Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:42 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not sure if you watched the whole video. You seem confused about who didn't disclose their data. Here on this page you can find a list of mass shootings by clicking on the "incidents" tab. You'll see that they provide dates, country, and a summary for each one. There are thousands outside the US.
Your link goes to John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center, a pro-gun think tank.
  #402  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:43 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
You may have read about that 3 point plan from me. Regarding the imports, her campaign says it...



The AR-15-style weapon was made my Sig Sauer and it think they still do import some weapons. Not sure. Anyway, it's a typical political move. Ban imports, because that won't piss of any voters who happen to make guns for a living in the U.S. But come out for banning guns in the country, that are made here, even temporarily? Never gonna happen. That was the point of my thread. Bring up shit that won't address the problem, and pretend you're actually doing something. As I said earlier, I think gun banning of certain types is the right track, but not half-assed ideas that only target imports.
I read Harris .proposal they day she released it.

The SIG AR is made in New Hampshire and not imported.
  #403  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:44 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
18 U.S.C. section 925(d)(3) and the phrase you're looking for is "generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes", colloquially known as the "sporting purposes" test. You can find more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Co...t_restrictions
That link says:

Quote:
The GCA created what is known as the "sporting purposes" standard for imported firearms, saying that they must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." GCA sporting purposes includes hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include "plinking" or "practical shooting" (which the ATF says is closer to police/combat-style competition and not comparable to more traditional types of sports), nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest.
It appears that you are saying this effectively bans AW imports, correct? If so, how do you get that from those words alone? Or is there more to it not at that link?
  #404  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:50 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
I read Harris .proposal they day she released it.

The SIG AR is made in New Hampshire and not imported.
Okay, it seems you know a bit, or more, about import laws and such. Do you have any comment on my post just above this one? A cursory net search did find much on this. I see plenty about AWs in general, but not what specific weapon are banned (or not) from the act Ditka linked to.
  #405  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:52 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This claim keeps getting made in this thread. It's bunk. There are lots of mass shootings in other countries.
So you claim that the fact that the US is experiencing an extraordinary level of mass shootings compared to economically similar countries is "bunk", and your cite for that is a YouTube video by John Stossel, a raving loon and total nutjob with a well-deserved reputation for distorting and fabricating evidence! A lunatic who also claims that tobacco smoke isn't harmful and who denies climate change.

Back in the world of the sane, an actual numerical comparison can get complicated especially involving third-world countries where good records aren't kept, but the following Wikipedia article presents the available facts and sums up the US as follows:
The United States has had many more mass shooting incidents and more resultant deaths than any other country in the post-WWII era.

In one 2017 study published in Time magazine by criminologist Adam Lankford, it was estimated that 31% of public mass shootings occur in the US, although it has only 5% of the world's population. The study concludes that "The United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"Some other countries have more regulation" does not make your original claim any less wrong.
No, my claim is perfectly correct when "regulation" is taken to mean, you know, actual regulation, not feel-good symbolic measures that do absolutely nothing -- and actual regulation is something that the US seems chronically incapable of doing. That's why I gave the example of gun regulations in Canada, which are actually far more lenient that in most European countries, but would be unthinkable in the US in the current political climate of Republican obstruction. Yet those are the kinds of regulations that have to be the objective of any serious discussion about gun control, which you don't appear interested in having, and would prefer to post YouTube videos of mendacious lunatics like John Stossel.
  #406  
Old 08-06-2019, 07:05 PM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,481
I keep seeing these quotes ' XXXX number of people die from automobile accidents and smoking, I guess car safety and anti-smoking regulations don't help'.
As if that's some sort of zinger.

The number of deaths from automobile accidents has fallen dramatically, both in terms of absolute number of deaths, and in terms of rate of death per vehicle miles.
Cars are safer than they used to be, because - and you may want to read slowly here, this is important - people decided that lots of people dying was a Bad Thing, so lots of time and effort was put into studying the problem.
Regulations were enacted, ad campaigns were devised. The result was a change in driver attitude, driver behavior, increased investment in vehicle safety technology, etc.
And guess what - even though cars are vastly safer than they used to be, people are still working on making them even safer! What a concept, right?

What about smoking? Deaths from smoking are less clear-cut, but what we can see is the sharp decline in percentage of smokers in the US - from almost 50% in the 1950s to the low/mid teens today.
One would expect a decline in people dying from smoking-related illnesses over the coming years.
Too many people die from smoking, but once again - progress is being made, because people decided that lots of people dying from a spectacularly unhealthy activity was a Bad Thing.
I know this concept will be foreign to some, but when some object or activity results in lots of needless deaths, exploring ways to reduce the number of needless deaths is probably a good idea.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...
  #407  
Old 08-06-2019, 07:29 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Your link goes to John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center, a pro-gun think tank.
Yep, and it seems that the torpedo that John Lott made in an attempt to discredit the gun study was launched only to torpedo Lott himself. For starters the data of the research Lott and Stossel whine about was released and the author responded already to critics like Lott:

https://econjwatch.org/File+download...f?mimetype=pdf
Quote:
It might be easy to assume my disagreement with Lott and Moody is mostly about definitions. They have given that impression in their EJW comment, which contains none of the personal attacks or slanderous accusations that Lott has levied against me in other forums.

However, I believe this is actually the case of one researcher who conducted an honest study and let the empirical results guide his conclusions being opposed by others who are primarily driven by ideological motives.

My track record is clear: I published hundreds of thousands of words about crime and violence in two books and many articles before examining public mass shooters worldwide, but never had any interest in debating firearms or gun control. To this day, I am far more interested in studying behavior than weapons, and the latter occupies only a tiny portion of my research. There are certainly impassioned crusaders on all sides of this issue, but I am not one of them. I just followed the evidence where it led, and then was willing to speak publicly about what I found.

By contrast, Lott has a long track record of denying any consequences of the United States’ world-leading firearm ownership rate, and this appears directly related to his repeated refrain that America’s mass shooting problem is exaggerated (Lott 2014; 2015; 2018b). Before my study was even released, Lott published an op-ed entitled “Myths of American Gun Violence” in which he insisted that “many European countries actually have higher rates of death in mass public shootings”than the United States. This is the same line of research that the fact-checking service Snopes eventually lambasted for using “inappropriate statistical methods”and creating a “false impression” (MacGuill 2018). That was not solely a matter of definitions or semantics.

I suspect that ever since my findings were publicly reported, Lott has been looking for a way to discredit them. As a reminder, he even changed how he counted these attacks prior to posting his criticism of my work (Lott 2018a)—including nearly 500 battles over sovereignty, after claiming in his prior analysis that they should be excluded (Lott2015).
Now, after looking at the video I noticed on it the same tactics creationists and climate change science deniers have used regarding what they believe are contradictions and impossibilities a researcher can get into; only that, if that was so, then counter research can be published, but what I normally see is those counter 'researchers' going for the public's opinion rather than challenging research properly.

So, after finding how unreliable that video was, then one should consider the source: as mentioned, the video features John Lott:

https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-...-5456e83cf326/
Quote:
But Lott’s recent successes belie a far more shadowy past. A little over a decade ago, he was disgraced and his career was in tatters. Not only was Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions. An investigation uncovered that he had almost certainly fabricated an entire survey on defensive gun use. And a blogger revealed that Mary Rosh, an online commentator claiming to be a former student of Lott’s who would frequently post about how amazing he was, was in fact John Lott himself. He was all but excommunicated from academia.
And the video is coming from John Stossel.

https://fair.org/extra/give-us-a-break/
Quote:
While there is a long and honorable tradition of U.S. journalists with definite points of view who hoped that their reporting would have a political impact–from Thomas Paine to Ida Tarbell to I.F. Stone–what distinguishes Stossel is his willingness to warp reality to fit his ideological preconceptions. His reports, notable for their one-sided sourcing and rejection of inconvenient facts, are frequently marred assertions from Stossel and his favored guests that are misleading or factually incorrect.

Stossel’s errors are often so obvious that one wonders how they could have ended up on the air. In a 20/20 report on medical research (10/11/99), Stossel complained that too much funding was going to AIDS research, claiming that spending on the disease was “25 times more than on Parkinson’s, which kills more people.”
Quote:
As Stossel once put it (1/9/97), “One good thing about science is that in the long run, the truth usually comes out.” Unfortunately, the same is not true of Stossel’s curious brand of journalism.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-06-2019 at 07:32 PM.
  #408  
Old 08-06-2019, 07:34 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Okay, it seems you know a bit, or more, about import laws and such. Do you have any comment on my post just above this one? A cursory net search did find much on this. I see plenty about AWs in general, but not what specific weapon are banned (or not) from the act Ditka linked to.
Well, I was only 18 at the time, but there were no specific models mentioned that I remember. There weren't that many AWs on circulation like now either. Some notable weapons banned:

Any Ak or Ak copy such as a MAADI from Egyot, Norincos from China, or even copies from Eastern Europe.

Also pretty much any H&K rifle like the G3, model 94, MP5, etc.

Other too I assume but again, that was a long time ago.

Manufacturers got around this ban a few ways. One was to add a thumbhole stock to existing rifles. Another, which persists today is to import parts kits with no barrel, and add them to a US made receiver.

The WASR-10 that was used in El Paso was imported legally and modified with a pistol grip, and other items that would have prevented its import otherwise.

Remember these were banned by their configuration not by name.

Last edited by JXJohns; 08-06-2019 at 07:35 PM.
  #409  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:02 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Someone mentioned it upthread, but we have had guns in this country since the first colonists settled in Jamestown. We have had automatic weapons for over 100 years and semi-automatic weapons just like the ones used in mass shootings, for an equivalent period of time.

Yet is has only been in the last 20 years where these mass shooting have become an issue.

So, if we had the guns before, and didn't have mass shootings, but today we still have guns but now we have mass shootings, doesn't it stand to reason that a variable other than guns is the real issue? Isn't this Problem Solving 101? We look at what has changed as the possible source of the problem; the variable and not the constant.

Suppose you have had a hot tub at your house for the last 5 years. Next month your electric bill skyrockets. Your spouse claims that you need to get rid of the hot tub and blames it for causing the high electric bill. Wouldn't you conclusively know that the hot tub was not what was causing the high electric bills?

Likewise, gun ownership is not causing these mass shootings. It is whatever has changed in the last couple of decades.
Guns have changed a lot since the early days.
  #410  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:08 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Guns have changed a lot since the early days.
If you define early days in the 1700's sure. In the last 100 years or so? Not really, which is the issue. Yeah they look different but function exactly the same.
  #411  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:21 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
If you define early days in the 1700's sure. In the last 100 years or so? Not really, which is the issue. Yeah they look different but function exactly the same.
Would Americas founding fathers, in their infallible wisdom, have looked around today at what they have wrought and written the second amendment just as they did, or at all?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #412  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:29 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Would Americas founding fathers, in their infallible wisdom, have looked around today at what they have wrought and written the second amendment just as they did, or at all?
Could they envision the evolution of the firearm? Sure

Would they rewrite the Second? Your guess is as good as mine.
  #413  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:41 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Could they envision the evolution of the firearm? Sure

Would they rewrite the Second? Your guess is as good as mine.
I agree. I bet your guess is exactly as good as mine.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #414  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:21 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Second hand smoke which kills over 40,000 people in the US each year and the 11,000 who die from drunk driving? Yeah, definitely pedantic.

This is, as always, a judgement call where you are arbitrarily making a value judgement on the relative value of each. If I were opposed to drinking, say, then I could say similar things about that. Or if I was opposed to smoking, the same. A gun owner could say they also derive pleasure from shooting, and also get utility from the perception of protection and control the weapon gives them. And guns ALSO 'tend to kill only when said individual abuses them', since, you know, guns don't kill unless the idiot pulling the trigger points it at someone and shoots.

That's the thing. Relative deaths are pretty similar (well, ok, they aren't...a hell of a lot more people, even today, die from tobacco than the other two, even if we are only talking 2nd hand smoke). They aren't necessary to society. We choose to allow them anyway because citizens want them...and, well, one is a protected right. But still, society chooses to allow them, despite the fact that folks WILL die due to that decision. As for cars, raising the speed limit isn't necessary. You are quite correct that the utility is there, but we don't HAVE to allow folks to drive faster than, oh, say 35 MPH. But we do because folks want it. They don't NEED it, however. And that decision alone costs 10's of thousands of lives that, collectively, we are all responsible for because we decided that the cost in lives is worth the utility.
Vaping is gaining popularity among smokers and I believe the second hand vape is far less dangerous, so I expect the risk is being reduced in that arena.

Car technology over the past 10 years has improved so much that new cars are capable of stopping by themselves with better reaction than attentive drivers. Some of us stand a pretty good chance of seeing roads predominantly populated by self driving cars in our lifetime. Which will save lives without giving up our need for speed and to get places faster than we can at horse & buggy velocities.

Now, if you told me that in our lifetime the overwhelming majority of guns will be replaced by technologically advanced weapons that would prevent people from killing other people, I'd be fucking thrilled. But let's be honest, even if that came to be, how many people are going to hand over their current guns for something like that? Very few. Because the majority of gun owners don't buy them to shoot at targets. They buy them for protection; From ze jermans. And the occasional wild deer when the supermarket runs out of meat. (Whatever. I don't judge. Much.)

Worst news of all however, there is no technology on the horizon that will make consumption of cheeseburgers safe at any speed.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 08-06-2019 at 09:22 PM.
  #415  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:16 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Permits are a lazy way to ban firearms. It isn't like a driver's license (which is NOT a Constitutional right), it is a de facto ban in a few states already.

Registration sounds reasonable, but carries the implication of making confiscation easy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
No need to get around the 2nd. You may own and carry a gun only if you are a member of the militia, and you must train and pass various tests on suitability to be a member. I realize that is not the current interpretation of the 2nd, but it is entirely consistent with what is written there. That is no more or less fiat than the current interpretation.
Again: the militia is a justification, not a prerequisite.

Again: you want to deprive the right to use a firearm for self-defense from all who would not qualify physically for the militia (ďall able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,Ē between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.).
  #416  
Old 08-07-2019, 04:32 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Again: you want to deprive the right to use a firearm for self-defense
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically refer to the right to self-defense? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - that seems to be discussing the State's right to defend against a tyrannical government, not the right of the individual to kill someone trying to break into their house to steal a TV. Yes, I'm aware that's not how SCOTUS currently views it. Anyway....

Registration and licensing works for cars.

Ad campaigns and taxation has worked to reduce smoking.

Awareness campaigns and tougher penalties seems to have worked at reducing incidents of drunk driving.

Nobody has banned smoking. Nobody has banned alcohol. But smoking is down, cars are safer, drunk driving is down.

Some combination of these approaches, working together, could reduce the number of gun deaths without needing to 'ban' guns.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...

Last edited by DragonAsh; 08-07-2019 at 04:32 AM.
  #417  
Old 08-07-2019, 07:50 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Your link goes to John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center, a pro-gun think tank.
Jeez, I'd forgotten about ol' Mary Rosh. How's she doing these days?

Yeah, Lott's been found to be dishonest pretty much across the board. Maybe somebody new to the gun control debate who stumbled across his site for the first time has an excuse, but anyone who's been in this debate for awhile who's still citing him has no excuse. (ETA:) And Ditka's not exactly a newcomer to these discussions.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 08-07-2019 at 07:51 AM.
  #418  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:15 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Thanks for admitting you're part of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

But I'm glad that at least someone is finding a way to get a great deal of enjoyment out of the pain and misery of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yes, yes, we all know your hatred of the First Amendment. You don't have to make every gun debate thread about your wish to abolish 1A, though.
You are both being jerks. If you want to debate, feel free to do so. If your intent is to take shots at other posters, then don't.

[/moderating]

My access is a bit spotty so it will take me a bit to get back to the thread.

Last edited by Bone; 08-07-2019 at 08:21 AM.
  #419  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:41 AM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
...Nobody has banned alcohol...

Self defense and Castle Doctrine is woven into common law, but not enumerated in the Second Amendment. One can not generally (in most jurisdictions I know; Texas for one appears to be different) use lethal force if someone is "trying to break into their house to steal a TV"; you have to wait until they actually get inside (or the PD shows up).

I seem to recall that banning alcohol was tried several decades ago.

You are listing false equivalences, also. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Drunk driving is illegal. Smoking is a health hazard for the user and those nearby, with zero positives.
  #420  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:52 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Smoking is a health hazard for the user and those nearby, with zero positives.
There is an obvious positive to smoking; people enjoy it.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #421  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:14 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
No need to get around the 2nd. You may own and carry a gun only if you are a member of the militia, and you must train and pass various tests on suitability to be a member. I realize that is not the current interpretation of the 2nd, but it is entirely consistent with what is written there. That is no more or less fiat than the current interpretation.
Which is you trying to get around the 2nd. And you realize it. What you want is for a re-interpretation of the 2nd that matches what you want. Yeah, it's been tried. I find this tactic...distasteful so I'll leave it there.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #422  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:20 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
That isn't getting around the 2nd, but restoring the obvious and historical (until recently) meaning of it.

Speaking of interpreting it to match what you want, that is ...
  #423  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:23 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Would Americas founding fathers, in their infallible wisdom, have looked around today at what they have wrought and written the second amendment just as they did, or at all?
Does it seem unlikely that they'd say "What part of 'well-regulated militia' do you not understand? We told you what it was for. No, we didn't bother repealing it after we gave in and established a standing army and it became moot. What the hell is wrong with you people?"
  #424  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:25 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That isn't getting around the 2nd, but restoring the obvious and historical (until recently) meaning of it.

Speaking of interpreting it to match what you want, that is ...
No, it isn't. Why even bring this up? You disagree, you know I disagree, we've had this discussion before...like, oh, 100 times perhaps. Your mind is made up and you aren't going to change it. You aren't going to change my mind, I know you are wrong. There is no point. Yet you felt the need to beat this dead horse yet again because...?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 08-07-2019 at 09:26 AM.
  #425  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:32 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
There is an obvious positive to smoking; people enjoy it.
Yeah, it does seem as though things aren't a big deal, unless they are a big deal to them. Note the earlier comments on the 737 Max, that keeping them in service would have had no benefit, even though pulling them out of service has cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

People like to smoke, but have put up with restrictions on smoking due to the safety of themselves and others. People like to not have their airline go bankrupt, but are risking it in order to protect the safety of others.

But when it comes to something that they want, that they like, they will fight and cry and scream about their toys being taken away.

Is the utility that a gun owner gets from having 50 rather than 7 rounds without having to reload any greater than the utility that I get from smoking after a meal at a restaurant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Does it seem unlikely that they'd say "What part of 'well-regulated militia' do you not understand? We told you what it was for. No, we didn't bother repealing it after we gave in and established a standing army and it became moot. What the hell is wrong with you people?"
They'd say, "Of course the states can regulate guns, that's what a well regulated militia means."
  #426  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:53 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Does it seem unlikely that they'd say "What part of 'well-regulated militia' do you not understand? We told you what it was for. No, we didn't bother repealing it after we gave in and established a standing army and it became moot. What the hell is wrong with you people?"
I'm told anybody's guess is as good as mine as to what they might say/do. My best guess is: "This wasn't at all what we had in mind! What the fuck is wrong with you people?!" I'm confident that if people are honest, that's their best guest too.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #427  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:54 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
No, it isn't. Why even bring this up? You disagree, you know I disagree, we've had this discussion before...like, oh, 100 times perhaps. Your mind is made up and you aren't going to change it. You aren't going to change my mind, I know you are wrong. There is no point. Yet you felt the need to beat this dead horse yet again because...?
If you're telling us you refuse to consider the possible validity of other viewpoints, including one that prevailed for most of our history until recently when a 1-vote partisan vote supported their party politically, that says all it needs to, doesn't it? Meanwhile, this is still a Debates forum, not a "Nuh-uh!" forum.
  #428  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:01 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
They'd say, "Of course the states can regulate guns, that's what a well regulated militia means."
And they'd add "We fucking told you what the militias are for, too: ' to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.' Really, that's in the actual text. Now how the hell did this idea you have get started that it's to enable insurrections?"
  #429  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:05 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you're telling us you refuse to consider the possible validity of other viewpoints, including one that prevailed for most of our history until recently when a 1-vote partisan vote supported their party politically, that says all it needs to, doesn't it? Meanwhile, this is still a Debates forum, not a "Nuh-uh!" forum.
No, I'm telling you that I considered them in the 100's or 1000's of posts on this subject in the past and found them to be bullshit. And, fairly obviously, YOU DID THE SAME FUCKING THING. As we've covered this ground over and over, there doesn't seem much point. But, what the hell, why not? Let's hijack this thread to yet another 2nd Amendment discussion. Mods don't seem to care, so why not?

I'll lay out why you are wrong. It won't be anything new to you. Basically, it would be kind of silly for the FF to create a right and then so limit by making participation in a militia mandatory to get said right. The term 'well regulated militia' doesn't mean today what it meant in the 18th century, where 'well regulated' mean 'well provisioned and equipped', i.e. they had guns, ammo and other equipment. The people who actually wrote the thing wrote other stuff that you and others ignore that talks about WHY they thought a personal right to keep and bear arms was important. Their views on this are clear, even if the Amendment isn't. Lastly, as has been pointed out numerous times, the final Amendment went through a series of drafts and a committee that changed the original meaning, especially to folks (like you) who don't want to bother doing any research on this to see what the people who wrote the thing actually meant. Those drafts pretty clearly show how it got to what we have today, and also what the original intent actually was.

Then we have the fact that it was never, officially, interpreted by the USSC in the past. They kicked the can. There were a lot of de facto interpretations that were used for years. This time, they DID actually make a call, so that's where it stands now.

As to your "Does it seem unlikely that they'd say "What part of 'well-regulated militia' do you not understand? We told you what it was for. No, we didn't bother repealing it after we gave in and established a standing army and it became moot. What the hell is wrong with you people?"" the real answer is whoever you asked that would look at you like you are either crazy or don't understand words, since YOUR interpretation of 'well-regulated militia' is not the same as someone from the 18th century, just as it is with a lot of words. It's a stupid question that relies on the ignorance of your audience (and perhaps your own) to not grasp that languages change over time, and the meaning of words and phrases equally change over time. In your case, I know this has been pointed out to you many times, and you've ignored it, so I'm going to go with willful ignorance. I'll give the others chiming in on your side the benefit of the doubt.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #430  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:05 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,393
Colion Noir calls registration lists "pre-confiscation lists"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtWfSwY3j0M

Fine. You started it. Gun are now pre-murder weapons.
  #431  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:10 AM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
There is an obvious positive to smoking; people enjoy it.
Is it that they enjoy smoking, or that the addiction is again being sated?
  #432  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:10 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And they'd add "We fucking told you what the militias are for, too: ' to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.' Really, that's in the actual text. Now how the hell did this idea you have get started that it's to enable insurrections?"
No, they would roll their eyes or look on you with pity and say "We wanted to grant a personal right to keep and bear arms, and part of the justification for that was so we'd have a strong militia, a 'well regulated' militia where the people in the militia would have, you know, guns and stuff. But the POINT of the RIGHT was so that our citizens would have arms, unlike our British cousins who took them away whenever they wanted because they didn't' have a right to keep and bear arms. You know, as we wrote in all those other papers you were also supposed to read. I mean, come on guy...didn't bother reading anything else besides the Amendment??"
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #433  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:19 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
No, I'm telling you that I considered them in the 100's or 1000's of posts on this subject in the past and found them to be bullshit. And, fairly obviously, YOU DID THE SAME FUCKING THING. As we've covered this ground over and over, there doesn't seem much point. But, what the hell, why not? Let's hijack this thread to yet another 2nd Amendment discussion. Mods don't seem to care, so why not?

I'll lay out why you are wrong. It won't be anything new to you. Basically, it would be kind of silly for the FF to create a right and then so limit by making participation in a militia mandatory to get said right.
Right, that would be silly.

But leaving it up to the states to regulate guns and the powers of the militia is not.
Quote:
The term 'well regulated militia' doesn't mean today what it meant in the 18th century, where 'well regulated' mean 'well provisioned and equipped', i.e. they had guns, ammo and other equipment. The people who actually wrote the thing wrote other stuff that you and others ignore that talks about WHY they thought a personal right to keep and bear arms was important.
Funny how they never mentioned that keeping guns could prevent the tyranny and oppression of slavery.

there were many people who were involved in writing the thing, with many different perspectives and opinions, just like us. That some wrote why they wanted it doesn't mean anything as to what it ended up being. There were some who didn't think that people should have a right at all to guns, why do you not consider their perspective as valid as those who wanted it as a personal right?
Quote:
Their views on this are clear, even if the Amendment isn't. Lastly, as has been pointed out numerous times, the final Amendment went through a series of drafts and a committee that changed the original meaning, especially to folks (like you) who don't want to bother doing any research on this to see what the people who wrote the thing actually meant. Those drafts pretty clearly show how it got to what we have today, and also what the original intent actually was.
Yeah, it came out the sausage maker. In the end, it was a compromise, that neither gave the federal govt the authority to regulate guns, nor asserted the things some wanted as far as personal rights of possession and use.
Quote:
Then we have the fact that it was never, officially, interpreted by the USSC in the past. They kicked the can. There were a lot of de facto interpretations that were used for years. This time, they DID actually make a call, so that's where it stands now.
It couldn't be interpreted any differently until after the civil war, as it did not bind the states, only the fed. And it got kicked down the road because it was pretty obvious that it wasn't meant to be binding on the states, and the incorporation of the amendments made that hard to reconcile.
Quote:
As to your "Does it seem unlikely that they'd say "What part of 'well-regulated militia' do you not understand? We told you what it was for. No, we didn't bother repealing it after we gave in and established a standing army and it became moot. What the hell is wrong with you people?"" the real answer is whoever you asked that would look at you like you are either crazy or don't understand words, since YOUR interpretation of 'well-regulated militia' is not the same as someone from the 18th century, just as it is with a lot of words.
Yeah, basically the militia at the time was mostly to prevent the indigenous people from protecting their land, and the enslaved people from winning their freedom. Not something that most militia members would be willing to acknowledge today.
Quote:
It's a stupid question that relies on the ignorance of your audience (and perhaps your own) to not grasp that languages change over time, and the meaning of words and phrases equally change over time. In your case, I know this has been pointed out to you many times, and you've ignored it, so I'm going to go with willful ignorance. I'll give the others chiming in on your side the benefit of the doubt.
Or perhaps, it is simply a disagreement in interpretation, and stupidity, ignorance, or disingenuous motives have nothing to do with it.
  #434  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:20 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Is it that they enjoy smoking, or that the addiction is again being sated?
Yes
  #435  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:21 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,782

The Moderator Speaks


Enough!

Time out. All of you. Given the ten or more reports from everyone on all sides over the last day or so Iím declaring this thread dead.

You may start a new one tomorrow morning. Not before. Everyone cool off and come back fresh in the morning.
  #436  
Old 08-07-2019, 11:43 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you're telling us you refuse to consider the possible validity of other viewpoints, including one that prevailed for most of our history until recently when a 1-vote partisan vote supported their party politically, that says all it needs to, doesn't it? Meanwhile, this is still a Debates forum, not a "Nuh-uh!" forum.
This is a warning for failure to follow a moderator's instructions in post #418.

If you do decide to return after the embargo has been lifted, my instruction stands for those future threads as well.

[/moderating]
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017