PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     HCI and this book prove it.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This book from Sarah Brady and friends proves the 2nd Amendment is not needed:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=283

This link is also more proof:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/bellesiles.html
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:10 PM on April 5, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

LOL that's the book that's completely false and the author has been thoroughly hammered by everyone since he made most of it up.

Yeah, outright LYING will surely further HCI's cause.  

:D
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:45 AM on May 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Bellisies won an award for his book, however his method of collecting some information and omitting other information, caused this award to BE RECINDED, he was also suspended from his college post. IN HIGH-FALUTIN ACADEMIA JARGON THIS MAN WAS PROVEN TO BE A LIAR. Not a good platform to stand on when debating this subject...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:20 PM on November 30, 2003 | IP
queerdan

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 9:20 PM on November 30, 2003 :
Bellisies won an award for his book, however his method of collecting some information and omitting other information, caused this award to BE RECINDED, he was also suspended from his college post. IN HIGH-FALUTIN ACADEMIA JARGON THIS MAN WAS PROVEN TO BE A LIAR. Not a good platform to stand on when debating this subject...



we all know that the nra blackmailed columbia university in to stealing the award back. we also all know that bellisies was forced to resign from emory university not because of his book, but because of nra sponsered death threats.

look at what happend to jon lott after he was really proven wrong? nothing

Daniel Wright

(Edited by queerdan 3/11/2004 at 1:46 PM).


-------
Check out my homepage at http://www.angelfire.com/nj4/danwright/
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 1:45 PM on March 11, 2004 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

quoting Sarah Brady as an authority on gun control is equivalent to quoting George W Bush on WMDs.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 8:35 PM on April 29, 2006 | IP
45superman

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from kelvin90703 at 10:10 AM on April 5, 2003 :
This book from Sarah Brady and friends proves the 2nd Amendment is not needed:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=283

This link is also more proof:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/bellesiles.html



Well, hell, I guess you could argue that nothing in the Bill of Rights, is needed (unless you're going to insist on a guarantee of freedom from tyranny, anyway).


-------
People who advocate strict gun laws are confused--instead of the right to bear arms, they think the Second Amendment is the right to bare hands.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:19 PM on May 5, 2006 | IP
proudamerican

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from florida3006 at 8:35 PM on April 29, 2006 :
quoting Sarah Brady as an authority on gun control is equivalent to quoting George W Bush on WMDs.



Iraq did have WMD’s. Where have you been? Chemical weapons were used against Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and against Iran in 1983-1988.

 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 4:26 PM on September 15, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[removed by poster]

(Edited by Michigan 10/4/2006 at 9:41 PM).
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 3:19 PM on October 2, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've been thinking about this issue, over the last few days, and rather than debate the source of the original poster's questions, let me see if I can address the issue directly. If I understand his point-of-view correctly, (s)he wants to know if an armed citizen militia is still feasible in the United States.

Is the view of an armed populace embodied in the Second Amendment still valid  in a society with professional military and police forces? Is an armed populace still  capable of performing the functions detailed above? Many have argued that it cannot  and thus, that the private ownership of arms is an anachronism inapplicable to our  current circumstances. These arguments rest on empirical assertions that are  highly debatable to say the least.

Commentators often attack the vitality of the military and political functions of  the militia concept with the argument that they can no longer be performed by a  militia. Simply stated, the argument is that an armed citizenry cannot restrain a  domestic tyrant or deter a foreign conqueror backed by a modern army. This  empirical assertion is frequently made by lawyers, politicians, or other advocates  who offer neither argument nor authority for the proposition. And while this  assertion may be true in some limited number of circumstances, as a categorical  assertion it is demonstrably false.

Consider some recent examples. The Vietnam War demonstrated that a modern  military power can be resisted by guerilla fighters bearing only small arms. This  lesson has not been forgotten. In 1992, the United States declined to intervene in the  conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina after an aide to General Colin Powell, then Chairman  of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised the Senate Armed Services Committee that the  widespread ownership of arms in the former Yugoslav republic made even limited  intervention "perilous and deadly." The deterrent effect of an armed populace  was emphasized by Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who led United  Nations peace keeping troops in Sarajevo for five months. Despite the tremendous  capabilities of the United States Armed Forces, he explained, the prevalence of arms  ownership in the area caused him to believe that if American forces were to be sent  to Bosnia, "Americans [would be] killed.... You can't isolate it, make it nice and  sanitary."

The validity of these concerns has also been demonstrated in the current conflict  in Chechnya where "more than 40,000 soldiers from the Russian army ... have  quickly been humbled by a few thousand urban guerrillas who mostly live at home,  wear jeans, use castoff weapons and have almost no coherent battle plans or  organization." The Russian army's nuclear capability apparently has not  translated into a tactical advantage in the streets of Chechnya.

The United States military is, at present, engaged in daily combat with urban and rural insurgents throughout Iraq and Afghanistan. Make no mistake, I think the Taleban, Ba'athists, and other groups are clearly the "bad guys," the simple tactical and strategic reality is that disorganized, untrained, and non-uniformed militias armed only with small arms and improvised explosives are quite successfully holding out against the United States military.

In addition to these anecdotal examples, there is further evidence of the military  practicality of an armed citizenry. The 1966 Arthur D. Little, Inc. Report ("the Little  Report"), commissioned by the United States Department of the Army, concluded that  in spite of recent technological developments in the modes of waging war, a modern  war will almost certainly be a "shooting war" in which the basic individual weapon  of combat will be the rifle. The Little Report does more than refute the notion that  riflemen are militarily obsolete in the nuclear era. It offers an additional insight into  the military value of armed citizens: they make better soldiers when they enter the  service. They are significantly better marksmen than those who did not own arms  prior to enlistment (even when marksmanship is measured after military training) and  are more confident in their ability to perform effectively in combat. Furthermore,  gun owners are more likely to enlist, to prefer combat outfits, and to become  marksmanship instructors.

Nevertheless, the question of whether armed citizens can serve as an effective  check on the state in our nuclear age is an important one. The belief that an armed  citizenry would subdue aggressive rulers and keep them sensitive to the rights of the  people was perhaps the most important motivation for the inclusion of the right to  keep and bear arms in the Constitution. Thus, the continued vitality of an armed  populace as a check on the modern state should have important implications on our  interpretation of the Second Amendment. As I have noted above, there is little reason  to dismiss the effectiveness of a modern militia. Much to the contrary, the Little  Report and the conflicts in Vietnam, Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Iraq offer compelling  evidence that armed citizens can restrain, deter, or repel a modern army.

Some, while acknowledging the effectiveness of an armed citizenry as a check on  government, have questioned the prudence of such a scheme. Certainly, we ought not  encourage or facilitate armed uprisings whenever a particular group feels shorted by  the political process. Moreover, it is entirely legitimate for the government to punish  insurrection. Can such punishment be consistent with a proper respect for the  political function of the right to arms?

Of course it can. The Second Amendment does not guarantee immunity from  punishment for insurrection; it merely guarantees the capacity for resistance. And that  capacity, as a check on government, does not go unchecked itself. The Constitution  explicitly affirms the validity of punishing insurrection, and the potential of  punishment is a check on the armed populace. It strongly discourages armed  resistance except in the cases of the most severe encroachments by the government.  This idea is best expressed in the Declaration of Independence: "Prudence, indeed,  will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed [or challenged]  for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that  mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right  themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 11:18 AM on October 4, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from proudamerican at 4:26 PM on September 15, 2006 :
Iraq did have WMD’s. Where have you been? Chemical weapons were used against Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and against Iran in 1983-1988.


Actually, the weapons used on the Iraqi Kurds are not classified as weapons of mass destruction, nor were the weapons used on the Iranians. Some WMDs are chemicals weapons, but not all chemical weapons are WMD.

Not to mention, the Geroge H.W. Bush administation reported that all of those muntions were destroyed after Desert Storm. The present administations claims, from 2002 through 2004, were that Saddam was in posseion of more potent weapons that were forbidden him by various UN resolutions. This was the cassus belli of the war.

Bush has since recanted:
as seen on CNN.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 9:04 PM on October 6, 2006 | IP
thewolf

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

she is clearly a liar ...here are some of the things she has said in the recent past and got called upon for it:

Excerpts from a speech by Sarah Brady, delivered to general public on October 13, 1994, at the Thompson Conference Center, at the University of Texas, Austin, TX., juxtaposed with other comments Sarah Brady has publicly made.


---

"The one thing that I have pushed for has been responsible gun ownership; responsible and keeping guns out of the wrong hands. We are not for disarming people in this nation at all, that is the furthest thing from our minds, but what we are is for saving lives. Now I am known as the Number One Gun Grabber in this country. I don't want to grab anyone's guns. I can assure you, but what I do want to do is make things safer."   [emphasis added]



"We must get rid of all the guns."
--Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of Handgun Control Inc
Phil Donahue Show, September 1994
--- with Sheriff Jay Printz & others
Note: In Texas, just one month later she denies
that she wants to "get rid of all the guns".

"I do not believe in extremism; I don't believe that we should arm every man, woman and child including felons and fugitives in this United States. No, I do not, then again I do not believe we should ban handguns or hunting weapons either. I think that there are extremists on both sides."

Neither does the U.S. Government. There are already state and federal laws
prohibiting felons, fugitives from justice, the mentally incompetent and those
under 21 from buying or possessing handguns.

Again, note that Mrs. Brady claims she doesn't want to ban handguns or
hunting weapons, but try to reconcile that with her statement on
the Phil Donahue Show (shown above).

"...I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Incorporated, from the Hearst Newspapers Special Report, "Handguns in America" October 1997)

Just remember, Sarah doesn't consider this view extremist.
I always thought that every person in the U.S. had rights.
That's what I was taught in school and that's what the Constitution says and
the courts. I'd never deprive a person of their right to speak their mind, not
even Sarah Brady. But she feels some people don't deserve to have rights.
Reminds me of a problem that occurred 50 years ago with Germany's Jews.

Texans I know also know a lot about gun violence. According to a new report by the Department of Health, Guns are the number one cause of Death to Texans under the age of 44--that is--that is a pretty pathetic. That statistic is applicable to 70% of the population of the state, 70% are under 44.

This is an example of the strange "factoids" that Sarah likes to use. The statement
is limited to those people under 44 years of age. An examination of the Texas Dept.
of Health web site did not reveal such a study, or identify any such statistic. In 1994,
homicide (all causes) ranked 10th (2,144) , with suicide ranking 8th.

So what's with this "under 44" statistic? What that eliminates are deaths from things
like heart disease (42,330), cancers (31,959), strokes (9,845), flu & pneumonia (4,039)
and Diabetes (4,582). Note that over 53% of the population died from heart disease
or cancers. Combining both homicides and suicides by firearms (using a very liberal
60% for homicides) more people in Texas died from Diabetes than from firearms.

"No one can consider themselves immune from the terrible epidemic that claims more than 15 people a day, 15 children a day, excuse me, more than a hundred Americans a day."



Sarah likes to claim 40,000 people are being gunned down yearly but
she knows full well that deaths from suicide account for nearly half of
that number (about 18,346 in 1994). Without trying to downplay the
tragedy of suicide, no law could adequately prevent someone from taking
their own life. Also, since Canada imposed heavy restrictions on handguns
the suicide rate has remained about the same. People simply changed from
gun suicides to leaping suicides.

But then, one hundred people per day makes for a nice sound-byte, doesn't it?

In the first month alone more than 23,000 felons were stopped from buying handguns over the counter, many included murders and rapists and this is according to the ATF.



According to a Government Accounting Office audit, only 12 people
have been prosecuted under the Brady law. The GAO also found that
most of the rejections under Brady were due to errors in filling out the
form or other clerical issues having nothing to do with stopping felons.



---

[People] want [a gun] for self protection but have no clue how to use it, how to keep it safely from kids, and in that situation, that gun is 43 times more likely to be misused than it ever is to be used effectively in protecting ones' self. That statistic comes from the New England Journal of Medicine. It has been researched over the years that a gun in the home is much more a danger to the owner.



Sarah likes to use this "43 times" statistic, even though the author of the
study admits that his study was flawed and, at best, the number should be
closer to 2.7 times. But the true story is in how the study evaluated data.

Remarkably, the author excluded all other legitimate uses, including occasions
where a gun was used a gun for protection but a shot was never fired or a
criminal simply wounded or frightened away. This is equivalent to claiming
airplanes are an public danger due to the number of yearly deaths without
accounting for the number of passengers or miles safely flown!

http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradylies.html


-------
my guns have killed no one...so they must be broken...

Never surrender your right to own to a moron in DC
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 7:00 PM on March 22, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.