I’ve explained exactly how your comment could be interpreted in this fashion. And given that you’ve aligned yourself with crazy assholes on nearly every facet of the gun issue, I would have had no reason to assume you’d break with them on the research issue in particular.
Well, aside from my long posting history supporting critical thinking and the scientific method, and the fact that no post gave no indication that I believed that the CDC should be barred from studying this subject, and the very obvious fact that my post was clearly a criticism of hypocrisy for someone else dismissing science based on their own biases, yes, obviously I am anti-science.
There’s got to be a phrase for the act of bringing up slavery anytime someone brings up state rights.
This is the same central government that interned japanese Americans during WWII. They’re not infallible and to build in no checks to their power should probably involve more than your inclination to trust the government (did you trust them quite as much when bushw as in power?).
It preserved the notion of that the militia was every able bodied male from 18 to 45. The Vietnam draft was based on this notion.
“[1]The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.”
-Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
I never said the right was absoluite. is aid that before you infringe on my right to bear arms, you had better have a better reason than “ooh, ar15s look scary”
And we’ve plastered this board with all the statistics on assault weapons and your argument doesn’t hold water. Can they ban guns altogether to promote the general welfare if I can prove that it will reduce the number of suicides?
You’re also misapplying the general welfare clause.
It is not authority to regulate, it is authority to spend tax money.
What?
You sound like Republicans protesting Nate Silver’s polling data.
You are basically saying that studies conducted by the CDC have a pro-gun bias.
The CDC probably IS the most competent agency to research gun violence. But they might not be best suited to study the effects of guns on society and crime. Frankly the gun nuts are going to go into full conspiracy mode if anyone implies that we would be better off with a disarmed citizenry. Tehre are gun nuts out there that consider the NRA to be traitors to the cause because they are so compromising.
Just consider Elucidator the Gun Control equivalent of those guys.
I am? Wow, I had no idea that was what I was saying! Could I run my posts past you before I make them, so I can be sure what I’m saying is what I think I’m saying? I mean, its kinda embarrassing, to think I’m saying one thing and find out I’m saying something very different.
Boy, is my face red!
Wow! This has really been a journey of self-discovery, talking to you. So I’m way out on the gun-grabber edge, out past the Feinstein Event Horizon? Well, I’ll be dipped! Had no fucking idea!
Listen, help me out here. Always, since I was a little kid, always hated licorice. Anise seed flavoring of any kind, totally hate hate hate! Am I wrong about that, and really like it? Gosh, I sure hope not, because then I’d probably start eating it, and I fucking hate it!
I still think Sean Hannity is a total asshole, right? If not, could you kinda break that to me in easy stages, I’m not ready to handle that all at once.
This line is clever only when you deliver it to mouthbreathing fucktards.
Our reason is not that firearms look scary. It is that roomfuls of dead schoolchildren look ascetically unpleasant.
Are you seriously gonna stand on the gravers of dead children and say it all could have been avoided if only there were no assault weapons? You do realize that Adam Lanza had other guns, don’t you?
Hitler expanded gun rights for most citizens and restricted sale and manufacture by Jews. Replace Jews with illegal immigrants and the NRA would leap at the proposal in the US.
Are they more dead because he used a gun with a plastic stock rather then a wood stock?
Yes, the phrase “historical context” might apply. “Anti-denialism” might as well.
Which would, of course, not have happened if the JA’s all had M-1’s and organized themselves to resist. That’s what your argument amounts to. :rolleyes:
And turned the militias into the Guard. You asked what did that, I answered. Ignorance fought - or is it?
I know, and that’s why I was agreeing with you. Not everything is a fucking argument.
Know what? Don’t post drunk.
Why not? You seem to disagree, if that’s the point you’re trying to apply.
So “general welfare” is not what it says it is. Remarkable.
And, to repeat, don’t post drunk. Nothing good comes of it.
Yeah, that’s the point. You only take guns away from the people you want to weaken. Or you take them away from everyone for benevolent purposes like the German Weimar government, then someone less benevolent can come across later and take advantage of the situation by arming his guys while excluding their guys.
Cite?
While I’m generally in favor of pretty permissive gun ownership laws, this argument against them is just silly. Whatever kind of gun ownership laws a society enacts, if subsequently a strong political leader with wide popular support seizes dictatorial powers, he can rewrite the gun ownership laws to be whatever he damn pleases. Anybody who imagines that more permissive gun ownership laws under the Weimar Republic would somehow have hindered Hitler’s tyranny is living in a fantasy world.
If you think gun ownership is a good thing in a stable and healthy society, you have to make the case for it based on the prevailing conditions in that society. Not based on speculative what-ifs about how much the guns would come in handy if the society’s rule of law suddenly started to crumble into a dystopia of bigotry and oppression.
I can think of plenty of sinister apocalyptic scenarios in which it might be helpful for ordinary citizens to own guided missiles, but I don’t try to use them as arguments in favor of making guided missile ownership available to private individuals nowadays. Partly because I personally don’t think it’s a great idea for private individuals to own guided missiles, but also because I’m not a complete idiot and I know that kind of counterfactual speculation is not something reasonable people find persuasive.
Stupid comments rise to the level of fucking retarded when you don’t even know how to employ proper spelling or grammar.
So you think stable and healthy societies always remain so? Based on what? History?
I’m sorry my grammar is poor. Were you unable to understand the question I was asking? If so could you please answer the question. If it is illegible I would be happy to rephrase the question
No, of course they don’t. However, laws in a stable and healthy society have to be predicated on the conditions that actually prevail in that society, not on hypothetical doomsday scenarios about what that society might someday turn into if things really go tits-up.
For example, it’s entirely possible that a stable and healthy society could be infiltrated by extraterrestrial alien pod people, who secretly take over the bodies of humans and seem completely normal. Until they suddenly attack and dismember an ordinary human close to them, with no warning except a fleeting funny look in their eyes.
Under such circumstances, would it be reasonable and justifiable for ordinary humans to pre-emptively kill what appears to be a loved one behaving normally if they happen to see a fleeting funny look in the “loved one’s” eyes? Absolutely.
Should our existing laws permit killing somebody when you see a fleeting funny look in their eyes, just because someday the alien-pod-person-invasion scenario might actually happen? Fuck to the NO.
Laws about gun ownership (or anything else) should be designed for the conditions of the society we have here and now, not for the conditions that might prevail if our society collapses into bloody chaos at some future date.
Historically, how often have healthy societies become unhealthy? Historically, how often have healthy societies been infiltrated by extraterrestrial alien post people? These are not rhetorical questions, I would really like to hear your best estimates.
Do you think it possible that the founding fathers of the USA thought a little further ahead than you, or maybe thought to prevent collapse into bloody chaos? Again, this is not rhetorical.
In what form? You mean, how often have 21st-century developed western democracies dissolved into tyranny and chaos? Never.
If you mean another particular form of a healthy society’s “becoming unhealthy”, then tell me exactly what you’re referring to.
If you want a specific answer, then ask a specific question. A specific gun policy can’t be predicated on a hypothesis so absurdly vague and non-specific as “society becoming unhealthy”.
Yes it is. Vague objections along the lines of “well maybe these revered historical figures were just a little wiser than you are, smartass!” are nothing but rhetorical.
And if what you want is to prevent the collapse of an existing society into bloody chaos, then what you need are laws that are appropriate for the conditions currently prevailing in that society, which is exactly my point.
Bumper sticker version: You make gun ownership legislation for the society you have, not for the society you fear you might wind up with someday if some unprecedented nationwide catastrophe makes the entire rule of law go belly-up.
You would think that this would be too obvious to need pointing out to people, but apparently not always.
Not sure if I agree with that much but I’d like to see you cast a wider net. Like all the societies you are familiar with.
If you want a specific answer, then ask a specific question. A specific gun policy can’t be predicated on a hypothesis so absurdly vague and non-specific as “society becoming unhealthy”.
“Healthy” was your term. if it’s not clear to you I would be happy to have you clarify what you meant.
No it’s not. Maybe they were, or it’s impossible that they were. What do you think?
I’m sorry but I don’t think disarming citizens is a good way to prevent societal collapse. If you disagree I would be happy see your citations. Again I can give the example of gun control in the Weimar government of Germany, which didn’t do anything to prevent the later rise of the Nazi party.