Distractors

Don't BE an EGG HEAD

PROTECT

the

innocent

CHILDREN

say YES to gun control laws

To Control or Not Control!

CON 1

The Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads:

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.

CON 2

The Founding Fathers wanted the population to be well armed so that the governed would be able to defend itself from an assault on its liberty, whether its from an invading government or our own.

CON 2.1

The Founding Fathers did not mean just sport guns, they meant guns that could defend our liberties.

PRO 3

In 1994 Governor Weld OF Massachusetts signed a law that banned handgun possession for people under 21 in Boston. a year after Weld signed the law, Boston, riddled with youth murders in the early 1990s, began a 2 1/2-year spell without a gun murder of a child under 17.

PRO 4

The Treasury and Justice departments this week released a study that found that 18- to 20-year-olds, 4 percent of the total population, account for 24 percent of gun murders in the United States. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican, supports raising the age for purchase but not for possession. Many Republicans and some Democrats still opposes any rise in the minimum age. In a letter to Vice President Al Gore, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Undersecretary James Johnson called for a ban on handgun and assault rifle possession and sales to people under 21.

PRO 5

Even the First Amendment has restrictions. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can say anything anywhere. Freedom of Religion doesn't mean you can sacrifice a virgin whenever you want. Using common sense can work with the Second Amendment too.

CON 6

Freedom has a price. For free speech the price is political dissent like flag burning, for freedom of religion you have to tolerate beliefs that differ from the masses. the right to assemble means that the nazis and clan can assemble too. The founding fathers felt that to protect these freedoms the population had to be armed. the price to protect freedom is sometimes tragic, like when a crime is committed with a gun. Reasonable laws can help limit these occurrences. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of cars, and there's no movement to ban them. is the right to drive cars that much more important than protecting our freedom.

CON 7

According to statistics there is 1 police officer for every 23,000 people in this country. Now how can that 1 policeman be there to protect me. The constitution does not guarantee us protection from murder or crime. It does provide us with a means to protect ourselves with the right to bear arms. We must stop trying to take hand guns away from law abiding citizens and concentrate on taking them away from the criminals. Hand guns are here to stay and no legislation can rid the world of them. Think about it, there is a law making it illegal to own and use many drugs. Has that law stopped the drug problem we have in this country.

CON 8

Even though there are statistics of gun violence, where are the charts of KNIFE violence or AUTOMOBILE violence? Not to mention deaths by screwdrivers, disease, baseball bats, crossbows,... and on. IF I really wanted to harm anyone, and a gun was not available at the time, the knife would be my next likely choice. IF a person really planned to kill anyone, that person would have found anything that would do the job. A disturbed person is more dangerous than a loaded gun, a gun is predictable, a disturbed person isn't. Submitted by Ken WIlson

PRO 8.1

I don't think liberals believe guns walk around and shoot people by themselves. What they do believe is that guns make killing physically easier, make it too convenient esp. when angered, allow a person to kill from a distance, and allows a person to kill many people at once.

CON 9

We already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books that are being ignored by criminals. In the Columbine High School tragedy, at least eighteen (18) existing anti-gun laws were broken. Does anyone really think the shooters cared they were breaking those anti-gun laws? By definition, does any criminal care that (s)he is breaking the law? Any law? What possible good can more anti-gun laws do other than to further penalize and harass honest American citizens who wish simply to enjoy their Constitutional rights?

PRO 9.1

Its obvious that someone who's willing to do a major crime like murder, isn't likely to worry about a gun control law. The object of gun control is to make it hard for someone that's likely to commit a crime from getting a gun and even harder to get a gun capable of killing dozens of people.

The moral arguments why the 2nd is not absolute

First, it important to note that no right is absolute, even those supposedly granted by God and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. For example, even though the 1st Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech, the right is limited. I cannot publish a newspaper in which I claim that a certain public figure, for example the president of a major company, is a cocaine user, if that fact is known to me to be completely untrue. It would be called libel, and it is a valid abridgment of my rights. The classic example of an abridgment of freedom of speech is the imminent danger rule: I cannot stand up in a crowded theatre and scream that there is a fire (if there is not), because the ensuing panic may cause injury.

The reason abridgment of rights is sometimes valid is that rights can very easily clash. In the example above, my right to free speech clashes with the people in theatre's rights to not be trampled. The same analysis can be applied to the 2nd Amendment. If the right to own a gun interferes with public safety, that right can morally be abridged, in order to protect public safety. And the courts have agreed with this position, as follows.

The legal arguments why the 2nd is not absolute

Throughout the history of the USA, many Court decisions have limited the right to keep and bear arms. The Miller case in the early 20th century limited the right to own certain classes of weapons. More recently, we have the following from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which indicates that the clause about "a well regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

A similar ruling from the Seventh Circuit held that "Construing [the language of the Second Amendment] according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982).

Recently, although the Supreme Court has not issued a clear cut ruling on 2nd Amendment rights, a 1992 decision by the conservative majority stated that "Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992). This opinion, written by Justice David Souter and joined by Chief Justice William Renhnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, indicates that the Supreme Court has a right to limit 2nd Amendment rights. So, it is clear that the 2nd is not absolute, and thus cannot be used as a prima facie reason why any gun should be legal.

Above, I referred to the debate even within the pro-gun camp over the limits of the 2nd. If the 2nd truly gave the right to keep and bear arms without any infringement, then surely such high-intensity arms such as nuclear missiles and tanks should be legal -- or your 2nd Amendment "rights" are being abridged! Obviously, allowing free and easy access to any kind of armament would be a bad idea, so there should be some practical limitation. The question then becomes, who decides what these limits should be? The answer, of course, is that the people decide, through their representatives and the limited representation of the Supreme Court.

But what about the intent of the 2nd? Many pro-gunners believe that the 2nd is the Constitution's way of making sure that our government never becomes tyrannical, and ensures that if it does, we will be able to overthrow it.

There are a few reasons why this is not a good argument. First and most important, the Constitution was a document intended to create a government that could be changed by the people through peaceful means, and it has succeeded for over 200 years to that effect. Other democratic means exist to change, or even overthrow, the government. One counter-argument sometimes heard here is that if the government disarms the populace, the populace is ripe for a dictatorial takeover, and cannot fight back. My response to this is simple: America has over 270,000,000 citizens at last count. No dictator could "take over" without popular support of these citizens.

There is always the possibility (although an incredibly remote one) that another Hitler may arise to power, democratically elected and supported, and begin to ignore the basic ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But not only can we elect our leaders, we can un-elect them as well. We have extensive checks and balances to make sure no one person or agency can have too much power, and we have a healthy respect for democracy earned over 200 years. These are features that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lacked. There is always the possibility that another Hitler will come, yes, but in the meantime, we have at least ten thousand a year dying from guns, and countless more injured. We must weigh this certainty against the infinitesimally small chance that our well-constructed checks and balances will suddenly all fail.

Finally, there is the old canard about slavery; that only people with guns can avoid being slaves, and that only slaves lack the right to basic self defense. The response here is quite simple-when as many people die of gun related incidents as do every year, you are already a slave. You are a slave to a system in which you feel you need to carry a gun for self-protection. You are a slave to the chaos that mankind has worked for millennia to civilize. Perhaps we are all violent beasts at heart, and that will never change. But evidence of peaceful, relatively violent-crime-free societies such as Japan indicate that perhaps we can "all just get along."

NO CONTROL

this could be YOU if gun control isn't made a priority in America

The Reasons Behind the Messages

Message One: Is used for its high Intensity. The video itself is suspenseful, bright, and captures the viewer.

Message Two: Is used as a subliminal message. The newscaster is talking about a car crash, while there is a picture of a gun in the background. The viewer gets a sense that guns are bad.

Message Three: Uses repetition in the hopes that the frequency of our message will allow our viewers to get our message across.

Message Four: Uses the credibility of Mayor Bloomberg to get people to believe in gun control. As the Mayor of New York City, Bloomberg established trustworthiness.

Message Five: Based on Classical Conditioning, using a cartoon (which is already known) paired with our message we hope to spread a belief that gun control is necessary

Message Six: Uses the credibility of President Elect Obama to get people to believe in gun control. As the President Elect, Obama established trustworthiness.

Message Seven: We use a classical conditioning approach to pair an attractive person (Angie!) to our beliefs.

The Life of a Bullet

Say no more to illegal weapons and arms dealers!

Subliminal Messaging We Actually Like!

Reasons Behind the Messages

Message one: Uses repetition in the hopes that the frequency of our message will allow our viewers to get our message across.


Message Two: Uses the credibility of Mayor Bloomberg to get people to believe in gun control. As the Mayor of New York City, Bloomberg established trustworthiness.

Message Three: Based on Classical Conditioning, using a cartoon (which is already known) paired with our message we hope to spread a belief that gun control is necessary

Message Four: Uses the credibility of President Elect Obama to get people to believe in gun control. As the President Elect, Obama established trustworthiness.

Message Five: We use a classical conditioning approach to pair an attractive person (Angie!) to our beliefs.

Reasons Behind the Messages

Maybe if we repeat it...

I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS-I WILL NOT USE ILLEGAL GUNS- yup.

Bloomberg Against Guns

Interstate 95, which runs up the U.S. East Coast, is known to cops as the "Iron Pipeline" -- the conduit of choice for gun smugglers to move their hardware from the southern United States to New York city.

With formidable opponents in the gun manufacturers and gun owners, national politicians do little to stop this traffic, leaving gun control largely in the hands of local leaders.

"Where is the outrage in this country? Well, mayors see it," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "We're the ones who have to go to the funerals. We're the ones that have to look somebody in the eye and say your spouse or your parent or your child is not going to come home."

Since Bloomberg became mayor in 2002, every gun homicide in the city -- including the killing of eight police officers -- has been committed with an illegal gun, police say.

Nationally, the black market is the source for guns used in more than 90 percent of gun crimes.

Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns two years ago, a group that has grown to some 250 mayors representing cities with a population of 50 million in 40 states.

Their goal is to help police stop the flow of illegal guns used in crimes, and they want data on guns used in crimes to be made available to the public.

In the process, they clash with the National Rifle Association, which vigorously defends Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. The NRA wants gun trace data available only to the police.

The Supreme Court hears arguments on the meaning of that constitutional right on March 18.

Meanwhile the issue of gun control has been muted in the campaign for presidential elections in November. The mayors are attempting to force it onto the political agenda.

"I don't know what they are campaigning on. But if you kill 34 people a day in America, it's kind of hard to find an issue that's more important," Bloomberg said. "I think it would be a vote getter rather than a vote loser if they would stand up and tell the public what they would do if they were elected.

Kids should all stay safe around guns.

Do you know someone who owns a gun?

Most adults are allowed to own a gun by law, and many have one. This means that even if there isn't a gun in your house, you need to know what to do if you see one. If you see a gun, follow McGruff's four steps to safety.

1. Stop.
2. Don't touch.
3. Get away.
4. Tell an adult.

When you follow these steps, you're protecting yourself and helping keep other people safe!

Barack Obama On Guns

Here's a preview of Obama's thoughts and policy on guns come January 20th.

How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.

2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum July 12, 2007

During a debate in Nevada, all three Democrats said they opposed implementing a national gun licensing registry and effectively acknowledged that establishing strict gun controls is unworkable and a political minus for Democrats

I don't think that we can get that done," Obama said, but added that he would work as president for "common sense enforcement" such as facilitating efforts to trace guns used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers.

Interesting. Any thoughts?

Angie Says...

Guns are naughty!

Gun Control in America: Then and Now

Every day hundreds of innocent Americans are killed by illegal firearms and weapons. For the past couple decades, the debate about gun rights has raged from the north to the south, from the east to the west. Politicians and activists want more strict controls on them. Gun rights advocates believe that it's part of our country's history to own a weapon and protect yourself.

The issue of firearms takes a high-profile position in United States culture and politics. Incidents of gun violence in "gun free school zones," such as the of 2007 have ignited debate involving gun politics in the US . Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director/Field Operations of take place each year in the United States.

The American public strongly opposes bans on gun ownership, while strongly supporting limits on handguns.

There is a sharp divide between gun-rights proponents and gun-control proponents. This leads to intense political debate over the effectiveness of firearm regulation.

History of guns in America:

Congress continues to debate the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition. Various federal laws have been enacted since 1934 to promote such regulation.

Gun control advocates argue that they curb access by criminals, juveniles, and other "high-risk" individuals. They contend that only federal measures can successfully reduce the availability of guns. Some seek broad policy changes such as near-prohibition of non-police handgun ownership or the registration of all firearm owners or firearms. They assert that there is no constitutional barrier to such measures and no significant social costs. Others advocate less comprehensive policies that they maintain would not impede ownership and legitimate firearm transfers.

Opposition to federal controls is strong. Gun control opponents deny that federal policies keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk persons; rather, they argue, controls often create burdens for law-abiding citizens and infringe upon constitutional rights provided by the Second Amendment. Some argue further that widespread gun ownership is one of the best deterrents to crime as well as to potential tyranny, whether by gangs or by government. They may also criticize the notion of enhancing federal, as opposed to state, police powers.

The two most significant federal statutes controlling firearms in the civilian population are the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. The 1934 Act established strict registration requirements and a transfer tax on machine guns and short-barreled long guns. The 1968 Act prohibits mail-order sales and the interstate sales of firearms, prohibits transfers to minors, limits access to "new" assault weapons, and sets forth penalties and licensing requirements for manufacturers, importers, and dealers.

Crime and mortality statistics are often used in the gun control debate. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old age group increased by 173% from 1985 to 1993, and then decreased by 47% from 1993 to 1999. Firearm fatalities from all causes and for all age groups decreased by 22%. For juveniles, they de-creased by 40%, from 1993 to 1998.

The 106 th Congress considered several measures to regulate firearms. They included 1) requiring background checks at gun shows, 2) requiring firearm safety locks, and 3) increasing controls on assault weapons and handguns. None, however, were enacted. Several dozen gun control-related proposals have been introduced in the 107 th Congress. One measure has been approved by committee: this bill (H. R. 4757) would require that a greater number of federal and state records that are pertinent to determining firearms transfer and possession eligibility be made accessible through the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS). NICS performance emerged as an issue during consideration of proposals that would require background checks for firearm transfers by nonlicensed persons at gun shows. Such proposals were considered in the 106 th Congress but have not been reconsidered in the 107 th Congress to date. A discharge petition on another measure was narrowly defeated by the House: this bill (H. R. 218) would exempt certain qualified current and former law enforcement officers from state laws prohibiting concealed carry of firearms.




What we think!

Pro- Through the years, legislative proposals to restrict the availability of firearms to the public have raised the following questions: What restrictions on firearms are permissible under the Constitution? Does gun control constitute crime control? Can the nation's rates of homicide, robbery, and assault be reduced by the stricter regulation of firearm commerce or ownership? Would restrictions stop attacks on public figures or thwart deranged persons and terrorists? Would household, street corner, and schoolyard disputes be less lethal if firearms were more difficult and expensive to acquire? Would more restrictive gun control policies have the unintended effect of impairing citizens' means of self-defense?
In recent years, proponents of gun control legislation have often held that only federal laws can be effective in the United States. Otherwise, they say, states with few restrictions will continue to be sources of guns that flow illegally into restrictive states. They believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "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," (1) is obsolete; or (2) is intended solely to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or (3) does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable requirements. They ask why a private citizen needs any firearm that is not designed primarily for hunting or other recognized sporting purposes.

Technological Fixes Thus far

Besides the identification and qualification requirements on guns, there hasn't been much in the way of preventing unauthorized use of weapons by minors and criminals. Other than locks called a "safety" there hasn't been much other improvement on the weapons themseleves.

Smart Guns: A new fix?

A "personalized" or "smart" gun will not fire unless it is being used by an authorized individual. Such guns have the potential to reduce the negative externalities of gun ownership while preserving the benefits. Ongoing efforts to develop practical "smart" designs make it timely to consider regulations that would favor or mandate them in the market for new guns. The likely consequences would depend on the design details, in particular the costs of transferring the "key" to firing such guns. With an "ideal" design, transferring the key would require special equipment that could be monitored by appropriate authorities. The result would be to block thefts and other transfers of such guns in the secondary market and, in the long run, reduce access by individuals who are proscribed from possessing a gun. Personalized guns, therefore, could make existing firearms regulations more effective and reduce the social costs associated with gun misuse. Though personalized guns have advantages relative to standard guns in a wide variety of situations, some of the potential benefits of personalized guns could be captured through alternative policy measures.


Other Sources:

1.) The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618, with subsequent amendments including the Firearm Owners Protection Act

2.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

3.) "A look inside America's gun culture.". Retrieved on 2008-01-21.