Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-12-2018, 04:05 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
If they wind up in prison, they weren't law-abiding, were they? It's easy to be law abiding when the laws don't stop you from doing the things you want to do.

We've spent decades throwing brown people in jail for scraps of weed or selling loosies, and now it's all "let's not jail people for petty crimes, like owning a banned weapon that can kill with a twitch of a finger."


" otherwise law abiding citizens "

Yeah, we have so lets double down and put tens of thousands more in prison!


  #102  
Old 12-12-2018, 04:34 PM
Kearsen Kearsen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: austin texas
Posts: 1,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Out of all the arguments I've made over the years regarding guns/gun control, this is the simplest and easiest to grasp when it comes to a way to reduce homicides. And yet, I've never convinced a single gun owner to agree with me. I once exaggerated something of the sort, asking somewhat facetiously, "how many gun-related homicides would there be in the US if we literally got rid of all guns?" Knowing that in this admittedly far-fetched example, saying none would illustrate my point for me, no one has ever dared answer. Predictably, they want to ask how we could get rid of guns or otherwise change the subject.
To answer the question is simplistic in nature but it will be disregarded (which might be why it has never been answered)

Gun control laws perform a thing: they control guns (to the law abiding)
So to answer your question, probably very little.
__________________
Kearsen
aka...RollingRock
  #103  
Old 12-12-2018, 05:55 PM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
If they wind up in prison, they weren't law-abiding, were they? It's easy to be law abiding when the laws don't stop you from doing the things you want to do.

We've spent decades throwing brown people in jail for scraps of weed or selling loosies, and now it's all "let's not jail people for petty crimes, like owning a banned weapon that can kill with a twitch of a finger."
How about a compromise. Release the people in jail for pot on the condition that they share some of their Cannatonic with the twitchy gun folks. That kills two birds with one stone, rather than 33k people with bullets.
  #104  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:44 PM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,416
One of Canada's top sharpshooters would like civilians restricted to single shot longuns. Makes a lot of sense to me. Handguns are already restricted.
  #105  
Old 12-12-2018, 11:09 PM
sps49sd sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Yes, and on a national level, too. It doesn't help Chicago to have tight gun laws if they're loose in adjoining Indiana, for instance. Yet the gun lobby loves to point to that and say "See? Gun laws don't work!", just as if they were pointing at a screen door and saying "See? Doors don't keep the rain and wind out!".

On an international level, the same principle applies across the border - for instance, most of Mexico's illegal guns are trafficked from the US (things come from the places they're easiest to get, duh).
Is the firearms violence in Indiana higher than Illinois? It should be, with firearms easier to get in Indiana.
Let's ask USA Today for 2016:

Illinois
Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 11.6 per 100,000
Total firearm deaths 2016: 1490 (suicides: 506, homicides: 944)
Violent crime rate: 436.3 per 100,000 (16th highest)
Permit required to carry handgun: FOID Required
Poverty rate: 13.0% (24th lowest)

Indiana
Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 14.9 per 100,000
Total firearm deaths 2016: 997 (suicides: 591, homicides: 368)
Violent crime rate: 404.7 per 100,000 (20th highest)
Permit required to carry handgun: Yes
Poverty rate: 14.1% (21st highest)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-up/359395002/

So suicide is higher in Indiana, but you need to worry about someone else more in Illinois.
  #106  
Old 12-12-2018, 11:21 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries

In those 26 upper tier, you have Brunei, Luxemburg, Andorra and Liechtenstein.
And presumably 21 others as well. So? Do they have a closer per-capita GNP to the U.S. than, say, Haiti, Nicaragua, Guyana, Honduras and Bolivia, all of which you suggested were better comparators by virtue of being in "the Americas".

Of course, you could just say fuck all that and just compare the U.S. to the handful of the wealthier countries in the so-called Anglosphere, i.e. Canada, the U.K., Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, just to minimize disparities in per-capita wealth, culture and even "race" if you want to go down that rabbit-hole.

Spoiler: You don't look good.
  #107  
Old 12-13-2018, 01:30 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
And presumably 21 others as well. So? Do they have a closer per-capita GNP to the U.S. than, say, Haiti, Nicaragua, Guyana, Honduras and Bolivia, all of which you suggested were better comparators by virtue of being in "the Americas".

Of course, you could just say fuck all that and just compare the U.S. to the handful of the wealthier countries in the so-called Anglosphere, i.e. Canada, the U.K., Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, just to minimize disparities in per-capita wealth, culture and even "race" if you want to go down that rabbit-hole.

Spoiler: You don't look good.
Nope, just compare the uSA to all the nations, no cherrypicking.
  #108  
Old 12-13-2018, 02:45 AM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,249
There is no point in trying to compare the US to most other countries because the 50 states are just too different and too independent of federal control in so many ways. This doesn't just apply to the guns issue, it applies to everything IMO. It makes more sense to compare individual American states to European countries.
  #109  
Old 12-13-2018, 05:19 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
There is no point in trying to compare the US to most other countries because the 50 states are just too different and too independent of federal control in so many ways. This doesn't just apply to the guns issue, it applies to everything IMO. It makes more sense to compare individual American states to European countries.
The Swiss would like you to be so kind as to return their eyes: they fell to the floor from being rolled that far back.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #110  
Old 12-13-2018, 06:09 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
There is no point in trying to compare the US to most other countries because the 50 states are just too different and too independent of federal control in so many ways.
Oh, name a few for us, with a bit of explanation, will you?
  #111  
Old 12-13-2018, 06:11 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
" otherwise law abiding citizens "
What does "law-abiding" mean when you say it? Is it all laws, or only the ones you like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Did it do so in 1791 and did the writer know those rules?
Yes, that bullshit only got started when the NRA invented it.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 12-13-2018 at 06:12 AM.
  #112  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:14 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Nope, just compare the uSA to all the nations, no cherrypicking.
But then you wouldn't get to turn around and say "it doesn't matter, the USA is special because we're different and you know, special, and that's why [idea that works in other countries] wouldn't work here."


Personally I think you should ignore gun regulation as a lost cause and just legalize drugs, if the goal is to reduce violence.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #113  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:58 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
the framing of the post indicates that guns are doing the killing, as if they have a will of their own.
Now you're just being silly. Nobody says guns have a will of their own. But some things are dangerous.
  #114  
Old 12-13-2018, 09:26 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
No, guns don't kill people. That's a strawman, one of the many raised by the I Just Like Guns crowd. The combination of guns and assholes, however, certainly does kill a lot of people, both singly and in bulk.

Can we fix the asshole problem? No? Then what's left?
  #115  
Old 12-15-2018, 10:37 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
What does "law-abiding" mean when you say it? Is it all laws, or only the ones you like?

Yes, that bullshit only got started when the NRA invented it.
No that's revisionist history on the part of gun control advocates. It attempts to ignore the preceding history in English law such as the Bill of Rights of 1689 which gave Protestants the right to carry arms in self-defense. It also ignores Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765 which advocated for a right to self-defense. Both were hugely influential on the changes in legal and political philosophies in England with regards to the rights of the common person and the diminished supremacy of the monarch and Parliament. It's no coincidence that the same era saw the rise of the concept of judicial review of acts of Parliament as well. Unsurprisingly these influences resonated with the Framers who not only sought to cure what they thought were the defects and limitations of English law but to apply those principles in a practical manner in a land that was much less "civilized" than England. The 2nd Amendment is essentially the relevant portion of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 minus the religious restrictions with some Blackstone thrown in.

It also ignores all the prominent Constitutional scholars of the 19th century such as St. George Tucker, Justice Joseph Story, and Thomas Cooley. All of whom argued that the right to bear arms in self-defense was in no way dependent on the existence of, or participation in, any militia. Later this became part of the holding in United States vs Cruikshank where SCOTUS found that the right to bear arms in self-defense was in no way dependent on the 2nd Amendment and it (the 2nd) was instead a limitation on the Federal Gov't's ability to infringe on that right.

So you can disagree with those viewpoints all you want, and I'm sure you will. But in doing so you should probably provide more evidence in support of your argument than the non-existent amount you cited for your initial incorrect assertion.
  #116  
Old 12-16-2018, 12:07 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Handguns are indeed the #1 gun used by criminals. But the 2nd Ad stands in your way.
Yeah, no shit.
  #117  
Old 12-16-2018, 12:08 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I honk the Democratic Party should totally campaign on this issue. Good luck!
I'd advise against that myself. I think that would do more harm than good at the voting booth. Not that this has anything to do with what I wrote.
  #118  
Old 12-16-2018, 12:10 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen View Post
To answer the question is simplistic in nature but it will be disregarded (which might be why it has never been answered)
Rabid pro-gun people don't even want to answer the question, because they don't want to admit to the obvious truth that reducing the number of guns (and types, for that matter) will bring down the homicide rate even more than it has fallen over the last decades.
  #119  
Old 12-16-2018, 12:48 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
No that's revisionist history on the part of gun control advocates. It attempts to ignore the preceding history in English law such as the Bill of Rights of 1689 which gave Protestants the right to carry arms in self-defense.
That isn't what I called bullshit. Please reread.
  #120  
Old 12-16-2018, 02:43 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That isn't what I called bullshit. Please reread.
I don't need to reread anything. You were taking the position that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment modifies the second clause in support of the position that the right to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia.

You then went on to claim that the opposite position, that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause, is a recent invention originated by the NRA/gun lobby and implying that it was completely contrary to how it had previously been interpreted. A claim I have seen you and others make before.

My post shows that the idea that the people's right to bear arms for self-defense in English Common Law dates back to the late 17th century and how the idea was further expanded by Blackstone. The fact that Blackstone was unquestionably the most influential legal scholars of the era provides context for interpreting the 2nd Amendment because of the huge amount of influence he likewise had on the Framers.

Not only that, but the same interpretation was advocated by leading Constitutional scholars of the 19th century starting less than two decades from ratification. So, you see, my post was not only responsive to your claims but strongly refuted the first and completely disproves the second. Maybe you should take the time to read more carefully
  #121  
Old 12-16-2018, 07:01 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Rabid pro-gun people don't even want to answer the question, because they don't want to admit to the obvious truth that reducing the number of guns (and types, for that matter) will bring down the homicide rate even more than it has fallen over the last decades.
That is a nice hypothesis but it has no basis in actual, you know- fact.

Because we have been increasing the number of guns over the last decades.
  #122  
Old 12-17-2018, 10:29 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
I don't need to reread anything. You were taking the position that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment modifies the second clause in support of the position that the right to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia.
Do you mean the subordinate clause and the main clause? Because those other terms have no meaning anywhere else, since, as you know, they were invented solely for this specific application.

Quote:
You then went on to claim that the opposite position, that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause, is a recent invention originated by the NRA/gun lobby and implying that it was completely contrary to how it had previously been interpreted. A claim I have seen you and others make before.
Then it ought to be familiar to you. Why you went on, repeatedly, to discuss the right to self-defense instead is something only you can explain. Not that you need bother just for me.
  #123  
Old 12-17-2018, 10:59 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
I don't need to reread anything. You were taking the position that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment modifies the second clause in support of the position that the right to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia.
What does the prefatory clause do anyway?

That's the genius of it, it doesn't DO anything!


Personally, I find it curious that the 2nd Amendment, clocking in at 27 total words (truly a marvel of brevity), uses 13 of those words on a clause that, for all anybody can tell, doesn't have any purpose whatsoever. Presumably, the framers of our Constitution were literate and could have used a few words to identify such items as self-defense, or some sort of reasoning as to why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Instead, they chose to fill the page with words that appear to not have anything to do with the latter half of the amendment. Were they trying to bulk up the document so they'd get a better grade or something?

It may as well say "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, not be infringed."

It's 27 words, I counted*



*Bonus points to anyone getting that reference.
  #124  
Old 12-17-2018, 11:11 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
I'll assume you're being sarcastic. It gets hard to tell sometimes.
  #125  
Old 12-17-2018, 11:24 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I'll assume you're being sarcastic. It gets hard to tell sometimes.
I don't know what the hell I am anymore. I've been told my entire life that the right to keep and bear arms is defined by the last 14 words of the 2nd Amendment, and the first 13 words are irrelevant.

Not simply irrelevant to the normal consideration of an individual's right to own a gun, but completely and entirely irrelevant to anyone's right to do anything. Those words could literally not exist, or be complete gibberish, and nothing would change about the rights of Americans.

I find that profoundly disturbing. The founders of our country could so thoroughly muck up the job of clarifying an important right that you could replace their words with a description of George Washington's dentures, and not lose a thing.
  #126  
Old 12-17-2018, 02:34 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I don't know what the hell I am anymore. I've been told my entire life that the right to keep and bear arms is defined by the last 14 words of the 2nd Amendment, and the first 13 words are irrelevant.
Not irrelevant. They are there due to the Founders wanting the States and locals to be able to have a Militia. A Militia made up of men who owned their own guns and would organize for defense. The Minutemen. It was added on, however, the original wording didnt include that phrase.

So while not in any way irrelevant as to history, it is irrelevant to the rights of an American to own a gun.
  #127  
Old 12-17-2018, 02:52 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
There were multiple earlier proposals. Every fucking one of them invoked a well-regulated militia.

At the time, they were under the authority of the Articles of Confederation. The actual wording of the proto-Constitution that was actually in effect:
Quote:
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
That purpose should also be pretty clear. But there's nothing in there either about an individual right, is there? That stuff didn't appear until the last few decades, when the NRA invented it. They also invented the alternate history that goes with the alternate grammar rules.
  #128  
Old 12-17-2018, 03:11 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
There were multiple earlier proposals. Every fucking one of them invoked a well-regulated militia.

At the time, they were under the authority of the Articles of Confederation. The actual wording of the proto-Constitution that was actually in effect:

That purpose should also be pretty clear. But there's nothing in there either about an individual right, is there? That stuff didn't appear until the last few decades, when the NRA invented it. They also invented the alternate history that goes with the alternate grammar rules.
But before there was a Bill of Rights, many Sates argued that the Constitution was incomplete, and no right to keep and bear arms was one reason given

https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewco...6&context=vulr
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose
of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or
any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public
injury from individuals."....
North Carolina's convention proposed that a declaration of rights be added
to the Constitution which explicitly identified the right of people to keep and
bear arms as a natural right and one of the means necessary to the pursuit and
obtainment of happiness and safety.Rhode
Island followed an identical course by identifying the right of the people to keep
and bear arms as a natural right, among others, and declining to ratify the
Constitution until after the Bill of Rights had been drafted and submitted.18


To summarize the state ratification process, three states, New York, New
Hampshire, and Virginia, ratified while expressing their understanding that the
people had a right to bear arms and that Congress would never disarm law
abiding citizens. 83 Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, refused to
ratify until individual rights, including the people's right to keep and bear armswere recognized by amendments.' 84 In Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, an
effort was made to amend or condition ratification on amendment to include,
among others, the right to keep and bear arms.'85 Efforts to amend were
defeated but not on the merits. There is no evidence from any state convention
that any speaker suggested that the proposed Constitution would permit
disarming the public.


And of course The NRA didnt invent it. It was always a individual right, the main purpose of which was to allow states to organize Militias- comprised of men who owned their own military grade weapons.


The Supreme Court ruled on it after three Cities- Chicago, DC and San francisco tried to take pretty much all guns away. Up until then, SCOTUS had mostly kept away from the 2nd, until gun grabbers in those cities forced their hand. So, if you dont like Heller, then blame them, not SCOTUS.
  #129  
Old 12-17-2018, 03:33 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And of course The NRA didnt invent it. It was always a individual right
Which somehow lay dormant for all those generations. How so?

Quote:
The Supreme Court ruled on it
5-4, and also as a result of the NRA reinventing history.

Quote:
Up until then, SCOTUS had mostly kept away from the 2nd
Except to reaffirm what the thing actually says (Miller, as you know but for some reason won't mention).

Quote:
gun grabbers
Oh. I thought you wanted to be taken seriously. Guess I was mistaken.
  #130  
Old 12-17-2018, 03:44 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It was always a individual right, the main purpose of which was to allow states to organize Militias- comprised of men who owned their own military grade weapons.
So, why can't you own military grade weapons?
  #131  
Old 12-17-2018, 03:45 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Which somehow lay dormant for all those generations. How so?

5-4, and also as a result of the NRA reinventing history.

Except to reaffirm what the thing actually says (Miller, as you know but for some reason won't mention).

Oh. I thought you wanted to be taken seriously. Guess I was mistaken.
Because no government violated the 2nd enough to make the Supreme Court take action.

Miller simply ruled that laws against sawed off shotguns were Ok- based on the fact that the defense never showed up or filed, due to the fact that Miller was already dead. "The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". "

There was no evidence as the prosecution knew full well there wouldn't be any defense, it was a set up going in.

Yep- "gun grabbers'. If you want to confiscate all handguns and many others in your area, not giving any remuneration , then you are indeed a 'gun grabber". I dont use that term loosely, but it fits in those three laws.
  #132  
Old 12-17-2018, 03:48 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
So, why can't you own military grade weapons?
You can. You can own the AR15. The Beretta 9mm pistol. etc.
  #133  
Old 12-17-2018, 03:57 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You can. You can own the AR15. The Beretta 9mm pistol. etc.
Where's your grenade launcher? Whassamatta, you don't like freedom?
  #134  
Old 12-17-2018, 03:59 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You can. You can own the AR15. The Beretta 9mm pistol. etc.
You're going to arm a militia with that crap?



You'd be better off with sticks and rocks. At least you might survive an encounter with an actual military force.
  #135  
Old 12-17-2018, 04:00 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Good luck overthrowing the tyrants with their tanks and bombers and nukes, dude. Wolverines!
  #136  
Old 12-17-2018, 04:05 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Because no government violated the 2nd enough to make the Supreme Court take action.
Yeah, right. How much are machine guns going for these days at Walmart?

Quote:
Miller simply ruled that laws against sawed off shotguns were Ok- based on the fact that the defense never showed up or filed, due to the fact that Miller was already dead.
Another falsehood. The ruling was that non-military weapons weren't protected. Really, you could read it.

Quote:
There was no evidence as the prosecution knew full well there wouldn't be any defense, it was a set up going in.
Excuses, excuses.

Quote:
Yep- "gun grabbers'. If you want to confiscate all handguns and many others in your area, not giving any remuneration , then you are indeed a 'gun grabber". I dont use that term loosely, but it fits in those three laws.
If that was relevant to the current discussion, you might have something that could appear to be a point, if seen through a telescope. But here it's just demonstrating lack of interest in actual discussion.
  #137  
Old 12-17-2018, 06:12 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That is a nice hypothesis but it has no basis in actual, you know- fact.

Because we have been increasing the number of guns over the last decades.
Let me restate this, as I believe I was unclear:

Quote:
Rabid pro-gun people don't even want to answer the question, because they don't want to admit to the obvious truth that reducing the number of guns (and types, for that matter) will bring down the homicide rate even more than it has fallen over the last decades.
Rabid pro-gun people don't even want to answer the question, because they don't want to admit to the obvious truth that reducing the number of guns (and types, for that matter) will bring down the number of homicides in the US.

My apologies if you misunderstood.
  #138  
Old 12-17-2018, 08:21 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Let me restate this, as I believe I was unclear:



Rabid pro-gun people don't even want to answer the question, because they don't want to admit to the obvious truth that reducing the number of guns (and types, for that matter) will bring down the number of homicides in the US.

My apologies if you misunderstood.
That "truth" is "obvious" to you, but it ain't a fact. Like you said, violent crime has been going down- and as i said- while the number of guns owned is going up.

There is absolutely no evidence that gun control laws in the USA have reduced violent crime.
  #139  
Old 12-17-2018, 08:32 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Do you mean the subordinate clause and the main clause? Because those other terms have no meaning anywhere else, since, as you know, they were invented solely for this specific application.
This may shock you to learn but grammatical construction is not the sole means courts use to interpret laws. Hell, I've seen courts flat out change the wording in a statute when interpreting it. In one case the court found that the conjunctive should be read as the disjunctive. The statute had multiple elements to meet and the language of the statute read that for the statute to apply Elements A and B and C and D all had to be met. The court reasoned, based on non-grammatical evidence, that that interpretation was not what Congress intended and changed the "and" to "or." So now for the statute to apply Element A or B or C or D would have to be met. That's quite a difference. What do your grammar rules say about completely changing a word?

Besides, it's not about how prefatory or subordinate clauses function in grammar, it's about what meaning the first clause adds to the second. The prefatory/subordinate clause certainly states a reason why the Federal Gov't shall not infringe on the people's right to bear arms. It does not logically follow that that is the sole reason contemplated by the Framers. I mean you've heard of the Ninth Amendment right? The Framers never intended for the Constitution to be either a comprehensive or exhaustive list of Rights possessed by the people. Nor did they attempt to list every possible reason why those rights were so important. Otherwise the Constitution would be a much, much longer document.

Quote:
Then it ought to be familiar to you. Why you went on, repeatedly, to discuss the right to self-defense instead is something only you can explain. Not that you need bother just for me.
Really? In a debate about the 2nd Amendment where one side claims that the Framers intended for the right to bear arms to be solely tied to service in the militia you don't see the relevance of evidence showing that the Framers believed in a right to bear arms for other purposes, namely self-defense? Horse, this is water. Water, horse.

Last edited by Bone; 12-18-2018 at 08:36 AM. Reason: Fixed quote box
  #140  
Old 12-17-2018, 08:44 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That "truth" is "obvious" to you, but it ain't a fact. Like you said, violent crime has been going down- and as i said- while the number of guns owned is going up.

There is absolutely no evidence that gun control laws in the USA have reduced violent crime.
I didn't say there was any such evidence. We have never in this country passed gun control laws that would drastically reduce the number of guns. I am simply saying that if we did in large numbers, homicides by guns would be reduced greatly. For instance, if we were to somehow be able to get rid of, say, 95% of the guns in the country, homicides involving guns as the murder weapon would plummet.
  #141  
Old 12-17-2018, 08:47 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Really? In a debate about the 2nd Amendment where one side claims that the Framers intended for the right to bear arms to be solely tied to service in the militia you don't see the relevance of evidence showing that the Framers believed in a right to bear arms for other purposes, namely self-defense? Horse, this is water. Water, horse.
Apologies for messing that up. Only paragraphs one and four in the quote box were from ElvisL1ves' original post. Paragraphs two and three were my reply to his statements in the first quoted paragraph.
  #142  
Old 12-17-2018, 08:55 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
To add: yes, the "gun control" that gets discussed in these forums, stuff like background checks, and gun-safety training, and banning AR-15s and the like, ain't gonna cut it in this country. These things may save a few lives, but in the long run aren't going to solve the problem. We as a society have proven, at least for the moment, that we cannot handle guns in an appropriate way. Yes, I am aware that this is a case of others ruining it for the rest of us (okay, not me, I'm not a gun owner). But at this point, I want to ask gun owners, especially those who own guns for protection: why does your right to live in a society which allows you to own many guns because you think it makes you safer supersede my right to live in a society where I think most guns should be banned, because I think it makes me safer? This is not a 2nd amendment question, as I am well aware of its existence. It is a moral question.

How about this? We've tried it "your" way for century upon century. How about we try it my way for a 100 years, and see which way worked out best?
  #143  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:11 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Which somehow lay dormant for all those generations. How so?

5-4, and also as a result of the NRA reinventing history.

Except to reaffirm what the thing actually says (Miller, as you know but for some reason won't mention).

Oh. I thought you wanted to be taken seriously. Guess I was mistaken.
You know Cruikshank, a SCOTUS case from 1876, has been cited at least twice in this thread but you seem to repeatedly ignore its existence.

Besides it's widely known among legal scholars that the Court has dodged cases throughout its existence and even left circuit splits in place. It's appellate jurisdiction is completely discretional and it takes full advantage. Plus you always need a sufficient number of Justices to vote to grant certiorari.

Also:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

Blackstone's Commentaries
St. George Tucker (1803)

It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.

A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations
Thomas Cooley (1868)

The NRA was founded in 1871 so how did that work again?
  #144  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:31 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I didn't say there was any such evidence. We have never in this country passed gun control laws that would drastically reduce the number of guns. I am simply saying that if we did in large numbers, homicides by guns would be reduced greatly. For instance, if we were to somehow be able to get rid of, say, 95% of the guns in the country, homicides involving guns as the murder weapon would plummet.
We have- in Chicago, DC and San francisco (which last got blocked before it really took effect).

So, it's just your idea that this would happen. So, let's try a experiment that would cost 100's of billions, triple the prison population, and require ten times more cops. Yeah, because a guy on a message board thinks it would work. And maybe homicides with other weapons would increase as much. Who knows?

But here's a PRO Gun law cite, that shows:First, let's look at the relationship between gun laws and violence in general. It is possible to have a violent society without guns. Prime evidence of that is the former Soviet Union and its successor states such as Russia, which despite stringent gun control laws, posted murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms -- they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck].

On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, have a history of low murder rates. According to a 2014 United Nations report, Germany's murder rate of 0.8 killings per 100,000 inhabitants was identical to Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare source: UNODOC, Kates and Mauser....The only clear message in this complex issue is that violent crime overall does not increase with the availability of guns, but gun-related violence does sources: Kates and Mauser; Liptak; Luo].


and that's a site that wants less guns and more gun laws.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/str...ess-crime1.htm

And here's a site that shows that more guns do not equal more crime:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#1ed4c9913f7c



You know others think if we had more executions that would cut the crime rate also.
  #145  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:36 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
.. We as a society have proven, at least for the moment, that we cannot handle guns in an appropriate way. Yes, I am aware that this is a case of others ruining it for the rest of us (okay, not me, I'm not a gun owner). But at this point, I want to ask gun owners, especially those who own guns for protection: why does your right to live in a society which allows you to own many guns because you think it makes you safer supersede my right to live in a society where I think most guns should be banned, because I think it makes me safer? This is not a 2nd amendment question, as I am well aware of its existence. It is a moral question.

How about this? We've tried it "your" way for century upon century. How about we try it my way for a 100 years, and see which way worked out best?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#46a8be813f7c
According to DOJís Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s...The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization.

Well, because 'your way" means getting rid of a Constitutional Right, and would cost 100's of billions, triple the prison population, and require ten times more cops.

Our way- means violent crime keeps going down. But yeah, once in a while there is a horrible tragedy.
  #146  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:57 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Where's your grenade launcher? Whassamatta, you don't like freedom?
I'm just reading this thread, but I'd like to know why this hasn't been answered.
  #147  
Old 12-17-2018, 10:05 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Where's your grenade launcher? Whassamatta, you don't like freedom?
I dont need or want one, why?
  #148  
Old 12-17-2018, 11:41 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I didn't say there was any such evidence. We have never in this country passed gun control laws that would drastically reduce the number of guns. I am simply saying that if we did in large numbers, homicides by guns would be reduced greatly. For instance, if we were to somehow be able to get rid of, say, 95% of the guns in the country, homicides involving guns as the murder weapon would plummet.
A lot of weasel words in this. Why are you only concerned about homicides which involve guns? Would it be better if they were stabbed or strangled?

Your last sentence is a completely recursive argument. If I could ban all televisions and the law worked and televisions were actually destroyed, then I could definitely reduce the number of heart attacks caused solely by inactive people, which inactivity was sitting in front of televisions all day.

None of which addresses the OP as to why the 2nd Amendment is the bastard child of the Bill of Rights. Even if tomorrow we all realized that free speech was a bad thing, you still cannot restrict it without an amendment to the Constitution.
  #149  
Old 12-18-2018, 06:34 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Where's your grenade launcher? Whassamatta, you don't like freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont need or want one, why?
Here's the question that has been asked before, and you are refusing (for good reason, I bet) to answer.

Why is it OK for the government to effectively ban military grade weapons from the people?


ETA: I respect the fact that you don't want one, but it's been suggested to me that the fact that I don't want something isn't justification to deny everyone else the right to own it.

Last edited by Cheesesteak; 12-18-2018 at 06:36 AM.
  #150  
Old 12-18-2018, 09:00 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
DirkHardly, why the hell are you blathering on about a right to self defense in a discussion about rules of grammar?
Reply

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 05:32 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