Political Crossfire Forums

[Thrilla]

Quote: Jesse Jackson
U.S. is only encouraging homegrown terror from guns

September 19, 2006

BY JESSE JACKSON




Two 17-year-old boys were arrested last week in Green Bay, Wis., allegedly for planning to use bombs and other weapons on East High School. The two were said to be planning a ''Columbine High School massacre.'' At Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., in 1999, two students killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before committing suicide.



Police acted before any shooting took place, so it is hard to know how much of the plot was fantasy and how much real. In searching the students' homes, police found crude homemade bombs, six quarts of jellied gasoline (a crude form of napalm), numerous knives, one semi-automatic weapon, nine long guns such as shotguns, 100 rounds of ammunition, bombmaking materials, gas masks, camouflage clothes, walkie-talkies and much more. Police admitted much of this arsenal could simply be part of ''a collection of a family member.''

The massacre at Columbine, of course, sparked national concern about gun control laws and about teen alienation and bullying. The two perpetrators were alienated from their classmates and spun a revenge fantasy that turned into a horrible reality.

Since Columbine, we've witnessed the horror of foreign terror in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade towers. In the wake of the terror act, we've spent billions on homeland security -- adding forces to our borders, searching passengers before they enter planes, increasing surveillance and wiretapping of suspect groups, even taking toothpaste and shaving cream from the bags of airline passengers. If anything, the Bush administration has been notoriously lax on strengthening domestic security, with the Homeland Security Commission continuing to grade its efforts inadequate in a range of areas.

On homegrown terror, however, we've not only done little, we've arguably made things easier for the alienated kids whose fantasies lead to revenge. The violence of the culture -- from TV to video games -- has grown more bloody. The pressure on kids has increased, even as the administration has walked away from promises to provide the resources needed to fix schools that are failing them.

Perhaps more strikingly, instead of gun control in the wake of Columbine and the fear of terrorist cells, we've turned to gun licentiousness. Catering to the National Rifle Association lobby, the president broke his campaign promise and let the assault weapons ban expire -- despite the virtually unanimous demand of police officials that it be retained. The police know that their lives are put at risk when weapons designed for combat are easily available.

But we've gone further than that. Concealed weapons laws are passing across the country, from Minnesota to Florida, giving people the right to pack a concealed weapon if they get a permit. In 15 states, that is reinforced by the ''shoot first'' law. Dubbed in Florida as the ''shoot the Avon lady'' law, this law states that you needn't think yourself under threat in order to shoot someone who has entered your house or car illegally or without permission. And if you feel yourself in danger, you have no obligation to try to flee, you can simply draw and fire, and enjoy impunity against prosecution and civil suit.

Recently in Florida, a man was shot twice in a dispute between neighbors about garbage bags. The shooter claimed that the man was trying to enter his house and so he shot him, even though he knew his neighbor posed no threat to him.

I would not argue that sensible gun control is an ironclad defense against alienated kids and the possibility of violent fantasies turning into tragic horrors. Nor is gun control a defense against terrorists, homegrown or foreign. But it is more than passing strange that a president so focused on the threat posed by terrorists would let the assault weapons ban expire, and that a society sensibly concerned about the safety of its children would support concealed-weapons and shoot-first laws.

There's a gulf between urban and rural views on these matters. In cities, residents would support the most severe gun control laws -- banning the sale of handguns, not just assault rifles. In rural areas, boys get their first shotgun early. And arsenals of rifles and shotguns like that found in Green Bay are not unusual. But instead of metropolitan areas banning guns and rural areas keeping them, the gun advocates use rural-dominated state legislatures to pre-empt any municipal laws. Chicago gets governed by Springfield; New York City constrained by Albany. And neither impassioned terrorist nor alienated teenager will have a hard time amassing an arsenal in these United States.
www.chicagoredstreak.com/output/jesse/cst-edt-jesse19.html

Jesse Jacksons stance on gun control is well known.... and this thread is neccessarily posted to discredit his views...Ill leave that to Jesse himself. :wink:

this thread is an exercise in reading comprehension really....

this very op-ed piece was discussed today on Cam and Company (Patriot channel, Sirius radio)... the broadcast can be seen at NRA news

see how many factual errors you can point out in his op-ed piece.
and then see if you can spot exactly where Jesse disproves his own position.

of course tangents are welcome, and any position stated by Jesse are up for debate... but lets see just how astute you guys are

ill start off by giving a factual error that was first noticed by Cam on his show
Quote: the president broke his campaign promise and let the assault weapons ban expire
while demonizing Bush.. Mr Jackson seems to have forgotten his civics classes... Bush has nothing to do with whether or not the gun ban expires.. that is entirely up to Congress..Bush cannot sign anything that does not make it to his desk....Bush didnt "let" the ban expire... Congress did that.

your turn :-D

[leftneckredwing]

Quote: Dubbed in Florida as the ''shoot the Avon lady'' law, this law states that you needn't think yourself under threat in order to shoot someone who has entered your house or car illegally or without permission.

There's a contradiction from one end of the sentence to the other. If someone enters without permission, that's a threat. What if they overpower you? That's a threat. If I'm packing and they make a move to enter by force, they will have a big hole somewhere, it depends on what I can shoot when they have me in a headlock or some other hold. It's called unlawful entry and even in Canada one is allowed to use as much force as is deemed necessary, up to and including deadly force.

JJ is the biggest vote brown noser ever. I'm sure there are many contradictions, I see more, but they are such standard contradictions, I just tend to let them slide and pick on the most glaring.

Need coffee, must have coffee.

[lilwolf]

i wonder where Jackson got his so called smarts. The problem is not guns it is the lax laws that deal with criminals. Not guns.

I agree that if i feel threatened I would shoot to defend my self and if that means putting a grapfruit sized hole in the middle, then so be it.

Does Jackson actually have a job or does he just brown nose every one into thinking along his wierd line of reasoning?

[leftneckredwing]

lilwolf wrote: i wonder where Jackson got his so called smarts. The problem is not guns it is the lax laws that deal with criminals. Not guns.

I agree that if i feel threatened I would shoot to defend my self and if that means putting a grapfruit sized hole in the middle, then so be it.

Does Jackson actually have a job or does he just brown nose every one into thinking along his wierd line of reasoning?

Brown nosing is his job. He has made hand wringing an art form and a science.

If every one understood, that without exception, they would be forced to pay full restitution and would serve every minute for every crime with no possibility of parole or probation, crime would drop drastically, very drastically. We could close a lot of prisons after 10 years if this were the case. I would hazard a guess that 4 prisons in the US would cover the whole shebang. And the streets would be safe.

It's not possible to get rid of all crime, but it is possible to cut it dramatically.

Rev. JJ would be there crying for murderers that they did it because they are down trodden and poor. And that they should be granted leniency, while he campaigns to rid legitimate gun owners of their property either by theft or by law. But his favorite criminals should be granted leniency. This guy is one of the biggest hypocrites in America.

[lilwolf]

leftneckredwing wrote: lilwolf wrote: i wonder where Jackson got his so called smarts. The problem is not guns it is the lax laws that deal with criminals. Not guns.

I agree that if i feel threatened I would shoot to defend my self and if that means putting a grapfruit sized hole in the middle, then so be it.

Does Jackson actually have a job or does he just brown nose every one into thinking along his wierd line of reasoning?

Brown nosing is his job. He has made hand wringing an art form and a science.

If every one understood, that without exception, they would be forced to pay full restitution and would serve every minute for every crime with no possibility of parole or probation, crime would drop drastically, very drastically. We could close a lot of prisons after 10 years if this were the case. I would hazard a guess that 4 prisons in the US would cover the whole shebang. And the streets would be safe.

It's not possible to get rid of all crime, but it is possible to cut it dramatically.

Rev. JJ would be there crying for murderers that they did it because they are down trodden and poor. And that they should be granted leniency, while he campaigns to rid legitimate gun owners of their property either by theft or by law. But his favorite criminals should be granted leniency. This guy is one of the biggest hypocrites in America.


I am in favor 100% of doing maximum sentencing and making sure that every day is served and no good time. No more of the easy life, but hard labor on chain gangs. It would never stop all of crime, but it would put one hell of a dent in the statistics.
The more violent criminals, make sure they never are allowed a release into the real world. Let them learn to like an 8' hairy dude named Bubba.

[Onevote]

lilwolf wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: lilwolf wrote: i wonder where Jackson got his so called smarts. The problem is not guns it is the lax laws that deal with criminals. Not guns.

I agree that if i feel threatened I would shoot to defend my self and if that means putting a grapfruit sized hole in the middle, then so be it.

Does Jackson actually have a job or does he just brown nose every one into thinking along his wierd line of reasoning?

Brown nosing is his job. He has made hand wringing an art form and a science.

If every one understood, that without exception, they would be forced to pay full restitution and would serve every minute for every crime with no possibility of parole or probation, crime would drop drastically, very drastically. We could close a lot of prisons after 10 years if this were the case. I would hazard a guess that 4 prisons in the US would cover the whole shebang. And the streets would be safe.

It's not possible to get rid of all crime, but it is possible to cut it dramatically.

Rev. JJ would be there crying for murderers that they did it because they are down trodden and poor. And that they should be granted leniency, while he campaigns to rid legitimate gun owners of their property either by theft or by law. But his favorite criminals should be granted leniency. This guy is one of the biggest hypocrites in America.


I am in favor 100% of doing maximum sentencing and making sure that every day is served and no good time. No more of the easy life, but hard labor on chain gangs. It would never stop all of crime, but it would put one hell of a dent in the statistics.
The more violent criminals, make sure they never are allowed a release into the real world. Let them learn to like an 8' hairy dude named Bubba. I'm right there with ya! I've always thought that prison should be the closest thing to hell that we can make it be.

As it stands, prison is not much worse than the streets for those who live in the ghettos, and in fact is a bit safer. So, for a lot of people prison isn't much of a deterrent.

A nasty sentence in a nasty prison, will do more to deter crime than gun prohibition . Oh, one other thing, No right to anything but the right to live (provided you didn't get the death sentence).

[RooK]

Some comments:

-GWB didn't make any promises about the AWB. He said he'd sign it if it landed on his desk, it didn't. Smart move on his part.

-He needs to blame parents more than schools or government. Most schools would work fine, if the kids behaved and listened. Parents who don't give a damn about their kids cause many more problems than any kind of low-class school.

-Since when did CCW permits make the crime rate go up?

-He might have a point with being able to shoot when there is no threat with the Castle Doctrine (is that even true?), but I'd be ashamed to bring up that it doesn't require you to flee if possible. If you have the means to protect yourself, tucking your tail and running could get you hurt even worse than confronting the threat.

-Of the two places he demonstrates with the cities dominated by rural areas: BS! Those are two of the most restrictive cities/states in the US.

Never like the guy and he can't even make a good argument. He just tugs at heart strings with nothing of substance in the whole piece.

[Thrilla]

Quote: despite the virtually unanimous demand of police officials that it be retained. The police know that their lives are put at risk when weapons designed for combat are easily available.
untrue Mr JAckson

Quote: While the largest rank-and-file police organization, the FOP supports "assault weapon" control (at least for controls less severe than New Jersey's), the second-largest rank-and-file organization, the American Federation of Police, opposes such controls. Unfortunately, neither organization has polled its membership on the subject. (FOP head Stokes has been repeatedly asked to conduct a poll, and has refused.)

What limited polling of law enforcement has been done does not support the claims of Handgun Control, Inc., that all the police want "assault weapon" prohibition. The Florida chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police polled its membership, and found 75% opposed to an "assault weapon" ban. The most recent poll of police opinion was carried out by Law Enforcement Technology magazine in March 1991. The results were reported in the July/August 1991 issue: "75% do not favor gun control legislation ... with street officers opposing it by as much as 85 %." In particular, 78.7% opposed a ban on "assault weapons." (About 37 % of top management supported a ban, and about 11% of street officers.) [96]

Every spring the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP) conducts a nationwide survey of command-rank police officers (not just top management or chiefs). The survey includes all command-rank officers, including those who do not belong to NACOP. Ninety-five percent said that they believed a citizen should have the right to purchase any type of firearm for sport or self-defense.

www.guncite.com/aswpolice.html

Quote: Dubbed in Florida as the ''shoot the Avon lady'' law, this law states that you needn't think yourself under threat in order to shoot someone who has entered your house or car illegally or without permission. And if you feel yourself in danger, you have no obligation to try to flee, you can simply draw and fire, and enjoy impunity against prosecution and civil suit. incorrect agian Mr Jackson... there is no impunity against prosectution or civil suit.... if an individual fires on someone entering there house.. they are still going to be arrested and and investigation will commence...prosecution and civil suit may indeed follow if the individual was found to have operated outside of the law
Quote: Recently in Florida, a man was shot twice in a dispute between neighbors about garbage bags. The shooter claimed that the man was trying to enter his house and so he shot him, even though he knew his neighbor posed no threat to him. although this may be true.. we will never know.. as no names, locations , or other specifics were divulged.....odd that Mr JAckson would leave out specifics when the rest of his article cites any specifics that may bolster his arguement

Quote: There's a gulf between urban and rural views on these matters. In cities, residents would support the most severe gun control laws -- banning the sale of handguns, not just assault rifles. In rural areas, boys get their first shotgun early. And arsenals of rifles and shotguns like that found in Green Bay are not unusual. But instead of metropolitan areas banning guns and rural areas keeping them, the gun advocates use rural-dominated state legislatures to pre-empt any municipal laws. Chicago gets governed by Springfield; New York City constrained by Albany. And neither impassioned terrorist nor alienated teenager will have a hard time amassing an arsenal in these United States absolutely wrong... city gun control legislatures have been institued and have not affected other cities in the state... Mr Jackson seem to have a problem with basic civics :wink:

now this next paragraph is my favorite... i simply love it.... i dont belive Mr Jackson thought this one through at all
Quote:
I would not argue that sensible gun control is an ironclad defense against alienated kids and the possibility of violent fantasies turning into tragic horrors. Nor is gun control a defense against terrorists, homegrown or foreign. But it is more than passing strange that a president so focused on the threat posed by terrorists would let the assault weapons ban expire, and that a society sensibly concerned about the safety of its children would support concealed-weapons and shoot-first laws.

Mr Jackson has spent his efforts to inform us that guns are bad...President Bush is bad for not signing a gun ban.... people are bad because they want to carry concealed weapons....rural citizens are bad becasue they want to rule over urban areas..

but gee Mr jackson... you stated in this paragraph that you "would not argue that sensible gun control is an ironclad defense against alienated kids and the possibility of violent fantasies turning into tragic horrors."....and furthermore "Nor is gun control a defense against terrorists, homegrown or foreign

so why , Mr Jackson are you trying to sell us something that you yourself say doesnt work... why on earth would you advocate gun control measures that do not defend against bad guys, bad kids,criminals or terrorists?....just whom are you trying to get the guns away from?

I think Mr JAckson needs to refocus his efforts onto something he knows about.... gun control , civics, honesty, and common sense are out of bounds for him

[lilwolf]

Thrilla you beat me to it but I have about the same tohught that were about to be written about mr. jackson. He's a flake and probably always will be.

[leftneckredwing]

The Top Sergeant kinda tore Rev JJ a brand new one.

Here's an example of the kind of sentence that will help stop some crime. From my hometown paper:

Quote: Jury urges life sentence in child abuse case

It took a Washington County jury just over two hours to return with a verdict of guilty for a Washington County man accused of two counts of first degree rape of an 8-year-old girl.

The case went to the jury around 1:55 p.m. Wednesday. The verdict was read around 4:20 p.m.

Following the verdict, the jury recommended the defendant, Elijah, J. Bohannon, serve life in prison on the first count and 15 years in prison on the second. He is set to be formally sentenced on Oct. 27.

According to the case’s probable cause affidavit, the 8-year-old victim in the case reported to school officials that Bohannon had touched her inappropriately. She reportedly made the revelation after school personnel had talked to the children about good touches and bad touches.
*

The girl was then interviewed at the Child Safety Network Children’s Advocacy Center where she reportedly said that Bohannon had acted inappropriately with her on several occasions.

When police questioned Bohannon about the incidents, he reportedly said he has a sleep disorder and that he often does things in his sleep that he is not aware of doing until someone tells him.

To relate some history of the area, this guy is lucky he ever got to trial, if you catch my meaning.