AKA, the person with the gun gets to talk. You’re kind of a piece of shit, Kathie.
It’s not blind emotionalism to facilitate firearm education and safety campaigns. It’s not infringing upon anyone’s rights to hire a director for the ATF. It is neither blind nor emotional to allow the CDC to start real studies and investigations into how guns impact morbity and mortality. In fact, it’s the opposite. It’s the desire to gain real information so that we’re not moving blind. And as a lover of some good old epidemiology, I can tell you there’s nothing emotional about the CDC and its number crunchers.
While I do think the ban on CDC gun research was primarily motivated by conservatives wanting to manipulate science to serve their agenda (again), that ban was originally instituted in 1996 after accusations that some people at CDC were letting their politics influence their research. Yeah, I know, that does sound suspiciously like Big Oil talking about climate change, but it seems the charges aren’t entirely fabricated. At the very least, it seems that some people at CDC were saying things to the press they really shouldn’t have.
Mark Rosenberg was quoted as saying, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned.” The Washington Post, 19 Oct 1994, “Sick People With Guns” At the time, Rosenberg was head of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the part of the CDC that was handling the gun research. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find the full text of the article, so I’m not entirely sure what the context was. Anybody have access to a Washington Post archive?
A background article from Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-end-long-fight-over-gun-violence-research-201708897.html
A libertarian leaning magazine lays out the case against the CDC in 1997: http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots
I haven’t been able to independently confirm what Reason Magazine had to say, but it’s worth noting that I had to dig pretty hard to find even this much. The Yahoo article is the only current news coverage of the topic that even mentioned all of this.
From what I’ve seen from the CDC materials I’ve used for other information and research, they’re well-trained epidemiologists without a political agenda. They have excellent info written for both lay people and scientists and practioners. I’ve heard a liberal complain that CDC politics was a factor to recommending all women of child-bearing age take a folate supplement, because only some conservative group would assume women need to be treated as baby-making vessels, not because of stats on spinal cord disorders.
I think people who are passionate about something get upset when the CDC doesn’t confirm their preconceived view. How dare something like data and statistics suggest something you don’t like? The anti-vaxxers are not CDC fans.
During my Peds rotation, the questionaire for well child exams included asking parents if there were guns in the home and if they were locked up safely. Most of us quickly learned not to ask the question because parents were livid with us. We can ask if they lock up bleach. No problem. Guns? How dare we?
In general, I’d default to assuming that the CDC is a high quality non-partisan source. But, you know, we’re all human. If the Rosenberg quote turns out to be what it’s made out to be (and that’s a big if), I’m inclined to think that he was straying into politics when he really shouldn’t have been. If that’s so, then conservatives would have a legitimate complaint. I certainly don’t buy the conspiracy theory stuff about CDC, JAMA, and the New England Journal of medicine colluding to take away people’s guns. While the reality distortion zone that is the American Right these days makes it really hard to pick out the facts from the fantasy, just because they’re crying conspiracy doesn’t automatically mean it’s complete fiction.
You’re not even paying attention. Makes your ‘blind emotionalism’ crack all the funnier.
I don’t mean to be rude, but really, you haven’t demonstrated that you even read past the first sentence of that meme. You can’t envision how it’s hypocritical for the people so concerned with personal liberty when it comes to having 30 round magazines to be not at all concerned about personal liberty when it comes to forcing ultrasound wands into women’s genitals? You can’t tell the difference between a dictator taking everybody’s weapon to keep himself in power and a president wanting to appoint a head of the ATF already? Or are you just plain not thinking about these things and lashing out because you’re scared?
I do compare personal liberty when it comes to having 30 round magazines to be exactly about personal liberty when it comes to forcing ultrasound wands into women’s genitals. Personal liberty includes BOTH risk assessment and its logical conclusions. We need guns AND abortion to be legal, as both involve PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for one’s choices in life.
100% of school shootings in the last 50 years have occurred in GUN FREE ZONES. and 100% percent of women in the USA, who underwent abortion in the last 34 years, HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO. I’d like to keep it that way. Next. (Ahem.)
“100% of school shootings in the last 50 years have occurred in GUN FREE ZONES.”
Citation needed. Pretty sure that the University of Texas has armed guards. Also, explain the Fort Hood massacre to me, please do. I understand that most of their weapons are locked away most of the time, but they still have armed MPs. Next, give me as many examples of an armed civilian STOPPING a shooting massacre as you can.
There’s a law in the US that makes it illegal to carry firearms within a certain distance of a school, thus a gun free zone. The statement was equivalent to saying that 100% of school shootings happened at schools. In this context, “school” only refers to K – 12 (primary and secondary, not university) so neither Ft Hood nor the University of Texas are schools. And the law was passed in 1990, so it’s 20 years, not 50.
I should have clarified; I didn’t mean to use Fort Hood as an example of a school shooting, just as an example of a mass shooting that wasn’t prevented by lots of guys with guns being around.
Actually, I’m not entirely sure what Kathie Wilson’s point was. It sounds to me like they’re saying that they want abortion to be legal and for there to be gun free zones around schools. It’s certainly not contradictory to support gun rights and gun free school zones, but it does imply some nuance that’s not really explained in the post. Kathie, you might want to explain your position a little more.
What I got was basically Mel Gibson in woad and a kilt shouting “MUH FRRRREEEEEEEDDDDOOOOOOMMMMMSSSS!” :-p
Kathie can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think she was saying that in an ideal world, lots of people at the schools would be armed, and they’d have shot the gunmen before they racked up too many kills. Which totally ignores the concept that if nobody in the schools had been armed, there’d have been no gunmen.
The way I heard it is, if you have gun-free zones, the shooters know exactly where to go when they want to shoot a lot of people at once. That’s about it.
I’m not saying that’s what Kathie meant, but a libertarian had “explained” it to me that way.
Oh, i.e., we already did pass gun laws and they fail to protect people who enter those zones expecting to be kept safe by those laws.
Columbine HS had armed guards on the premises, it didn’t prevent the massacre. Using a gun effectively in an emergency situation require a considerable amount of training and constant practice without this what you will have is a bunch of panicked armed people who are just as likely, or more likely, to hit a bystander then the actual shooter.
Yeah, I have to concur with this. The problems I see are fairly obvious: Our hero gunman is in a high-stress environment full of stampeding people – Opportunities to shoot the wrong person are abundant. I had a lot of respect for the concealed carrier at Gabby Giffords’ shooting, who decided not to draw down because he could not be sure he’d get the right guy – Sorry gun owners, but some of you portray an attitude that’s too damn gung-ho by far, and I really don’t trust all of you to show that kind of good judgement.
Secondly, and I’ve never seen anybody even attempt to address this: There’s more than one innocent civilian with a firearm on the premises. Civilian 1 walks into a room full of bullet-riddled corpses and sees Civilian 2 toting a hand-cannon. Civilian 2 is in a room full of bullet-riddled corpses checking for survivors and Civilian 1 walks in, also toting a hand-cannon. What conclusions do Civilian 1 and Civilian 2 jump to very quickly, and what happens next? Or when the police turn up, how do they react to multiple civilians wandering around with weapons in hand?
What happens next is customarily referred to as “deeply regrettable, but unavoidable”.
For me, what happens next is I haul ass away from there. For others who insist on being a first responder and are trying to help, you find out if Civ1 has the super power known as Common Sense. Answering any of the following questions should help you arrive at better decision
How long was the last gunshot heard? Does it look like Civ 2 is trying to help? Is the gun pointed at you? Maybe you should identify yourself?
The police have their own training on how to handle civilians with weapons, maybe you should ask them. I imagine identifying yourself as an officer and commanding them to put down their weapons would be rather high on their priority list.
Dan: Tell me more about your plans to infringe other people’s rights …
OK. Start here: Ed Brayton on the nature of constitutional rights
Follow Patheos on