Contrast and compare.
That was an unambiguous statement of fact. That wasn’t me taking offense. You’ll know when I’m taking offense.
You’re right. It isn’t coming.
This thread is about handguns and the pro-gun element on the Dope. It isn’t about bombs. And, if you read my original post carefully, with the bolded part intact, you would see exactly my point. You’re just refusing to admit that I proved it, which is irritating but what the fuck, it’s The Pit.
I said, and I was correct in stating, that having a gun strapped to your ankle makes it possible to lash out with greater speed and more lethal force than anything else you might have at hand. That is true.
You went off into some bizarre tangent that included bombs and what not.
168 people died when the Alfred Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma City.
Premeditated
6 were killed and 1042 injured when the WTC was bombed in 1993.
Premeditated
A 1990 arson fire at the Happy Land Social Club in NYC killed 87.
Not an act of violence in the same manner as a gunshot to the head
An arson fire killed 32 in 1973 at the Upstairs Bar in New Orleans.
Ditto
Your logic is false and you know it.
On another point,
But then, interestingly,
I think you are going to hard presed to prove that all of the free adults over 21 in the original 13 colonies got to vote in that first election to ratify the Constitution of The United States of America. In fact, cite please proving this?
The majority of free adults over 21 did not opt out, they did not claim to be too busy and say they could not “get away” to a polling place. It is a weak argument.
In 1776, there were 2.5 million people living in the United States. I cannot discern from this document if that number includes slaves over the age of 21. The Constitution was ratified in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 so it is fair to say that 2.5 million people were still living in the new United States at that time. ( this number is confirmed here),
My point here is that you seem to be claiming that a great majority of those 2.5 million people voted for the Constitution in 1787 when it is extremely hard to prove that even a fraction of them did.
I’ve been looking for almost an hour, and can NOT find an number of people who voted in the 1787 election. I believe that most did not get to cast a vote. I’ll keep looking, so I can hardly claim b.s. on your statement that the original 13 colonies all had votes that ratified the Constitution. Much more likely, small wealthy groups from each state were given a vote, and voted to serve their needs. Things fell well, we’re ae country. From what I’m reading here,
[quote]
While it may be deflating for some to learn they don’t vote directly for a president, the Electoral College was the price of Democratic elections. In 1787, small states were not going to join the union or ratify the Constitution if their residents were to be hopelessly outvoted, in direct popular elections for national office, by the residents of more populous states. The Electoral College was the early compromise (the Bill of Rights was the later one) that made the Constitution viable by giving small states more voting power than their populations alone could justify.
In America, the concept of ‘‘one person, one vote’’ is accurate for all popular elections except presidential elections. In presidential elections, one vote counts for more than one vote in less-populous states, as compared with votes in more-populous states; or it counts for less than one vote in more-populous states, as compared with votes in less-populous states. That is because the vote is not for the presidential candidate, but for electors who represent more or less voting power per person, depending on the population of the state. it sounds as though the Constitution was ratified by the Electoral College, not by popular vote.
Cartooniverse ( who is irked that such a basic fact as the number of votes cast state by state isn’t coming up on my searches ! )
Aaaah. I Previwed my own post but missed the last 35 minutes of dialogue. AirmanDoorsUSAF, no apology necessary. I actually thought this thread was heading someplace fruitful but apparently is is declining and not through any postings of yours.
I don’t agree with the things you believe in most of the time but I surely do resepct the caution and restraint you show in making your points.
That should have read,
From what I’m reading here,
Crazy Uncle Fred can’t vote, either.
Simply put, every state had to vote for ratification. Was the vote put directly to the people? Perhaps not. Then again, gun control legislation, Social Security and welfare reform legislation and the like are not put directly to the people either. The people, either directly or indirectly through their representatives, voted to adopt the Constitution as it was, then voted again to ratify the Bill of Rights, along with every other amendment. Don’t confuse direct democracy with representative democracy.
My point is thus: the Second Amendment is not undemocratic. No part of the Constitution is. That point is not undermined because some people choose to withdraw their consent or because some people are unable to consent.
With all due awe, that point is not only undermined if “some people are unable to consent”, it is directly repudiated.
I was trying not to, actually !
Yeah, but what if those who were unable to consent suffer as a result of the vote? In the purest form of the idea, democracy serves all or it is not very democratic.
Lest it go unsaid, I may find parts of the 2nd Ammendment to be rather distasteful but I’d never even imply that it wasn’t affirmed in the same process as the rest of the fine document.
Really? Well, then, I hereby declare the Constitution of the United States of America and every election ever held null and void. Anarchy, I tells ya! Woo! I’m gonna go out and shoot my guns in the air to celebrate! The sheriff can’t arrest me, because by your reasoning he’s not the sheriff!
I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
That’s an inevitability. There are winners, and there are losers. The losers can be 50% minus one voter. Would you say that their interests are represented by the candidate they voted against?
Democracy does not and cannot serve all interests equally. Someone is always left out. There is simply no way around that point. The only way to ensure that the interests of others are represented in all cases is by amending the Constitution.
… or by eliminating the Electoral College… but that’s ANOTHER rant. 
If I’m not mistaken, this gauntlet has not been picked up yet. Someone, some brave anti-gun soul, please give us this definition!
Yeah. Such that once that definition is rendered, it may be changed to suit the response du jour. :rolleyes:
It was such a little gauntlette, and we didn’t want to embarrass you.
Yes, I would have been terribly embarrassed by you attempting to answer the challenge of another poster. C’mon, please - tell us which weapons you consider to be “assault weapons”, why they should be banned, and how those are different from other weapons.
Could an anti-gun-nut please use the phrase “15-round clip” in order to prompt the obligatory magazine-versus-clip correction? I love that one.
There’s no reason you couldn’t have a 15-round clip. I’ve got a bunch of 10-round clips, I don’t see why they couldn’t make one a bit longer.
Even if you do that, the basic premise of democracy (even representative democracy) is “the majority rules.”
Your state governor, he can have 50% of the popular vote and his opponent can have 49% of the popular vote, at the end of the day, the guy with 50% is governor and he may enact tons of policies that the 49% are as opposed to as anything they’ve ever been opposed to in their lives. That’s a fundamental truth of democracy and would, of course, even happen if we elected our President’s directly (as we already do our Senators, Representatives, and virtually all major State-level elected officials of which I’m aware.)
*Preach it, *Sister!
Look- some dudes have “gunaphobia”, others are “gun-nuts”. Neither are fully sane. 
(Sorry dudes, maybe “not fully rational” might be better if it make you feel better 
.) In any thread where guns are even mentioned in passing, there will be posts by both sides, and you really can’t tell one side it is OK to post here, but not the other.
(Myself, I am one of the few in the middle. Show me a gun law that actually significanty reduces violent crime, and I am for it. So far, I haven’t seen many.)