Which for "progressives" often appears to mean "he got more than me! it's not fair!"
Ronaldo makes $80M per year kicking a ball around a field. I can kick a ball around a field, why am I not paid what he is paid?
Nancy Pelosi once said "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." I *really* want to be a professional basketball player, it's my life-long dream. Alas, I am a meager 5' 10" and have a shooting percentage measured in single-digits. But by Nancy's notions, I should not be denied my dream just so I can have health-care (and presumably lots of other things).
It may be true that people with wealthy parents will become wealthy via inheritance, but it is far from being the more prevalent manner in which wealth is attained.
Check the real statistics on this. The number of "self-made" millionaires or first-generation millionaires is much much larger than the number of inherited millionaires. Forbes estimates that 70-80% are millionaires are first-generation millionaires who earned an invested their way to wealth, compare to 20% who inherited significant portions of their wealth.
For billionaires...Forbes:
"Over the past 30 years, the origin of the wealth of the richest people in the United States has shifted away from old, inherited money...In 1984, the first year for which we have crunched the numbers, we found that nearly one-fourth of the members of the Forbes 400 inherited their fortunes and weren’t doing anything to grow them...At the same time, only 2.5% were ranked as 10s, or absolute bootstrappers...The trend began to break down in 1994, when we saw an equal number of inherited and self-made billionaires...Already in the 2000s, our data finally showed a greater proportion of self-made billionaires. In 2004, we had 59% of the Forbes 400 having made their own fortune, as opposed to 41% who inherited it...Thus, the most encouraging results come from this year’s Forbes 400. For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes. A total of 34 billionaires, or 8.5%, scored as 10s, or more than three times as many as in 1984. The number of 100% inherited fortunes as a percentage of the total fell to 7%, with 28 billionaires in the 1 category, compared to 99 back in 1984.
Forbes defined a 10 as "To qualify as a 10, a member of the Forbes 400 had to have been raised in a poor household, and have endured extreme duress. Oprah Winfrey, who endured sexual abuse, and George Soros, who survived both the Nazi and Communist occupations of Hungary, are great examples." OTOH, a 1 was someone who inherited wealth and has done nothing with it.
OTOH, more than 58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war as did 40% of the House Democrats.
I guess Democrats wanted the Iraq war a lot more than they want the pipeline, and they wanted the war *way* more than Republicans ever wanted Obamacare.
When libertarians expound that businesses should be able to deny service to any one for any reason, they also say "but then they can expect to be held up o public ridicule for it." So a baker has a right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, but can expect protests on his doorstep.
Same thing here: FedEx can refuse to do their services for any reason they care to spout (or to keep secret if they wish) as is their right (or at least it ought to be).
Two things though. One is the concomitant public exposure for their decision. If they HAD refused because of gayness or blackness or something else, it would be a media circus. But since they refused on some wishy washy left-leaning reasoning, the normal chorus of "corporations are evil" will be silented for a bit.
The second thing is that their stated reasons are apparently hogwash. Claiming a law requires them to do X when there is no such law is just weak. And they should rightly be ridiculed for that.
Yeah, I know what I'm posting. That's why I'm posting it. "Gun-control" laws have been around for a long time, and courts, including SCOTUS, have a long history of striking them down based on the clear language of the 2nd. 2nd-supporters didn't just start advocating and fighting for their rights because of some Black Panthers in the 70's, they've been fighting for 200 years.
SCOTUS decision in Heller is 100% in line with courts throughout the land and over the centuries:
[thanks wikipedia]
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Anyone claiming the "militia" is the National Guard, or that people do not have a right to arms that might help them should a citizens militia need to form against despotic government with standing army, are the ones trying to change 100's of years of consistent reading of the plain language of the 2nd.
But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.
Whether or not an act of the legislature conflicts with the constitution, is, at all times, a question of great delicacy, and deserves the most mature and deliberate consideration of the court. But though a question of delicacy, yet as it is a judicial one, the court would be unworthy its station, were it to shrink from deciding it whenever, in the course of judicial examination, a decision becomes material to the right in contest. The court should never, on slight implication or vague conjecture, pronounce the legislature to have transcended its authority in the enactment of law; but when a clear and strong conviction is entertained, that an act of the legislature is incompatible with the constitution, there is no alternative for the court to pursue, but to declare that conviction, and pronounce the act inoperative and void. And such is the conviction entertained by a majority of the court, (Judge Mills dissenting,) in relation to the act in question. The judgment must, consequently, be reversed.
Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga.
We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.
[Wikipedia: The Supreme Court in its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia said Nunn, "...perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause...." The Nunn court concept of fundamental rights was relevant to determine whether or not the Second Amendment is a restriction only on the federal government or whether the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed by the state governments.]
People vs. Zerillo
The part of the act making it a crime for an unnaturalized foreign-born resident to possess a revolver, unless so permitted by the sheriff, contravenes the guaranty of such right in the Constitution of the state, and is void. The statute must be construed in accord with the provisions of our Constitution, and it may stand as an act prohibiting the use of firearms by unnaturalized foreign-born residents in hunting or capturing or killing any wild bird or animals, either game or otherwise, of any description, excepting in defense of person or property, but so far as it makes it a crime for unnaturalized residents to possess a revolver for the legitimate defense of their persons and property it is void. Under the complaint and warrant and the evidence the defendant should have been adjudged not guilty. The conviction is set aside, and defendant is discharged.
State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574
On this occasion, the defendant threatened with violence was forced to abandon his property. He went to his place of business where he had the right to keep his pistol, "being on his own premises," and returned with it unconcealed. He was acting in self-defense of his person and in defense of his property. The court below most properly adjudged upon the special verdict that he was not guilty.
So? The point I was making is that pro-2nd Amendment, pro-firearm arguments didn't just start 30 years ago as an earlier poster intimated. The existence of these cases, no matter how they ultimately were decided, is sufficient to that purpose.
The Journal reported Monday that the DEA, an arm of the Justice Department, has been quietly building a database to monitor and store data about vehicles on major highways. Internal documents show the primary goal of the database is asset forfeiture, a controversial practice of seizing motorists’ possessions if police officers suspect they are criminal proceeds. Sometimes, those seizures take place without evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])
wikipedia:
Edward Paul Abbey (January 29, 1927 – March 14, 1989) was an American author and essayist noted for his advocacy of environmental issues, criticism of public land policies, and anarchist political views. His best-known works include the novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which has been cited as an inspiration by radical environmental groups, and the non-fiction work Desert Solitaire. Abbey was born in Indiana, Pennsylvania on January 29, 1927 to Mildred Postlewait and Paul Revere Abbey. Mildred was a schoolteacher and a church organist, and gave Abbey an appreciation for classical music and literature. Paul was a socialist, anarchist, and atheist whose views strongly influenced Abbey.
Over the 59-month period we tested, 76 weapons and 418 laptop computers were lost, stolen, or missing from ATF. ATF's rate of weapons loss per month has nearly tripled since Treasury's 2002 audit...
We also found serious deficiencies in ATF's response to these lost, stolen, or missing items. ATF staff did not report many of the lost, stolen, or missing weapons...
ATF agents running an undercover storefront in Milwaukee used a brain-damaged man with a low IQ to set up gun and drug deals, paying him in cigarettes, merchandise and money, according to federal documents obtained by the Journal Sentinel.
Hours after a machine gun was stolen from an ATF agent's vehicle in September, police had four men in custody. But the gun vanished.
ATF agents let a man armed with a gun and threatening to shoot someone walk out of their storefront sting operation in Milwaukee last summer, failing to arrest him or take the weapon, the Journal Sentinel has learned.
ATF agents have lost track of dozens of government-issued guns, after stashing them under seats in their cars, in glove compartments or leaving them on top of their vehicles and driving away, according to reports obtained by the Journal Sentinel.
Low, to be sure, but the rate of similar crimes pretty much equally low before the laws.
And even the Port Arthur massacres were not really aided too much by the semi-automatic nature of the weapons. Bryant could have executed people at point-blank range with 6-shot revolver, either reloading or changing weapons (after the first magazine was emptied in his first semi-auto rifle, he did just that changed to the next rifle.
How many mass shootings (with semi-automatic weapons) were there before the guns laws? Two? And one since? And the new laws are the difference maker? From wikipedia, it seems Aussies ought not to be trusted with fire, knives or shotguns either...
Cullin-La-Ringo massacre - Horatio Wills and his traveling party were killed by Aborigines at Cullin-La-Ringo Station in Queensland in 1860; police, native police and civilians killed 60 to 70 Aborigines in response. George David Silva murdered six members of the Ching family at Alligator Creek near Mackay, Queensland in 1911. Coniston massacre - Over 50 Aboriginal people were killed in the last Aboriginal massacre in 1928. The motive was revenge for the killing of dingo hunter Frederick Brooks. Hope Forest massacre - Clifford Cecil Bartholomew shot dead ten members of his family in Hope Forest near Adelaide, September 1971.[2] 22 September 1976 - William Robert Wilson - Killed two people and wounded four on Boundary Street, Spring Hill, Brisbane. Wilson took a.22 calibre rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition to Boundary Street around 12.30 pm and began shooting randomly. He shot and killed Monika Schleus, aged 17, as she crossed Boundary Street. Wilson shot and wounded Donald William Hepburn Galloway, who was also crossing the street. Proceeding to a milk bar, Wilson shot and killed Marianne Kalatzis, aged 18, and wounded Mavis Ethel Sanders and Virginia Hollidge. In the neighbouring shop he shot and wounded Quinto Alberti. Wilson was captured by police around 4:15 pm at a suburban house where Wilson was holding a man and four young women hostage. Wilson served three years in a mental hospital. On being found fit for trial, he was sentenced in 1980 to two life sentences for the murders and 10 years each, concurrently, for the four attempted murders. He pleaded guilty to all charges.[3] Milperra massacre - Two biker gangs, the Comanchero and the Bandidos, engaged in a shoot-out in a hotel car park, killing 7 people in 1984, including a bystander. Only one defendant was acquitted on the murder charges. Joseph Schwab - 1987, Schwab shot dead 5 people in and around the Kimberley region in Western Australia before being shot dead by police.[4] Hoddle Street massacre - Armed with two rifles and a shotgun, Julian Knight shot 7 people dead and wounded another 19 in 1987 before surrendering to authorities. Queen Street massacre - Armed with a sawn-off rifle, Frank Vitkovic roamed the Australia Post building killing 8 and wounding 5, also in 1987. When the weapon was finally wrestled from him, he committed suicide by jumping out of a nearby window. Surry Hills massacre - Paul Anthony Evers killed 5 people with a 12-gauge shotgun at a public housing precinct in Surry Hills in 1990 before surrendering to police.[5] Strathfield massacre - In 1991 Wade Frankum killed 7 people and wounded 6 others with a large knife and an SKS before turning the gun on himself when he realised he could not escape. Central Coast Massacre - Malcolm Baker killed 6 people and injured another with a shotgun in 1992 before being arrested by police. Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege. Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people. Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7 February 2009.[6] 2011 Hectorville siege - A mass shooting that took place on Friday, April 29, 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, went on a shooting rampage, killing three people and wounding a child and two police officers, before being arrested by Special Oper
As a CCW holder, I have already been fingerprinted by the Sheriff's office, photographed, background-checked by the FBI, and paid cash money for the process. But every time I buy a gun, it takes about 1 hour to show my CCW, fill out more paperwork, get all the background stuff confirmed, undergo the probative questions of the FFL from whom I'm buying (trying to see if there's any reason to deny the sale, e.g. if they thought I was drunk).
Last time I voted, I walked up to the empty desk, signed my name (no picture ID check), poked a few buttons on a video screen and walked out. Oh, and 20 years ago I filled out a postcard (name and address) to register to vote.
It's also well known that many of the purchases that occur at gun shows are straw purchases, people buying guns in an area of lesser regulation to traffic in an area of higher regulation.
Want to stop black market guns? Close the loop hole. Stop straw purchases. And standardize the law, cause it's the differences in law that are being exploited.
Actual statistics do not bear out your "well-known" trope. First, it's not a "loophole" its the Federal law written expressly to allow occasional private sales. The overwhelming majority of sales at guns shows are by FFL, who comply with background checks. Many others are responsible gun owners who expect you to show them your CCW or similar documentation. Only 2% of crime guns are obtained at gun shows. A mid-1980s study found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.
And the law already prohibits both straw purchases and private sales to people who are not legally allowed to own guns. There's a reason why non-FFL sellers at a guns show demand to see a CCW.
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
Seeing a valid CCW is an easy check to help private sellers feel pretty good that the person to whom they are selling is not prohibited from owning the firearm.
not located in Buffalo, Albany or NYC. You will see thousands and thousands of "No NY SAFE ACT" signs. In the front yard of house after house after house. Sheriffs are refusing to enforce it. The law is being picker apart by courts and "corrective" legislation. It is hugely unpopular and likely to go away sooner rather than later.
In Colorado, the gun control folks were handed their collective butts in recall elections despite outspending the 2nd Amendment folks by a very wide margin.
There are still peaceful resolutions to these differences, but it certainly seems that it is more likely than ever that some gung-ho prosecutor in NYS will go after someone using provisions of the SAFE Act and will find that there are a lot of people ready to show up armed, like in the Clive Bundy situation.
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
The militia was all free men capable of fighting and who could bring their own arms to the fight. The Founders, as you ought to recall, had just successfully used the "militia" to overthrow a tyrannical government. It was not a spur-of-the-moment decision, but carefully considered.treason and armed rebellion.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed 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. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Reading those words, it is pretty clear that the Founders knew that the Constitution they were writing and the Government they were forming could fail and become just as despotic as good old King George. Knowing that all the people were armed, easily outnumbering any Government army that could be formed, was one stop-gap measure against that and the 2nd was written to cement that in place for as long as it holds.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster)
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson
"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. " Noah Webster
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787)
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
The part about tracking license plates at gun shows was one bad enough. The article also went on to say
"The Journal reported Monday that the DEA, an arm of the Justice Department, has been quietly building a database to monitor and store data about vehicles on major highways. Internal documents show the primary goal of the database is asset forfeiture, a controversial practice of seizing motorists’ possessions if police officers suspect they are criminal proceeds. Sometimes, those seizures take place without evidence of criminal wrongdoing."
Slashdot Mirror
Where is there there a jurisdiction where libertarians have a majority of legislatures needed to enact these laws?
of public safety laws.
Which for "progressives" often appears to mean "he got more than me! it's not fair!"
Ronaldo makes $80M per year kicking a ball around a field. I can kick a ball around a field, why am I not paid what he is paid?
Nancy Pelosi once said "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." I *really* want to be a professional basketball player, it's my life-long dream. Alas, I am a meager 5' 10" and have a shooting percentage measured in single-digits. But by Nancy's notions, I should not be denied my dream just so I can have health-care (and presumably lots of other things).
It may be true that people with wealthy parents will become wealthy via inheritance, but it is far from being the more prevalent manner in which wealth is attained.
Check the real statistics on this. The number of "self-made" millionaires or first-generation millionaires is much much larger than the number of inherited millionaires. Forbes estimates that 70-80% are millionaires are first-generation millionaires who earned an invested their way to wealth, compare to 20% who inherited significant portions of their wealth.
For billionaires...Forbes:
"Over the past 30 years, the origin of the wealth of the richest people in the United States has shifted away from old, inherited money...In 1984, the first year for which we have crunched the numbers, we found that nearly one-fourth of the members of the Forbes 400 inherited their fortunes and weren’t doing anything to grow them...At the same time, only 2.5% were ranked as 10s, or absolute bootstrappers...The trend began to break down in 1994, when we saw an equal number of inherited and self-made billionaires...Already in the 2000s, our data finally showed a greater proportion of self-made billionaires. In 2004, we had 59% of the Forbes 400 having made their own fortune, as opposed to 41% who inherited it...Thus, the most encouraging results come from this year’s Forbes 400. For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes. A total of 34 billionaires, or 8.5%, scored as 10s, or more than three times as many as in 1984. The number of 100% inherited fortunes as a percentage of the total fell to 7%, with 28 billionaires in the 1 category, compared to 99 back in 1984.
Forbes defined a 10 as "To qualify as a 10, a member of the Forbes 400 had to have been raised in a poor household, and have endured extreme duress. Oprah Winfrey, who endured sexual abuse, and George Soros, who survived both the Nazi and Communist occupations of Hungary, are great examples." OTOH, a 1 was someone who inherited wealth and has done nothing with it.
"The Hardest Part About a Zombie Apocalypse Will Be Pretending I'm Not Excited'
Or global warming.
OTOH, more than 58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war as did 40% of the House Democrats.
I guess Democrats wanted the Iraq war a lot more than they want the pipeline, and they wanted the war *way* more than Republicans ever wanted Obamacare.
When libertarians expound that businesses should be able to deny service to any one for any reason, they also say "but then they can expect to be held up o public ridicule for it." So a baker has a right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, but can expect protests on his doorstep.
Same thing here: FedEx can refuse to do their services for any reason they care to spout (or to keep secret if they wish) as is their right (or at least it ought to be).
Two things though. One is the concomitant public exposure for their decision. If they HAD refused because of gayness or blackness or something else, it would be a media circus. But since they refused on some wishy washy left-leaning reasoning, the normal chorus of "corporations are evil" will be silented for a bit.
The second thing is that their stated reasons are apparently hogwash. Claiming a law requires them to do X when there is no such law is just weak. And they should rightly be ridiculed for that.
Yeah, I know what I'm posting. That's why I'm posting it. "Gun-control" laws have been around for a long time, and courts, including SCOTUS, have a long history of striking them down based on the clear language of the 2nd. 2nd-supporters didn't just start advocating and fighting for their rights because of some Black Panthers in the 70's, they've been fighting for 200 years.
SCOTUS decision in Heller is 100% in line with courts throughout the land and over the centuries:
[thanks wikipedia]
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Anyone claiming the "militia" is the National Guard, or that people do not have a right to arms that might help them should a citizens militia need to form against despotic government with standing army, are the ones trying to change 100's of years of consistent reading of the plain language of the 2nd.
Please explain.
Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557
But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.
Whether or not an act of the legislature conflicts with the constitution, is, at all times, a question of great delicacy, and deserves the most mature and deliberate consideration of the court. But though a question of delicacy, yet as it is a judicial one, the court would be unworthy its station, were it to shrink from deciding it whenever, in the course of judicial examination, a decision becomes material to the right in contest. The court should never, on slight implication or vague conjecture, pronounce the legislature to have transcended its authority in the enactment of law; but when a clear and strong conviction is entertained, that an act of the legislature is incompatible with the constitution, there is no alternative for the court to pursue, but to declare that conviction, and pronounce the act inoperative and void. And such is the conviction entertained by a majority of the court, (Judge Mills dissenting,) in relation to the act in question.
The judgment must, consequently, be reversed.
Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga.
We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.
[Wikipedia: The Supreme Court in its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia said Nunn, "...perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause...." The Nunn court concept of fundamental rights was relevant to determine whether or not the Second Amendment is a restriction only on the federal government or whether the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed by the state governments.]
People vs. Zerillo
The part of the act making it a crime for an unnaturalized foreign-born resident to possess a revolver, unless so permitted by the sheriff, contravenes the guaranty of such right in the Constitution of the state, and is void. The statute must be construed in accord with the provisions of our Constitution, and it may stand as an act prohibiting the use of firearms by unnaturalized foreign-born residents in hunting or capturing or killing any wild bird or animals, either game or otherwise, of any description, excepting in defense of person or property, but so far as it makes it a crime for unnaturalized residents to possess a revolver for the legitimate defense of their persons and property it is void.
Under the complaint and warrant and the evidence the defendant should have been adjudged not guilty. The conviction is set aside, and defendant is discharged.
State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574
On this occasion, the defendant threatened with violence was forced to abandon his property. He went to his place of business where he had the right to keep his pistol, "being on his own premises," and returned with it unconcealed. He was acting in self-defense of his person and in defense of his property. The court below most properly adjudged upon the special verdict that he was not guilty.
So? The point I was making is that pro-2nd Amendment, pro-firearm arguments didn't just start 30 years ago as an earlier poster intimated. The existence of these cases, no matter how they ultimately were decided, is sufficient to that purpose.
From WSJ article on same topic:
The Journal reported Monday that the DEA, an arm of the Justice Department, has been quietly building a database to monitor and store data about vehicles on major highways. Internal documents show the primary goal of the database is asset forfeiture, a controversial practice of seizing motorists’ possessions if police officers suspect they are criminal proceeds. Sometimes, those seizures take place without evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])
wikipedia:
Edward Paul Abbey (January 29, 1927 – March 14, 1989) was an American author and essayist noted for his advocacy of environmental issues, criticism of public land policies, and anarchist political views. His best-known works include the novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which has been cited as an inspiration by radical environmental groups, and the non-fiction work Desert Solitaire. Abbey was born in Indiana, Pennsylvania on January 29, 1927 to Mildred Postlewait and Paul Revere Abbey. Mildred was a schoolteacher and a church organist, and gave Abbey an appreciation for classical music and literature. Paul was a socialist, anarchist, and atheist whose views strongly influenced Abbey.
Heck, ATF agents lose dozens of guns every year...
http://www.justice.gov/oig/rep...
Over the 59-month period we tested, 76 weapons and 418 laptop
computers were lost, stolen, or missing from ATF. ATF's rate of weapons
loss per month has nearly tripled since Treasury's 2002 audit...
We also found serious deficiencies in ATF's response to these lost,
stolen, or missing items. ATF staff did not report many of the lost, stolen, or
missing weapons...
More like Operation Fearless.
http://www.jsonline.com/watchd...
ATF agents running an undercover storefront in Milwaukee used a brain-damaged man with a low IQ to set up gun and drug deals, paying him in cigarettes, merchandise and money, according to federal documents obtained by the Journal Sentinel.
Hours after a machine gun was stolen from an ATF agent's vehicle in September, police had four men in custody. But the gun vanished.
ATF agents let a man armed with a gun and threatening to shoot someone walk out of their storefront sting operation in Milwaukee last summer, failing to arrest him or take the weapon, the Journal Sentinel has learned.
ATF agents have lost track of dozens of government-issued guns, after stashing them under seats in their cars, in glove compartments or leaving them on top of their vehicles and driving away, according to reports obtained by the Journal Sentinel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
Low, to be sure, but the rate of similar crimes pretty much equally low before the laws.
And even the Port Arthur massacres were not really aided too much by the semi-automatic nature of the weapons. Bryant could have executed people at point-blank range with 6-shot revolver, either reloading or changing weapons (after the first magazine was emptied in his first semi-auto rifle, he did just that changed to the next rifle.
How many mass shootings (with semi-automatic weapons) were there before the guns laws? Two? And one since? And the new laws are the difference maker? From wikipedia, it seems Aussies ought not to be trusted with fire, knives or shotguns either...
Cullin-La-Ringo massacre - Horatio Wills and his traveling party were killed by Aborigines at Cullin-La-Ringo Station in Queensland in 1860; police, native police and civilians killed 60 to 70 Aborigines in response. .22 calibre rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition to Boundary Street around 12.30 pm and began shooting randomly. He shot and killed Monika Schleus, aged 17, as she crossed Boundary Street. Wilson shot and wounded Donald William Hepburn Galloway, who was also crossing the street. Proceeding to a milk bar, Wilson shot and killed Marianne Kalatzis, aged 18, and wounded Mavis Ethel Sanders and Virginia Hollidge. In the neighbouring shop he shot and wounded Quinto Alberti. Wilson was captured by police around 4:15 pm at a suburban house where Wilson was holding a man and four young women hostage. Wilson served three years in a mental hospital. On being found fit for trial, he was sentenced in 1980 to two life sentences for the murders and 10 years each, concurrently, for the four attempted murders. He pleaded guilty to all charges.[3]
George David Silva murdered six members of the Ching family at Alligator Creek near Mackay, Queensland in 1911.
Coniston massacre - Over 50 Aboriginal people were killed in the last Aboriginal massacre in 1928. The motive was revenge for the killing of dingo hunter Frederick Brooks.
Hope Forest massacre - Clifford Cecil Bartholomew shot dead ten members of his family in Hope Forest near Adelaide, September 1971.[2]
22 September 1976 - William Robert Wilson - Killed two people and wounded four on Boundary Street, Spring Hill, Brisbane. Wilson took a
Milperra massacre - Two biker gangs, the Comanchero and the Bandidos, engaged in a shoot-out in a hotel car park, killing 7 people in 1984, including a bystander. Only one defendant was acquitted on the murder charges.
Joseph Schwab - 1987, Schwab shot dead 5 people in and around the Kimberley region in Western Australia before being shot dead by police.[4]
Hoddle Street massacre - Armed with two rifles and a shotgun, Julian Knight shot 7 people dead and wounded another 19 in 1987 before surrendering to authorities.
Queen Street massacre - Armed with a sawn-off rifle, Frank Vitkovic roamed the Australia Post building killing 8 and wounding 5, also in 1987. When the weapon was finally wrestled from him, he committed suicide by jumping out of a nearby window.
Surry Hills massacre - Paul Anthony Evers killed 5 people with a 12-gauge shotgun at a public housing precinct in Surry Hills in 1990 before surrendering to police.[5]
Strathfield massacre - In 1991 Wade Frankum killed 7 people and wounded 6 others with a large knife and an SKS before turning the gun on himself when he realised he could not escape.
Central Coast Massacre - Malcolm Baker killed 6 people and injured another with a shotgun in 1992 before being arrested by police.
Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.
Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7 February 2009.[6]
2011 Hectorville siege - A mass shooting that took place on Friday, April 29, 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, went on a shooting rampage, killing three people and wounding a child and two police officers, before being arrested by Special Oper
As a CCW holder, I have already been fingerprinted by the Sheriff's office, photographed, background-checked by the FBI, and paid cash money for the process. But every time I buy a gun, it takes about 1 hour to show my CCW, fill out more paperwork, get all the background stuff confirmed, undergo the probative questions of the FFL from whom I'm buying (trying to see if there's any reason to deny the sale, e.g. if they thought I was drunk).
Last time I voted, I walked up to the empty desk, signed my name (no picture ID check), poked a few buttons on a video screen and walked out. Oh, and 20 years ago I filled out a postcard (name and address) to register to vote.
It's also well known that many of the purchases that occur at gun shows are straw purchases, people buying guns in an area of lesser regulation to traffic in an area of higher regulation.
Want to stop black market guns?
Close the loop hole.
Stop straw purchases.
And standardize the law, cause it's the differences in law that are being exploited.
Actual statistics do not bear out your "well-known" trope. First, it's not a "loophole" its the Federal law written expressly to allow occasional private sales. The overwhelming majority of sales at guns shows are by FFL, who comply with background checks. Many others are responsible gun owners who expect you to show them your CCW or similar documentation. Only 2% of crime guns are obtained at gun shows. A mid-1980s study found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.
And the law already prohibits both straw purchases and private sales to people who are not legally allowed to own guns. There's a reason why non-FFL sellers at a guns show demand to see a CCW.
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
Seeing a valid CCW is an easy check to help private sellers feel pretty good that the person to whom they are selling is not prohibited from owning the firearm.
not located in Buffalo, Albany or NYC. You will see thousands and thousands of "No NY SAFE ACT" signs. In the front yard of house after house after house. Sheriffs are refusing to enforce it. The law is being picker apart by courts and "corrective" legislation. It is hugely unpopular and likely to go away sooner rather than later.
http://americannewsreport.com/...
In Colorado, the gun control folks were handed their collective butts in recall elections despite outspending the 2nd Amendment folks by a very wide margin.
There are still peaceful resolutions to these differences, but it certainly seems that it is more likely than ever that some gung-ho prosecutor in NYS will go after someone using provisions of the SAFE Act and will find that there are a lot of people ready to show up armed, like in the Clive Bundy situation.
This didn't just start 30 years ago...
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
The militia was all free men capable of fighting and who could bring their own arms to the fight. The Founders, as you ought to recall, had just successfully used the "militia" to overthrow a tyrannical government. It was not a spur-of-the-moment decision, but carefully considered.treason and armed rebellion.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed 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. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Reading those words, it is pretty clear that the Founders knew that the Constitution they were writing and the Government they were forming could fail and become just as despotic as good old King George. Knowing that all the people were armed, easily outnumbering any Government army that could be formed, was one stop-gap measure against that and the 2nd was written to cement that in place for as long as it holds.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster)
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787)
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
The part about tracking license plates at gun shows was one bad enough. The article also went on to say
"The Journal reported Monday that the DEA, an arm of the Justice Department, has been quietly building a database to monitor and store data about vehicles on major highways. Internal documents show the primary goal of the database is asset forfeiture, a controversial practice of seizing motorists’ possessions if police officers suspect they are criminal proceeds. Sometimes, those seizures take place without evidence of criminal wrongdoing."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fe...
The inside still requires a warrant.