Miss Demeanors
New member
The other day I was using AOL and decided to hit Rosie as the
keyword. To my surprise, that site is totally different from the one
that regular users access. The page has the gun with the slash
through it, and is totally dedicated to gun control. I thought she
had cooled off with this, but apparently she is going full steam
ahead. If you do not have AOL you will not be able to access it. So
here is some copying and pasting from that site:
CONCEALED TRUTH
Concealed Weapons Laws and Trends in Violent Crime in the
United States
For years, the NRA and other gun lobby groups have devoted
enormous resources to convincing state legislatures that
loosening the restrictions on the concealed carrying of
weapons (CCW) would make their states and their citizens
safer. This year, Missourians will vote in a statewide
referendum on April 6 on whether to liberalize their state's
concealed carry laws, a high stakes political struggle the NRA
has vowed to win. Michigan, Colorado, Minnesota and
Nebraska are expected to be the sites of pitched battles on
the issue in their state legislatures.
The gun lobby has contended for years that more guns make
for less crime. That slogan is actually the paraphrased title of
a book by Dr. John Lott of the University of Chicago which
claims that greatly easing restrictions on concealed carry
handguns led to large decreases in crime. Although flaws in
his research have been widely documented in scientific
literature, and his findings dismissed by a growing list of
prominent researchers, the gun lobby successfully used it to
persuade several state legislatures to loosen CCW restrictions
in the mid 90's.
This study conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have
got it all wrong: allowing people to carry concealed handguns
does not mean less crime. The study's key findings are as
follows:
For several years now, the nation's crime rate has fallen but
the drop in crime has not been spread equally throughout the
country. As a group, states that chose to fight crime by
loosening their concealed weapons laws had a significantly
smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means
to attack crimes in their communities.
Violent crime actually rose in 12 of 29 states (41%) which
liberalized their CCW laws over the five years beginning in
1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of
22 states (18%) which did not change their CCW laws.
The disparity in the decline is even more obvious for rates of
violent crime. The study showed that, between 1992 through
1997 (the last five years for which data exists), the violent
crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 24.8% while
the violent crime rate for states with liberal CCW laws dropped
11.4%. Nationally the violent crime rate fell 19.4%.
Allowing thousands of ill-trained citizens to carry guns
everywhere they go has no positive effect on the crime rate.
Research now substantiates what common sense has always
argued: in a society still riddled with gun-related crime,
reducing the opportunities where guns can be used will
actually reduce the rate of gun violence.
(Article reprinted from "Center to Prevent Handgun Violence,"
http://www.handguncontrol.org/concealed.htm)
See Chart 1: States with Lax Concealed Weapons Laws
Experience Smaller Drop in Crime at
http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/archive/CCWLX.htm
See Chart 2: States that Restrict or Prohibit Concealed
Weapons Experience Larger Drop in Crime at
http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/archive/CCWSTR.htm
See MAP ILLUSTRATING TRENDS IN CRIME at
http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/archive/MAP.htm
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be the
most misunderstood Amendment in our Bill of Rights.
Although groups opposing gun control claim a constitutionally
protected individual right to bear arms, the federal courts
have consistently rejected that position when interpreting the
Second Amendment. As a result, no gun control measure has
ever been struck down as unconstitutional on Second
Amendment grounds. Furthermore, an individual has no
standing in federal court to raise a Second Amendment claim
because only states have the right to show a legal injury when
the Second Amendment has been infringed. In sum, the
Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of the
states, rather than the rights of individuals.
Some Pertinent Federal Court Cases And Comments:
The Second Amendment is only a check on the federal
government preventing it from interfering with a state's ability
to maintain a militia. States, therefore, are not prohibited by
the Second Amendment from controlling private ownership of
firearms as they see fit. (Presser v. Illinois, 1886).
The Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied"
only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and
effectiveness of the state militias. (States v. Miller, 1939).
"[The Gun Control Act of 1968's prohibitions against felons
owning firearms] do not trench upon any constitutionally
protected liberties." (Lewis v. United States, 1980).
"A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these
gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the
Second Amendment. There is no reason why all pistols should
not be barred to everyone except the police." (Justice William
O. Douglas, 1972.)
"[All the defendant's arguments] are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with
the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."
(United States v. Warin, 1976).
In a decision upholding a 1981 ban on the possession and
sale of handguns in Morton Grove, Illinois, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals stated flatly that "possession of handguns
by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms."
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the decision.
(1981).
In 1984, the same court upheld a two-year-old ordinance that
froze the number of handguns in Chicago. In allowing the law
to stand, the court noted that it did "not impinge upon the
exercise of a fundamental personal right." (1984)
An individual had no standing to raise a Second Amendment
claim, "Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right
of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand
in the position to show legal injury when this right is
infringed." (Hickman v. Block, 1996)
__________________________________________
Just thought you might be interested in that
My emails are going out soon
------------------
My-website
We are as one as we all are the same fighting for one cause -Metallica
keyword. To my surprise, that site is totally different from the one
that regular users access. The page has the gun with the slash
through it, and is totally dedicated to gun control. I thought she
had cooled off with this, but apparently she is going full steam
ahead. If you do not have AOL you will not be able to access it. So
here is some copying and pasting from that site:
CONCEALED TRUTH
Concealed Weapons Laws and Trends in Violent Crime in the
United States
For years, the NRA and other gun lobby groups have devoted
enormous resources to convincing state legislatures that
loosening the restrictions on the concealed carrying of
weapons (CCW) would make their states and their citizens
safer. This year, Missourians will vote in a statewide
referendum on April 6 on whether to liberalize their state's
concealed carry laws, a high stakes political struggle the NRA
has vowed to win. Michigan, Colorado, Minnesota and
Nebraska are expected to be the sites of pitched battles on
the issue in their state legislatures.
The gun lobby has contended for years that more guns make
for less crime. That slogan is actually the paraphrased title of
a book by Dr. John Lott of the University of Chicago which
claims that greatly easing restrictions on concealed carry
handguns led to large decreases in crime. Although flaws in
his research have been widely documented in scientific
literature, and his findings dismissed by a growing list of
prominent researchers, the gun lobby successfully used it to
persuade several state legislatures to loosen CCW restrictions
in the mid 90's.
This study conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have
got it all wrong: allowing people to carry concealed handguns
does not mean less crime. The study's key findings are as
follows:
For several years now, the nation's crime rate has fallen but
the drop in crime has not been spread equally throughout the
country. As a group, states that chose to fight crime by
loosening their concealed weapons laws had a significantly
smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means
to attack crimes in their communities.
Violent crime actually rose in 12 of 29 states (41%) which
liberalized their CCW laws over the five years beginning in
1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of
22 states (18%) which did not change their CCW laws.
The disparity in the decline is even more obvious for rates of
violent crime. The study showed that, between 1992 through
1997 (the last five years for which data exists), the violent
crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 24.8% while
the violent crime rate for states with liberal CCW laws dropped
11.4%. Nationally the violent crime rate fell 19.4%.
Allowing thousands of ill-trained citizens to carry guns
everywhere they go has no positive effect on the crime rate.
Research now substantiates what common sense has always
argued: in a society still riddled with gun-related crime,
reducing the opportunities where guns can be used will
actually reduce the rate of gun violence.
(Article reprinted from "Center to Prevent Handgun Violence,"
http://www.handguncontrol.org/concealed.htm)
See Chart 1: States with Lax Concealed Weapons Laws
Experience Smaller Drop in Crime at
http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/archive/CCWLX.htm
See Chart 2: States that Restrict or Prohibit Concealed
Weapons Experience Larger Drop in Crime at
http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/archive/CCWSTR.htm
See MAP ILLUSTRATING TRENDS IN CRIME at
http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/archive/MAP.htm
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be the
most misunderstood Amendment in our Bill of Rights.
Although groups opposing gun control claim a constitutionally
protected individual right to bear arms, the federal courts
have consistently rejected that position when interpreting the
Second Amendment. As a result, no gun control measure has
ever been struck down as unconstitutional on Second
Amendment grounds. Furthermore, an individual has no
standing in federal court to raise a Second Amendment claim
because only states have the right to show a legal injury when
the Second Amendment has been infringed. In sum, the
Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of the
states, rather than the rights of individuals.
Some Pertinent Federal Court Cases And Comments:
The Second Amendment is only a check on the federal
government preventing it from interfering with a state's ability
to maintain a militia. States, therefore, are not prohibited by
the Second Amendment from controlling private ownership of
firearms as they see fit. (Presser v. Illinois, 1886).
The Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied"
only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and
effectiveness of the state militias. (States v. Miller, 1939).
"[The Gun Control Act of 1968's prohibitions against felons
owning firearms] do not trench upon any constitutionally
protected liberties." (Lewis v. United States, 1980).
"A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these
gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the
Second Amendment. There is no reason why all pistols should
not be barred to everyone except the police." (Justice William
O. Douglas, 1972.)
"[All the defendant's arguments] are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with
the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."
(United States v. Warin, 1976).
In a decision upholding a 1981 ban on the possession and
sale of handguns in Morton Grove, Illinois, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals stated flatly that "possession of handguns
by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms."
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the decision.
(1981).
In 1984, the same court upheld a two-year-old ordinance that
froze the number of handguns in Chicago. In allowing the law
to stand, the court noted that it did "not impinge upon the
exercise of a fundamental personal right." (1984)
An individual had no standing to raise a Second Amendment
claim, "Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right
of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand
in the position to show legal injury when this right is
infringed." (Hickman v. Block, 1996)
__________________________________________
Just thought you might be interested in that
My emails are going out soon ------------------
My-website
We are as one as we all are the same fighting for one cause -Metallica
