HopefulFuture

I understand. I will say this much, it is a useful exercise, and what surprises me more often than not when this particular subject comes up is the lack of historical data on gun usage in the commission of crimes. It's more than obvious it's heavily on the rise. The population is also in a constant state of growth. Are the 2 connected? Is there a correlation between them? When those questions can be answered in earnest, the next logical set of questions comes to what I eluded to early on in this conversation, the degradation of morals in America. At what point and time did human life become so expendable to the general population. Of all the gun violence that takes place in this nation annually, the most recent studies put 66% of those gun crimes in large population centers. Out of that 66% 96% of that number is African American on African American. What can we take away from that information? Is it a parenting issue? The environment the children grow up in? Is it directly related to the African American culture itself? I have to believe it's a combination of the first 2, I don't subscribe to the more popular theory that "your born that way", as is used in other subjects. I believe it's the adults guiding you in early life combined with the environment your brought up in. That's merely my opinion, I'm sure others have merit as well. Then there is the remaining 44%, which most statistical data shows is gun crimes committed on to a victim by someone they know. The largest portion of that number is crimes of passion. Once again, there appears to be a large group, primarily Caucasian's, who commit these type of crimes. But not nearly as large as what you see in the African American communities. And yet again, the questions of a moral upbringing (taught responsibility and accountability) is front and center. The larger shootings, mass shootings, they are less than 2% of all gun violence. Yet, they are the most covered. Take Chicago for example, there is some down right fantastic research that has been done on that particular situation. I read the following upon it's posting on the web earlier this month. http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/April-2014/Chicago-Gun-Violence-Big-Numbers-But-a-Surprisingly-Small-Network/ And you find many more studies of other cities contain very similar data. My conclusion, the fear of guns and gun violence is much more over blown than many like to admit. The numbers tell that story for sure. There is most certainly a direct correlation of the numbers and it's more than obvious the lack of respective of human life is generated by the environment one is raised in. There can be no question any longer. The numbers bare this out. It lends more than credence to my statements on responsibility and accountability. Which inevitably brings the core question into focus in America, what's happened to our morale standings as human beings? Where are a large portion of the population getting them in the absence of teachings on this issue? Has the left so removed religion from the conversation over the last 50 years that it's finally come back to haunt society at large?

Well, this is where you and I part ways then. It comes back to the oath I took. As I said early on, I take that oath very serious, you claim I don't hold to that oath seriously, I found that offensive and an insult to my honor, for my word is my honor. The way it should be, the way it used to be, not some ###### spouted off like people do for the most part today. I don't live my life that way, never have, never will. You also state it would be a revolution to "replace" the constitution. That to is where we part ways. The constitution, while granting authority to a centralized federal governing body has checks built into it to prevent that federal government from becoming tyrannical. Those checks are the Bill of Rights I submit to you. You may not agree with that, and once again, I'd say go back and read your history, not just the Constitution itself, bu the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation, personal writings of the founders and some of the citizens of that era, you will find you are not correct in your assertion. I will go ahead and use the words of the Declaration of Independence in the context that I did. I never stated it was the law of the land, merely countering your point, as stated, that it's a fools errand. That may be your view point of my stance, but it's not a fact, it's opinion. I was pointing out that it's been done before. I will say this, you come at me aggressively, it doesn't work. My view of the 2nd amendment, my thoughts on the current situation with our government and the historical context I've read on them, these aren't based on conspiracy theories or some Alex Jones type of thinking. They are based on fact. You may not like those facts, nor agree with the conclusions I draw from my own education. I'm a pretty thick skinned individual, I've served my nation honorably and I consider myself more than fairly well informed.

I don't believe I've stated that I have. Merely countering a point made on the centralized power of the federal government is all. What I was pointing out was that when a governing body becomes so abusive to it's own citizens, that it is possible to cast it off. Well, I'm not one that believes that this culture is evolving in a positive direction. Throughout history there are examples of governing bodies that have used various narratives, techniques, story lines or other deceptive methods to lull their respective general populaces into believing it's all for the good of society. Not one of them to date has turned out to be correct. I am not advocating the return of "the good old days". Merely pointing out that as of today, right now, this very minute, the United States of America does not live by the law, hell, Obama just broke a law today. If that were John Q. Citizen you can bet they'd be hauled before a judge. In case you haven't noticed, the Federal Government has become a power unto itself, and if you truly believe they have "we the people"s" best interest at heart, I do not agree. Whether or not you subscribe to my line of thought is irrelevant to me. I am merely pointing out the obvious and stating a case as to why the 2nd amendment is important, not only to myself, but millions of other Americans.

While I can understand your thoughts on Federal Supremacy, I do not subscribe to that. Remember, this is a union. The last time a portion of this nation attempted to succeed from that union was in 1860. While I do not live by nor agree with the southern states way of life, I have enough information to know that the Federal Government will do whatever is necessary, including killing it's own citizens, to maintain it's authoritative control. This however does not mean in any way shape or form that I should shy away from standing by my principles on the subject of the current US governments power grab. Live free or die is a motto that most Americans have heard of, but do they really understand it's true meaning. Are there those that would lay their lives down in the name of true freedom, not just use lip service to it? I submit to you I can be one of those individuals without question. When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. That should sound very familiar to all Americans, sadly, it's a footnote for trivia games to most. Not to myself however.

I don't want to be rude here, so I'll just say that I take my oath deadly serious. I cannot help it you do not feel protected, if that be the case, pick up a gun and man a post. I do not discount the nature of culture, of which the American culture has been all but destroyed. I stand by my original assertion, if you think you live in a free society, you don't.

No one is deifying the founders, merely pointing out that a set of laws were implemented, by a majority of them, all elected representatives, and as such those laws were commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, further more, it was common knowledge, and still is to this day, that those rights were considered god given. The Whiskey Rebellion you refer to, did not, in point of fact, lead to any battle involving militia with federally gathered troops. There was no "crushing" as you put it. Further more, the tax that started the rebellion to begin with did not get collected in it's form due to the resistance of the farmers in western PA. Jefferson abolished it upon taking office. Now, did Washington gather a standing army unto him to crush a rebellion? No. He requested the states send militia, out of the states that sent militia, all of them were the main beneficiaries of the tax itself. Oh, and it wasn't just Western PA. They never collected any tax from Kentucky out of fear, North Carolina's AG threw the federal writs and warrants out based on a "lack of sufficient evidence", basically aligning the great state of North Carolina with the rebellion of the tax. This was a poor example of how the 2nd amendment was suppressed, since, in point of fact, no laws on weapons were in fact passed or enforced. If however, you were attempting to point out how the government has oppressed it's people from the very beginning, well then, I concur. Remember this, the constitution was written by land owners, and as such, they were autocratic in their very nature. If it hadn't been for Shay's Rebellion, I'm of the opinion the Bill of Rights doesn't exist. With that said, it only reinforces my stance on being ever vigilant to any and all governing bodies that look to amass power and wealth unto themselves. I understand there is a false conception in the debate, and not just here, but nationally. The idea that individuals take responsibility and accountability for their own actions seems to be out the window with some people. It actually appears as though some of them are shocked at such a notion. On the other side of the debate there appears to be rigor, no ability to flex a little. There are some valid points on public safety and the ability of a truly free society to negotiate an amiable middle ground. I've seen the far left call for total gun bans, the far right to allow all guns and devices there in allowed in the hands of citizens. Where is the middle ground for the sake of the public at large? Somewhere in the middle, that is why I pointed to the Supreme Court ruling on individual citizens as opposed to militia's in it's interpretation of the 2nd amendment. There has to be common sense. I don't believe the treatment of Native Americans (which I am one of) has any bearing on the 2nd amendment conversation save the fact that you claim the men that inked it into law did so. The 2nd amendment is inclusive as a time honored standing god given right. But yes, as I've stated from the beginning, there does need to be some common sense. For example, you don't need to ban assault weapons, nor the ammunition for said weapons if the citizen with ownership of said weapon is responsible with it. And then we come back to it in the end, where is the taught from birth education needed to be responsible and accountable. Why do others submit their rights to violation due to the actions of a few? These are tough subjects to tackle to be sure. But by no means does that mean I should give up my right because another human being acted in an irresponsible and non-accountable fashion.

Well, your correct, I am typing so much so fast that at times bare with me as I attempt to inject a bit of historical context to the conversation while not putting the proper level context into it.

Actually, if you know your military hierarchy, you would fully understand that the National Guard is the Reserve Units of the United States Military and as such, can be pressed into action by the Federal Government. Also, to clarify, I stated all levels of government, not merely Federal when it comes to oppressive behavior. Not that I care to defend my words on every detailed level, because, you know, common sense should prevail in these conversations. That is correct in so far as the founders of this nations rational thoughts on these rights were. If you do your research, you will find a majority of the founders who signed the document that submits the law of the very land you live under, you will find the first 8 out of the 10 amendments were, in point of fact, considered god given rights. Of course, why should most Americans, who follow with blind obedience the teachings of the public school system, where in said system your not truly taught the very law's and the context by which their existence came into being, know these things. As I've always said, your a product of your environment, but at some point and time as Americans mature into adulthood, the true study by which you learn the laws of the land you would think should be second nature, since, you know, it's suppose to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. I would think at the very least the responsibility of each citizen is to educate themselves accordingly. Or do you find that to time consuming for you to bother with? Was it over when Germany bombed Pearl Harbor? :nana:

It's hardly laughable as you believe. The organization itself does employ tactics known as lobbying, but then again, so does just about every other cause in the nation. If you honestly believe you live in a nation where you are currently free and those freedoms are automatic, I don't know what to say then. The fact is you have to stay vigilant constantly just to maintain what little bit of illusion there is to the freedoms we, as a people, have. You failed completely to address my statement on the power concentration happening at levels of government, either your avoiding it all together in an effort to make your view appear realistic or you couldn't find an opposing view on it at all. And further on the issue of well regulated militia, you also do not in your dissenting opinion of the meaning of the 2nd amendment bring up the writings of one founding father on the very real concerns of a centralized government and it's ability to mass power unto itself. If you read what some of the founders wrote you'd understand there was that very real concern I speak on. And once again, I submit that the Federal government has, in point of fact, used it's "standing army" on the citizens of this nation and does so to this day. Let's not pretend incidents like Kent State never happened. Those type of incidents do happen. I find what I am defending far from devastating. I am sure your views are well intentioned, but as I stated early on, your stand on the issue is in direct opposition to my own, and it always will be. I'm not in the conversation to sway the anti-gun sentiment, I'm in it in an attempt to point out that the Utopia many of you believe will take place by removing my "god given right" isn't going to happen, it's just not reality to believe so. EDIT: Oh, and I'll give you a prime example of the modern day version of that power at the Federal level. There is a massive influx of illegal's crossing our southern border. While it's nice that people want to come here and better themselves they more often than not create undue burdens on the local populaces they end up settling around. It's primarily due to the over whelming volume of people. This could be solved to a large extent by stationing our armed forces on that border, after all, the massive lack of respect of life with the cartels shows us this. But, in the very spirit of the politics of the situation you speak on, American citizens have been held against there will, raped, robbed or murdered and yet, neither of the 2 power parties currently controlling our political landscape do nothing with that standing army to stop it. That is directly related to a massive influx of "votes" for one side or the other, and those hypocritical Democrats are the major abusers of this ongoing problem. And yet, they want us to watch as they do nothing while at the same time removing our ability to defend ourselves. Just one example.

I will respond to this. The NRA is not, in point of fact, the money behind the madness, those gun producers are however. The NRA is a non=profit organization with donors. Let's be clear about this. They produce no weapons themselves as an organization. Do the research before you attempt to lay in blatantly false information please. Yes, they are "a" driving force behind a culture of weapons, but not the way you make it out at all. And by the way, I'm not a member, but members are all around me, through generations of my family, so I'm fairly well versed in this. And just so you can go do some more homework, long before the NRA existed, there has been a driving force toward the right to bare arms. Let's not, once again, make this into a false accusation or statement conversation please. I will say you are correct in some of what your thoughts are on the money side of it, and that has been going on for a good bit of time. You also state such things as ammo and other situations where there is questionable stances by the organization. As I stated from the outset of the conversation, I don't agree with every stance they take, but the 2nd amendment issue is my core focus. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. So there is some sanity that can be injected into the 2nd amendment for public safety, however, with that said, as I've read volumes on the founders and their intentions, it's clear the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were at odds over this issue of an armed citizenry. The Anti-Federalists won out, and rightfully so. The largest single threat to The United States of America citizenry is it's own government, the amassing of wealth and power at those levels and the ability of those governing bodies to turn it against the people, either in subversive or in plain site fashion. I submit to you governing bodies at all levels have done and are now currently doing both and to such as scale that they threaten the very fabric of the nation as a whole itself. But hey, don't take my word for it, do the research, really dig, look at historic as well as current day events. At some point and time you have to stop being so naive and blind to what is going on and open your eyes to the realities that not only yourself, but we all currently live under.

Oh no, heaven forbid we as a nation defend our "god given rights". By all means, take away my ability to defend myself, my family and my property and continue to hold strong to the morale degradation of the American Society at large. After all, I wouldn't want "personal accountability and responsibility" to ever be taught in a society where I was raised that those attributes "must" be a core value of. I guess we should just go nationalist socialism, this way the state can pull out and put in the pacifier when ever I need it. :wallbash:

Well, the title of the thread is "The Economics of Buffalo". With that said, the past of this region is directly tied to it's future, whether individuals choose to accept that or not, it makes it no less of a reality. We have the highest cancer rates in the nation, and that's directly tied to our past. We have petro-chemical brownfield sites all over the place, and that's directly tied to our past. We haven't updated our skilled labor force to any extent at all and I'll counter that with the exodus still continues to happen, albeit to a lesser extent (hey, so many already left, the numbers were bound to tail off eventually). But the most important aspect of it all is what is left here. New York state mandates, a state government that sends roughly 65% of it's resources to the great 3 county region surrounding the mouth of the Hudson River. We have ineffective representatives from the WNY region not always because they are just plain morons, but because the region has been largely passed and no longer holds it's significance as it once did as the gateway from the great lakes or the electrical center of the world. More recently, the purge of industry from the area was never truly replaced. Oh sure we can open a thousand mom and pop small companies, but the truth is they will never amass the wealth needed to but more than a minor ding in the mess that was left here. Looking at through rose-colored glasses? I don't think I am, just calling it as it is. But hey, even though I can admit the truth to these realities, I live here. But the thread isn't so much on the small beauty's left here, it's on The Economics of Buffalo.

The Greater Buffalo-Niagara Region is a shell of it's former self. It will rebound to some extent, but that will be a slow, very slow process. I'd venture to say not one poster in here will see it in their life time.

Simple for me, I've watched a good deal of Ullmark via streams with friends from Sweden. Smooth reflexes, focused on not only the puck but the field of play overall, anticipating with a good deal of success the play. Makarov I've had a chance to catch in action as well. Raw talent, great drive and motivation to perform and it shows in more than just a few games here and there. Still needs to work on his ability to read the play in front of him but has natural skill sets as a net minder. Needs much polishing but isn't a long shot project, more longer term.

Thank you Numark for the listing. My personal opinion is Armia needs another year or more in the A. But will make the NHL. Ullmark and Makarov look to be the real deals early on, I project them both in the NHL. Grig's I'm not so high on, flip a coin on whether or not he makes it. Risto, Zad's, McCabe and Pysyk definitely stick in my mind. Baptiste, hmmmmm, I love what he did for his own stock these past 9 months or so, but I don't want to give myself false hope. Abstaining for now until I see more of the same in the form of consistency at his level of play. The same with Possler, Compher and Fasching. Larsson I see as a 3/4 liner, but I just don't see him sticking in the NHL, just an opinion of mine is all. More of a Luke Adam type. The rest I'll need more information, abstain.

Let's hope this kid develops into his max potential at the NA game. I'm so hoping for an all star career for him, and us of course.

I just noticed Linus Ullmark to the Buffalo Sabres from MODO in the Transaction box on the main page. Did we sign him today or something else?

Not knowing the full details of what exactly transpired prior to the tragic event it's hard to say whether they could or could not have. I do know that Law Enforcement cannot take property without cause. For example, the mere carrying of a weapon where open carry laws apply cannot be the sole reason for law enforcement to stop you. Here is the actual circuit court ruling: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1027378.html Now, watch YOUR rights being protected by a citizen against an illegal search and seizure, watch and learn:

Have you received your free cruise package yet :P I'm guessing the Latvian National team is relocating to the new Harbor Center ;)

Or, conversely, you could look at it as though that 50% is disenfranchised from their government altogether, creating that apathetic environment. In which case, that narrows the ability for serious challenges to be made by any other party then the 2 power parties. Just something to think on is all..........

Very good question and one I'm surprised no one else has asked. There were actually 12 originally. The founders did not deem it necessary to protect them since they were considered "God given rights". The History of the Bill of Rights is one aspect of American history that many people know little about. The Bill of Rights is one of the main founding documents of the United States of America. It consists of Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendments were added to protect basic God given rights from government interference. You can't understand the history of the Bill of Rights if you don't know what a Bill of Rights is! A Bill of Rights is basically a list of the rights of the people from which the government is forbidden from interfering. You can find these excerpts here: Read more: http://www.revolutio...l#ixzz32vu81OQA EDIT 1: In essence, the Massachusetts Comprise was adopted as the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These rights are amendable, but good luck with 9 and 10, since they do not subscribe to the rights of the people, rather to the rights of the states. EDIT 2: It should also be noted that there is currently a very strong active push by the left to do away with religion in government of any nature. There is the separation of church and state of course, but the morale's by which man has guided themselves for well over a thousand years now has come directly from religious beliefs. A definite irony to be sure. EDIT 3: And to your example on prohibition, that is not one of the first 10 amendments and therefore is not considered a "God given right" as the first 10 (actually 8) are.

I submit to you that a vast majority of Americans are not fully aware of the extent of which their government has strayed from the rule of law of many decades, not just recently. If you notice, each time there is a threat to curtail access to fire arms by the government, there is a spike in gun sales. Here is one of many polls in recent years for your review: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2011/10/gun-ownership-rates-rise-in-usa-according-to-gallup-poll/ Although that particular poll addresses only gun ownership, it's clear across all polls I've seen in the past 10 years that women most definitely are on the up tick when it comes to gun ownership. However, here is a poll in recent years as to the trust you speak of when it comes to government, there are many more that show the same, this one just happened to pop up at the top of the search page: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-dont-americans-trust-government/ There is an obvious mistrust of government across the board in this nation, and at every level for good reason. The conversation we are having only reinforces this with the facts we know at hand. In no way am I suggesting it's going to remain this way, nor am I stating it's been this way throughout history, I am merely pointing out there can be a correlation between the 2. It's not unreasonable to deduce that the public is leery of government. My step father works in the Sweet Home district and he reports the same. I find the following article to be an interesting read, it does lend itself to some of the merits I speak on. The concepts of Life, Liberty, and Property and their role in limiting government to the few duties specifically designated conflict with the goals of statists that run the school systems throughout the country. The average school is more interested in teaching children how to put a condom on a banana or making sure kindergartners have read "Billy has Two Mommies," than making sure students understand the nature of their freedom and how to be productive, independent citizens. When schools rely on government funding, they have an incentive to promote larger roles for the government and policies that lead to centralized control and increased taxes. The teachers and board members who rely on perpetually increasing levels of funding from government sources will promote a curriculum that endorses more government involvement in every aspect of the economy. Follow the money. Public schools rely on federal funding. Increased federal funding provides more money to the administrators. The administrators select the curriculum. The administrators have an incentive to choose curriculum that will benefit themselves. Curriculum promoting private property rights under Natural Law, would lead to promoting limited government. Students will be taught to expand the government and redistribute wealth so that they will grow up to vote for policies that line the pockets of politicians and school administrators. I'm not judging it, I'm just calling it like it is. While the schools teach the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they do not adequately teach the principles that drove their creation. Instead, they rely on judicially expanded interpretations of the "general welfare" clause of the preamble, and the "necessary and proper" and "interstate commerce" clauses of the Constitution to justify the perpetually increasing government the the founders would have never approved of. These clauses were discussed during the Constitutional Convention and the records are available to anyone who bothers to look. If schools would teach the principles of the founding of this country, they would be forced to admit that "general welfare" specifically referred to keeping the federal government limited to its enumerated powers; "necessary and proper" limited Congress to passing laws that allowed them to carry out their enumerated powers (not anything they deemed necessary and proper at any time); and the "interstate commerce" clause was meant to keep states from limiting trade between themselves, it was never meant to give the federal government the authority to regulate anything and everything that involved commerce within the country. Anyone claiming they know their rights because they were taught the Bill of Rights prove that schools do not teach the principles of Natural Law reflected in the founding of this country. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not give you rights. You have rights because you are a human. The Bill of Rights itemizes the most egregious transgressions of strong central governments and explicitly bars the government from infringing on the 9 specified. The 10th amendment leaves anything and everything not specifically listed to the states and individual citizens. Exclusion of rights from the Bill of Rights does not give the federal government authority to do whatever it wants. The Constitution specifically lists the responsibilities given to the federal government. Under the principles of the founding, everything else falls under the 10th amendment unless the states choose to amend the Constitution.

Were my posts not original thought? Then once again, I would like to point your attention to the educational system. We live under the rule of law by this very document, in which lay the 2nd amendment, and yet, the majority of our educational lives the importance of this document and the responsibilities of the citizens themselves to it lay largely to the way side is what in affect, you are saying. Sounds to me like a governmental issue, since a vast majority of this nation is educated in...........wait for it, wait for..........here it comes.........."public shools". Why, surprise, surprise.............. :huh:

The fact that it's in the Bill of Rights should stress to the general public just how important it is.

Very real concerns, and ones that I'm sure many have had a thought or two about. I do not hold to my views without looking at the negatives as well as the positives, But if you view my edit in the post you quoted, you'll find my core values. Am I only one person to believe such? No, but to try and gauge where others loyalties lay would be a difficult task to be sure. I do have some historical context for you however. I'll use the Constitution itself, take a look at how it came into existence. The very reason this nation exists today is because men, great men, took an enormous gamble where the outcome very much lay doubt. They fought for what they believed in, united, as a group in a common cause. There again, differing parties came together to form that document, overcoming odds they themselves knew to be great divides. And yet, they succeeded. Just as you point to the possibilities on one end of the spectrum, I point you to the possibilities on the other end of that spectrum.