Author Topic: Media bias? (Read 2155 times)

mauser · « **Reply #45 on:** January 25, 2002, 12:11:05 PM »

Now that is something I didn't know, thanks Rip for the info.

sorry Rip, just saw your last post as I posted mine. Yes it does look like media bias. Media should be impartial and shouldn't have agendas attached, but it seems sometimes it does. I wish I could get FOX news at 5:00 am here. Pls ignore the rest of my post if necessary, it's only about gun control and my personal take

As for gun control, we don't have concealed cary in Hawaii, and I heard our laws are pretty strict. We had a bad shooting a little while ago involving a disgruntled employee of Xerox that ended in seven deaths I think. I remember seeing one of the victims come to my workplace to fix our machine when I was in college. My father knew one of the victims too, since he worked in the document reproduction dept of KPMG. The suspect is now in prison. Typical of these incidences is the debate about gun control and concealed carry that rage immediately after the incident. However, due to the culture here in Hawaii, I definitely doubt concealed carry will happen. It just feels to me that most people here wouldn't be ready for that kind of responsibility. Not because of any particular faults, but more likely due to the amount of exposure to firearms average people have here. I know there are countries in Europe where people can own "assault weapons," and even silencers for them (from the hkpro.com board), and considering the differences in society and culture I don't think it would work here in Hawaii anyway. Immediately after the WTC attacks though, there were people who previously never considered buying firearms actually changing their minds and getting a weapon (though not for concealed carry obviously).

Personally, I was in my high school Rifle Team for all four years (we shot .22 rimfire match rifles at US Army 3-position targets for 50 ft. distance). When I hear about people with "sniper weapons," I don't immediately envision some wacko who wants to hole him/herself up in some high place and start randomly shooting at people. It's about a sport, long range shooting. I don't know how it feels to shoot a well balanced and prepped match rifle with match ammo at a target 600m away and get groups only a couple inches in diameter, but from my few years on the rifle team I think I'd enjoy it. I'm sure not everyone feels the same though (not speaking about anyone on this board), and I think they should be taught that not everyone who feels the need to kit themselves out with a custom high powered rifle is a threat to society. I would personally not dream of hurting other people because of my own problems. Currently, I try to fill my marksmanship urges through archery. Got myself an olympic style recurve, some arrows, and now a pretty good sight. One day dream of being able to get consistent groups at 70m (never tried that range yet b/c I only got myself a sight last week). Hm.. how would you describe the long range shooting sport and it's feel without a firearm or something construed as dangerous? How about being able to shoot baskets from 3/4 court all day? Or being able to hit holes in one or second-shot holes (Eagle? )?

Sorry for straying from the thread and rambling, but I guess it kinda has something to do with everything here. I don't think concealed carry would work everywhere, but I'm against complete gun control. A lot of it has to do with how people are brought up (to control and manage their rage, be considerate of others, how firearms are viewed, etc.). Revealing yourself as a gun owner shouldn't result in the other person taking a step back away from you.

mauser
(who may get brave enough to try out his new sight this weekend)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #46 on:** January 25, 2002, 12:24:42 PM »

Good post Mauser.

midnight Target · « **Reply #47 on:** January 25, 2002, 12:57:53 PM »

Well said ,

Rip, the media should report the news if that is what they claim to be reporting. I wonder if there might be some other reason for the omission you claim other than "liberal bias".

As for guns, I have no problem with them. I enjoy watching the biathlon during the winter Olympics (yea yea...go ahead), and other shooting competitions. I once owned a S&W 38 snub. I sold it when the kids came along because it was single action and I worried too much. I think people should be free to own whatever the Government allows. I just don't believe the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that right, and the Supreme Court seems to agree.

Udie at Work · « **Reply #48 on:** January 25, 2002, 01:20:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I think people should be free to own whatever the Government allows.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

180 degrees out of phase there man.

SHould be the government owns what ever the people allow it to own

(i know that part has been forgotten but it's still the way it supposed to work)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #49 on:** January 25, 2002, 01:51:13 PM »

Absolutely Udie! We need MORE big brother like a lump on the head.

Goth · « **Reply #50 on:** January 25, 2002, 02:39:57 PM »

Yeah...guns are just plain evil. I mean, whoever owns a gun must harbor a murderer inside....as well as these fine individuals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1074000/1074427.stm

http://www.civilrightsunion.org/acluwatch/baseball.htm

http://www.itp.berkeley.edu/~asam121/vincent.html

Let's start a bat control law.

Gimme a break. Yes, guns make it easier to kill, but if someone really wants to murder another person, anything will do.

midnight Target · « **Reply #51 on:** January 25, 2002, 03:19:01 PM »

You are absolutely right Udie (that was painful to type). What I meant to say is that the right to own firearms is regulated by law, and we all know where the laws come from.......right?

Udie at Work · « **Reply #52 on:** January 25, 2002, 04:33:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
You are absolutely right Udie (that was painful to type). What I meant to say is that the right to own firearms is regulated by law, and we all know where the laws come from.......right?

This isn't the first time i've typed this here BUT

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

my interpretation

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ....

The punctuation seems to fit you're belief that arms are for Militia only, it (the punctuation) also denotes that a militia is necessary to keep your state free. I take this to mean that incase they have to remove a tyranical government, but ofcourse it could be to protect us from 1,000,000 diferent threats.

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

This is where da beef is

I think from my highlighting you can get my point hehe. To me this says that there should be NO regulation what so ever that could infringe upon any citizens right to keep and bear. I take this to the extreme meaning that I should be able to walk down the street bearing an arm (3 arms)

Now I'm not nieve enough to think that will ever happen again, nor do I want to live in a society that everybody is packign heat all day. I do however think that crime would drop by 90% if that were to happen. Then we'd be left w/ the 10% sicko's with guns, that's the reason I don't want it like that.

Now, the 2nd admendment could be changed. They left a mechanism for that. BUT

I think that would be a sad day in our nations history and would most likely lead to civil war 2, which would be when Big Brother really takes over. Honestly I wouldn't doubt it if there's already a "plan" for this. How could we stop them now if we actually needed to? But that get's into my paranoia

back to work........

midnight Target · « **Reply #53 on:** January 25, 2002, 04:43:28 PM »

Well according to the SC in Miller vs USA the 2nd ammendment applies only to well regulated militias, and applies to "those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals."

Nowhere (that I have seen) has the SC ruled that we all have the right to bear arms.

BTW..Media bias is bad:D just trying to stay on topic.

Udie at Work · « **Reply #54 on:** January 25, 2002, 04:54:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Well according to the SC in Miller vs USA the 2nd ammendment applies only to well regulated militias, and applies to "those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals."

Nowhere (that I have seen) has the SC ruled that we all have the right to bear arms.

BTW..Media bias is bad:D just trying to stay on topic.

well one of these day's I'm going to write the essay I've been thinking of for about 2 years now of why the USA won't survive. Maybe it's because Im a glass half full kinda person. I'm too damn lazy to write it though hehehehehe.

stupid dopers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

media is biased!!!!!!

rip

Toad · « **Reply #55 on:** January 26, 2002, 10:29:51 AM »

Quote

Target: "by many acounts (within that same article) is at odds with the Supreme Courts ruling in Miller"
Quote

Like most things legal written by lawyers, United States Vs Miller is open to interpretation.

However, the sentence in the Conclusion of US V Emerson is about as clear as I've ever seen a lawyer write. "...the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons ..."

Note the reference to Miller deals with arms of a type that are excluded from protection under the Second. IE, not all arms are allowed by the Second.

Here's a short summary of the positions by theUniversity of Missouri at Kansascity Legal department.

The Issue: Does the Second Amendment Give Individuals a Right to Bear Arms?

"Introduction
The meaning of the Second Amendment depends upon who you talk to.

The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms.

Advocates of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.

The Supreme Court could easily resolve this debate, but ever since the cryptic decision of U. S. vs. Miller in 1939, the Court has ducked the issue.

Miller is subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all.

There is also a second open question concerning the Second Amendment: If it does create a right of individuals to own firearms, is the right enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation?

In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there's been a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then, and it's not clear that the Court would come to the same conclusion today. In Quilici vs Morton Grove, a case involving a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the possession of handguns, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the right was not enforceable against the states.

The third case posted here is U. S. vs Emerson. Emerson offers a thorough historical and textual analysis of the Second Amendment supporting its conclusion that the Amendment was intended to protect the right of individuals to own and carry firearms. In October, 2001, the Fifth Circuit upheld the validity of federal firearm statute at issue in Emerson as a narrowly tailored reasonable restriction on Second Amendment rights--but, importantly, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to possess firearms, not just members of "militias."

I personally would like to see the Supremes take this up and deal with it once and for all. Sure save us all a lot of vitriol and wasted money funding the pro and con groups.

However, given the ambiguity of Miller and the clarity of Emerson it would seem for now that the interpretation that the Second Amendment is an individual right, (but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias) has the most support within the US judiciary.

Also, note two things. So far, Emerson hasn't been appealed to the Supremes, nor have they expressed any interest in dealing with the Second. So they are letting Emerson stand. hmmmmm

Also, note that Emerson specifically mentions that milita weapons are OK... not non-militia weapons like Miller dealt with (sawed-off shotguns). So, this would mean in a Federal context that assault weapons (Ak-47, SKS, M-16's) are allowed. Quilici vs Morton allows STATES to restrict them, however.

midnight Target · « **Reply #56 on:** January 26, 2002, 07:14:21 PM »

Interesting stuff Toad,

Lets say Militia type weapons are the only ones guaranteed. Would that not leave the possibility to rule out all small caliber handguns, some sport shooting rifles, pellet guns....etc?

Bias is still bad!:D