the media.. shootings..

[JB88]

did it occur to you lasz that the people who do put down a shooter are less likely to give information or spotlight time due to the fact that they werent seeking it and/or are being tight lipped for legal reasons?

[lazs2]

and... I do not believe the 1st should be tampered with.. if 76% of the journalists are liberal socialists and they can sell their news... so be it.

I think they are getting what they deserve tho... no one watches the news or reads the commie drivel papers anymore.

Good intentions are worse tho... the idea that the government can fund the news results in the same lefties being able to be on the air even if no one wants to hear em....  NPR and PBS are examples.  

The government should not be able to waste our money on funding news or art.


lazs

[Eagler]

if the media reports focus on the good guys killing the bad guys there will be less bad guy news which is the majority of their content .. maybe it would force news back to an hour a night, back to where it should be...

[Curval]

Our old friend Lott huh?  Figured as much.

I'm not disagreeing with what your main point is in this thread...which is that the media manipulates the situation and focuses on the crazed shooter rather than the hero who put him down.  

I just don't think your stats are right and I find it mildly amusing that you state that 3 out of 4 school shootings are stopped by civilians and then use this woman in the church shootings as a great example.  But, it wasn't a school shooting.  You should look into the media for a new career.  You'd be good at it.  

Plus, I see you moaning and groaning about gun free zones in schools and yet 3 in 4 shootings are stopped by civilians with guns?  That seems to be a contradiction to me.

No need to look anything up.  It was just a passing observation.  I'll let you get back to your ranting and hand wringing again.

[Charon]

Our old friend Lott huh? Figured as much.

Lott's reputation is not pristine in a variety of fairly minor and petty areas, but he's hardly discredited even with a heavy academic focus on discrediting anything he publishes that goes against "conventional wisdom." In fact, whether they agree with the notion that concealed carry does reduce crime, he has convinced a great many critics that it certainly doesn't lead to blood in the streets over every minor altercation.

Charon

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Charon
Preaching to the Choir I lost faith in either party some time ago. After much arguing with Lazs over why Ron Paul makes sense, I may vote Republican strictly, and I mean strictly, over the issue of supreme court nominations. Not that I have any great deal of trust in Rudy McRomney al' Huckabee on that or any constitutionalist issue. If that wasn't an issue neither party would receive my presidential endorsement, just like neither did last election.

Charon

Ron Paul is someone I could vote for.

But I fear he will be prevented from getting the nomination by the wheeler-dealers in the Republican party; even if it means dirty tricks or keeping campaign funds from getting too high for him.

Do you remember the war chest Geo. Bush had even at this stage? ...in his first bid for president?

In my view, Ron is too much a pro-people's rights (pro-constitution) politician for the power block to allow him to win the nomination.

For example--> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

excerpt:
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
by Ron Paul

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.


from--> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html

The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
by Ron Paul

The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms – the right to bear arms.

The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.

Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.

Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.

So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad.

For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!


Yet, Ron Paul is a staunch Pro-Lifer and would have women imprisoned were they to elect to undergo an abortion if he had his way.

I am having a problem with any man telling a woman what she can and can not do in the matter.

I have my own spiritual views on the subject and would like to think I would never have one but... it's not my place to tell another woman she can't and if she does then imprison her.

TIGERESS

[Charon]

In my view, Ron is too much a pro-people's rights (pro-constitution) politician for the power block to allow him to win the nomination.

I would say an even bigger problem is that a great many people, whether they consider themselves to be conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, have lost touch with the whole concept of smaller government. Paul sounds alien and scary to many, who at their core see a big conservative or big liberal government as the solution to all of their problems.

But there are a notable amount who see the light, and it is growing and coming from moderates in both parties (not the pure fiscal socialists or strict social conservatives, of course) and my belief is that, at the very least, Paul can be counted on to show both parties that we are becoming more aware of how the sausage is and and less willing to accept the status quo. Nudge them both into a better alignment, perhaps. Much of this is hashed out in greater detail in this thread: http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=216978&referrerid=5405

I very much like MOST of Paul's message, and would vote for him even knowing h would likely lose, if the Supreme Court nominations were not an issue. I voted for that Libertarian chap last election, can't quite remember his name, Bardink, Brdenom... the guy who got crushed even by Nader. I may still vote for Paul even with the court nominations on the line. Much will be decided for me based on the outcome of Parker/Heller under the Robert's court, when we see just exactly what we have gotten from the previous conservative presidents as far as constitutionalist jurists are concerned.

Charon

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Charon
I would say an even bigger problem is that a great many people, whether they consider themselves to be conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, have lost touch with the whole concept of smaller government. Paul sounds alien and scary to many, who at their core see a big conservative or big liberal government as the solution to all of their problems.

But there are a notable amount who see the light, and it is growing and coming from moderates in both parties (not the pure fiscal socialists or strict social conservatives, of course) and my belief is that, at the very least, Paul can be counted on to show both parties that we are becoming more aware of how the sausage is and and less willing to accept the status quo. Nudge them both into a better alignment, perhaps. Much of this is hashed out in greater detail in this thread: http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=216978&referrerid=5405

I very much like MOST of Paul's message, and would vote for him even knowing h would likely lose, if the Supreme Court nominations were not an issue. I voted for that Libertarian chap last election, can't quite remember his name, Bardink, Brdenom... the guy who got crushed even by Nader. I may still vote for Paul even with the court nominations on the line. Much will be decided for me based on the outcome of Parker/Heller under the Robert's court, when we see just exactly what we have gotten from the previous conservative presidents as far as constitutionalist jurists are concerned.

Charon

I would say an even bigger problem is that a great many people, whether they consider themselves to be conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, have lost touch with the whole concept of smaller government. Paul sounds alien and scary to many, who at their core see a big conservative or big liberal government as the solution to all of their problems.

Know why the age old criminal con-game still works on people every day?
Greed at the expense of others... people wanting something for nothing...

The SCJ's are a serious concern for me too... re: Roe v Wade and some other things.

TIGERESS

[Charon]

The SCJ's are a serious concern for me too... re: Roe v Wade and some other things.

This is pure hijack material in waiting, but I will add that I personally disagree with judicial activism. The case supporting R v W is seriously weak from a Constitutional standpoint. A fact noted even by many liberal scholars who otherwise support the right to choose. It was a broadly sweeping, politicized finding that stretched the Constitution to the limit.

The problem with Judicial activism is that it is a shortcut around the legislative branch based on the political views of those sitting on the bench, if they do not adhere rigidly to the Constitution. You may like the outcome of R v W, but, you may not like the next activist outcome and you have no democratic control over the process. This would have been just as valid if the court presented a pro-life position based on a twisted reading of the Constitution.  There are legislative alternatives that can accomplish this or most any goal if society wants to accomplish it. They are harder to achieve in many cases, but the Constitution can be changed if needed.

While Paul personally disagrees with abortion by and large, especially after having performed some late-term procedures, his political position is based on the position, accurate IMO, that R v W is not a constitutional issue to begin with. It's one for state legislatures or a Constitutional amendment -- both legislative processes. After that, the court can review individual cases to see if they fit with the language and intent of the Amendment.

Charon

[john9001]

Originally posted by Charon
.

The problem with Judicial activism is that it is a shortcut around the legislative branch based on the political views of those sitting on the bench, if they do not adhere rigidly to the Constitution.  

this is truth, the job of the SC is to rule on the Constitutionality of a law that was challenged, not to make law.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Charon
This is pure hijack material in waiting, but I will add that I personally disagree with judicial activism. The case supporting R v W is seriously weak from a Constitutional standpoint. A fact noted even by many liberal scholars who otherwise support the right to choose. It was a broadly sweeping, politicized finding that stretched the Constitution to the limit.

The problem with Judicial activism is that it is a shortcut around the legislative branch based on the political views of those sitting on the bench, if they do not adhere rigidly to the Constitution. You may like the outcome of R v W, but, you may not like the next activist outcome and you have no democratic control over the process. This would have been just as valid if the court presented a pro-life position based on a twisted reading of the Constitution.  There are legislative alternatives that can accomplish this or most any goal if society wants to accomplish it. They are harder to achieve in many cases, but the Constitution can be changed if needed.

While Paul personally disagrees with abortion by and large, especially after having performed some late-term procedures, his political position is based on the position, accurate IMO, that R v W is not a constitutional issue to begin with. It's one for state legislatures or a Constitutional amendment -- both legislative processes. After that, the court can review individual cases to see if they fit with the language and intent of the Amendment.

Charon

I view state and federal government interference and religious interference as Patriarchal meddling in an individual woman's reproductive issues and as an invasion of privacy which is a constitutional right and also I understand what you are saying and it's probably best we avoid the R v W thing in this thread.

Lots of other things we can and do agree on!

TIGERESS

[Charon]

Which gets us back to the original point.

Purely playing devils advocate, when you have a 1st Amendment that allows the recruiting and promotion of hate groups, that incites people to violence (the Turner Diaries/Murrow Fed. Bldg.) that glorifies mass killers to the point that they commit mass killings strictly for the infamy, that allows pedophiles to hunt for victims then why not support sensible restrictions?

Talk about violence! A lot of guns and swords and clubs have been used to kill people, but the genocides and wars and pogroms start with the spoken or printed word. I understand why the media refuses to call for sensible restrictions on the 1st while supporting them on the 2nd -- that's our job man! But what about the rest of you?

Charon

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Charon
Which gets us back to the original point.

Purely playing devils advocate, when you have a 1st Amendment that allows the recruiting and promotion of hate groups, that incites people to violence (the Turner Diaries/Murrow Fed. Bldg.) that glorifies mass killers to the point that they commit mass killings strictly for the infamy, that allows pedophiles to hunt for victims then why not support sensible restrictions?

Talk about violence! A lot of guns and swords and clubs have been used to kill people, but the genocides and wars and pogroms start with the spoken or printed word. I understand why the media refuses to call for sensible restrictions on the 1st while supporting them on the 2nd -- that's our job man! But what about the rest of you?

Charon

How would you consider changing the 1st amendment yet prevent opening a presently closed door that, once opened, would create a precedence that enables future tampering with the fundamental freedom of speech it provides We the People?

Human nature, its ugly side, has always been and will always be.

Many religious extremists bash and try to control or limit anyone or anything that isn’t exactly how they want them to be.

Many political extremists want to control the population according to their beliefs thus cancel individual freedoms.

No law ever passed prevented the existence of murder or hate as a thing people do.

Personally, I don’t like the objectification of women by certain men as mere sub-human sex toys.
But I would not make porn illegal because it would abridge the 1st amendment which affords me freedoms many others in many other countries do not have.

Imagine the government barging in on this BBS and censoring criticism of the government or arresting people as they do in China?

Sometimes freedom of speech is a bitter pill but life without it would be worse.

A BBS is a means of providing interactive human expression; speech.

With that said, members of this BBS do not have the freedom to say whatever they want anytime they want in the forums; they are required to abide the forum's rules.

But... this BBS does not force anyone to be a member either, thus acceptance of the BBS rules is a requirement of membership.

Every single rule places limits or prohibitions on certain types of speech.

TIGERESS

1- Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.

2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.

3- Do not open a new thread that duplicates a current topic.

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.

6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.

7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.

8- Cheating allegations or descriptions are not allowed. Email support@hitechcreations.com to report any issues regarding this. HTC permanently bans anyone caught cheating in Aces High. We take cheating and allegations of cheating very seriously.

9- Complaints about a player's behavior online should be emailed to support@hitechcreations.com rather than posted to this board.

10- Spam is not tolerated here under any circumstance.

11- Do not use overly large signatures. Signatures should not take up more than 5 normal sized text lines in height. Do not use images in your signature.

12 - Users are permitted to upload one of their own avatars. Avatars must be in good taste and consistent with the other rules of this board.

13- Do not punt topics. Punting would be making a non-substantive post for the express purpose of bring the thread to the top of the thread list.

14- Members should post in a way which is consistent with "normal writing". That is users should not post excessive numbers of emoticons, large, small or coloured text, etc. Similarly users should not SHOUT or use excessive punctuation (e.g. ! and ?) in topic titles or posts.

15- Threads started or, posts made, with the intent to inflame, incite will be considered trolling and not allowed.

16- All posts, in public forums, should be made in the English language.

17- Threads started devoid of commentary will not be allowed (i.e. links, cut-n-pastes, clicky, read this...)

Posts and threads may be edited, deleted, or locked for violations of these rules. Continued or blatant violation of these rules may result in a temporary or permanent ban.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Charon
Lott's reputation is not pristine in a variety of fairly minor and petty areas, but he's hardly discredited even with a heavy academic focus on discrediting anything he publishes that goes against "conventional wisdom." In fact, whether they agree with the notion that concealed carry does reduce crime, he has convinced a great many critics that it certainly doesn't lead to blood in the streets over every minor altercation.

Charon

So, do you think lazs', or sorry Lott's, stats in this case are correct?

Three out of four school shootings are prevented by civilians?

Convincing people with false stats isn't hard.  Particularly here.

[midnight Target]

Actually lazs wrote "on quarter". I assumed he meant 1/4.

But I always enjoy lazs' rants. Especially when he pulls stats outta his rear. 76% of journalists are lefty-socialist? hehe.