As usual from the peanut gallery, we have the standard “I can’t pick up a dictionary with historical references! I have no idea what ‘well-regulated’ means in a late 1700s context!”
Here’s a hint: It did not include “unorganized”.
You’re welcome.
A few things you might want to consider:[ul]
[li]The word “militia” from the original Latin is plural, as in “all the militia”.[/li][li]That every document contemporary with the Constitution that mentions the militia (such as the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers) uses the term in a context that unambiguously refers to the population at large, the people.[/li][li]That in the Federalist #29, Alexander Hamilton gives us the contemporary definition of “well-regulated”; and that the term “disciplined” is used wherever the authors meant under the command of appointed officers.[/li][li]That, as I said earlier, the Federal Government itself acknowledges that the population at large is “The Militia”.[/li][/ul]Gun owners are the militia. If the states have allowed the practice of mustering and drilling the armed populace to grow moribund, if the state doesn’t want us, don’t blame gun owners.
I’m asking because your habit of vomiting slogans as a form of argument results in a lot of non-sequitors.
I said that there is no reason to infer that the people who commit murder with guns are any less likely to be felons than people who commit murder by other means and you by saying: “of course there is, because its easier to kill or commit suicide if you have a gun handy” So WTF are you talking about? What the fuck does the lethality of guns have to do with the demographics of gun murderers?
Why are gun murderers any less likely to be felons than people who commit murder by some other means?
If you recall, we were discussing talking about how frequently some previously law abiding citizen just flips out and kills people compared to criminals and people who are otherwise not permitted to posses guns. You seemed to believe that most people who commit murder were just law abiding citizens until one day they just flip out.
But if you want to keep vomitting slogans and bumper stickers onto the page, well, I guess noone can stop you even though almost everyone on your side of the argument probably wishes you would stop and go away.
Of course I understand that more deaths occur when people have guns, guns are lethal and if nothing else, we know that there are hundreds of accidental gun deaths every year that wouldn’t occur if some genie could make all the guns disappear. What you don’t seem to be able to get your head around is the fact that not every gun owner is equally likely to commit murder. What you don’t seem to be able to get your head around is the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun murders are committed by people who are not allowed to possess guns. And instead of focusing on how to solve the problem you continue to make gun grabbers look stupid and irrational.
And putting the second amendment aside, if you ban and confiscate guns, you are not likely to get a lot of compliance from the criminals and all you achieve is disarming the law abiding public and the only murders you eliminate is that tiny sliver of gun murders that are committed by law abiding citizens that flip out. And THAT is why it is relevant to discuss how many gun murders are caused by law abiding citizens because that is the most you can expect to reduce gun murders by if you banned and confiscated all the guns (and in a country where we have basically admitted that we cannot locate and deport about 10 million illegal aliens, you seem awfully confident that we could get rid of 300 million guns).
Once again, wtf are you talking about?
What part of the Heller decision are you fucking talking about? Why are you so coy? Is there some secret language in the heller decision that wasn’t part of the published opinion that contradicted the holding? Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you parroting some shit you saw on the pierce morgan show?
Bottom line is that your best arguments boil down to calling people names. Why not just call us all baby-killers again? :rolleyes:
Hmm, not seeing “unorganized” anywhere in there. But you apparently seem to think you’re making a coherent and valid point of some kind. Whatever. If all you and **Damuri **have to reassure you, against a world full of scary reasoning and morality, is your mantras, then no wonder.
When come back, bring argument.
If you don’t actually know what the “unorganized militia” is in terms of Federal law, you probably shouldn’t bother being in a debate on this topic. Lumpy’s 4th point speaks directly to it (although he is mistaken in that it’s not “the population at large”–by the letter of the law, it’s men of military age (17-45) AND people in organized militias such as the National Guard.)
For your reference–11 USC § 311 B2 defines a broad swath of citizens as belonging de jure to the Federal unorganized militia.
Being “unorganized”, mind you, does not preclude being “well-regulated”. At the moment, for example, I am both–I report to no commander or unit, and I am capable and regularly practice with my firearms so that I can use them in the appropriate contexts with skill and safety.
It’d be honestly surprising if you ever brought either of those things to a discussion.
The point of this sidetrack, since you apparently haven’t been reading for comprehension, is Damuri’s retreat inside a claim of supporting the Second Amendment, to the exclusion of all other considerations. That means being in a well-regulated militia, per a plain reading of the text, something you too seem incapable of doing.
IOW you’re just another lone yeehawing yahoo with the same perverted fantasies of “resisting tyranny” as Damuri. Don’t flatter yourself. Preserving the republic and public safety etc. doesn’t depend on the likes of you, it depends on *containing *the likes of you.
It’d be honestly surprising if you could demonstrate a comprehension of either one.
[quote=“Lumpy, post:2603, topic:648729”]
A few things you might want to consider:[LIST]
[li]The word “militia” from the original Latin is plural, as in “all the militia”.[/li][/QUOTE]
I’m not exactly sure where you’re going with this, but for nitpickery’s sake the Latin militia is a singular form meaning army. The plural form is militiae.
What?!?!
I’m not really sure what you mean but are you saying that the second amendment is my only rationale for supporting gun rights? This is clearly not the case if you’ve been paying even a little bit of attention.
Or are you saying that I hide behind the secondamendment ion some way (which is also clearly not the case).
I do rely on the second amendment as evidence that I have a legal right to own guns regardless of what you might want. But let me know when they make you king so I will know what to expect.
Yeah, him and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Personally, I think its a lot easier to find a right to bear arms in the bill of rights than it was to find a right to an abortion there.
Where do I fantasize about resisting tyranny? Do you order these straw men in bulk or do you make them yourself?
So now that we have established for the umpteenth time (I can’t believe its so hard to get people to acknowledge facts on this board; I feel like I’m posting on the CNN site) that CCW are generally safer and more law abiding than the general public (although I suspect that we will have to do so again in another 10 pages or so). Therefore, we can probably stop painting at least THIS particular class of gun owner (probably more hardcore than the average gun owner) as a bunch of trigger happy menaces to society (and maybe the same applies to the less hardcore gun owners who don’t go through the trouble of getting a concealed weapon permit).
And now that we have established once again that most gun murders are committed by people who are legally not allowed to own guns, maybe we can focus on preventing gun deaths rather than preventing gun ownership by reduciing gun possession among this group that is most likely to commit gun murder (and perhaps by interpolation, most gun crimes).
We have also established elsewhere that the incidences of accidentally killing yourself or a loved one (~700/year) is far lower than the incidences of defensive gun use (~350,000/year as determined by the Department of Justice and Accepted by the Violence Policy Center). So we can at least make a plausible argument that on average, people are better off having a gun than just leaving themselves to the tender mercies of criminals (maybe not middle aged guys in nice suburban neighborhoods who never venture beyond the local malls, but on average).
Given all this, its hard to see how the gun grabbers can be so fucking sure that they are right in the face of all the evidence to the contrary and so very little evidence that things like assault weapons bans make any difference at all or the absence of any evidence that the confiscation of guns from all law abiding gun owners will reduce gun crime committe overwhelmingly by people who aren’t allowed to have those guns in the first place.
So I’ve read the Heller decision again and I am still having trouble finding the secret part of the Heller decision that Elvis keeps referring to. I don’t hold out a lot of hope that he knew what the fuck he was talking about (beyond parroting something he THOUGHT he read in some gun grabber blog somewhere) but I don’t see where the heller decision contradicts its own holding that I have a personal right to possess firearms.
I fucking promised myself I would not do this! Shit, here I am wasting my time on this dumbass fuckstick again.
Damuri Ajashi, my intent is to successfully ignore you in the future, after this last corrective effort. Do not interpret any future silence from me as assent. You are an irredeemable moron and an asshole of the highest order.
Your effort here has been to baffle with bullshit. To Google vomit in order to make people look like you’ve produced something. Clearly without reviewing what you are linking to, you foist a bunch of links on us en masse, hoping that like yourself, we will have the cognitive capacities of a young child and think that the size of your contribution is equivalent to some measure of quality.
I will review each of your links for you. But I would like to start out with a question: How many actual studies would you say would be needed for a gun control advocate to assert that he or she has established a particular point? For instance, would one study showing that people who live in a household where firearms are present are more likely to be killed by those weapons than they are to use them in self-defense be enough to establish the fact that guns are more dangerous, rather than protective, to home residents?
I suspect you would say no, that more than one such study would be needed. So, let’s review your cites, and I will provide each with a rating as to its success as a cite establishing your proposition:
Here, you link to a wiki page with 11,099 words that I have to scan in order to conclude that the only piece of evidence regarding CCW being relatively safer is this: “While these crimes are often firearm-related (including unlawful carry), a 3-year study of Texas crime statistics immediately following passage of CHL legislation found that the most common crime committed by CHL holders that would be grounds for revocation was actually DUI, followed by unlawful carry and then aggravated assault. The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.[10]” That links to this source: Texas CHL Study Update - Texas Concealed Handgun Association.
You know what that is? That is a report done by some guy with no academic affiliation who just requested a dataset from the State of Texas on arrests among CCW people, wrote up his summary and posted it to the web. It’s not a published article. It’s not a peer reviewed work. I read through it, and the guy doesn’t even give the actual numbers of CCW people in his data set, nor does he provide information about the population of the state of Texas. He’s scant on how well the CCW data actually capture criminal acts, which requires coordination between individual jurisdictional police records and state CCW records. He refers to oddities in the data and other sources of error, but does not provide any information about how he accounted for these. He does not provide any information about how much missing data there was or how he handled that.
He makes statements like “Note: the author believes that all inappropriate, threatening behavior where a weapon is involved is by definition “violent.” By this all-inclusive definition, therefore, in a discussion of arrest data where the effect of licensed handguns is of interest, “non-violent” arrests become moot, as there is no connection between non-violent behavior and gun possession.)” I cannot figure out what this means, particularly in regards to how he handled the data.
In short, I applaud the effort, as it is better than just making an assertion out of your asshole, but it does not qualify as any sort of a study, and is entirely dubious as a piece of evidence.
My rating: MOSTLY FAIL
Here, you made me read through a roughly 7,000 word article to find the following claim:
“According to Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, permit holders in the U.S. commit crimes at a rate lower than that of the general population. “We don’t see much bloodshed from concealed-carry permit holders, because they are law-abiding people,” Winkler said. “That’s not to say that permit holders don’t commit crimes, but they do so at a lower rate than the general population.”
Here, by the way, is Winkler’s publication record. Please indicate for me which article provides the results from his empirical study of the question regarding the relative safety of CCW people.
That’s simply not evidence. That’s a claim made by someone who is in no better position to clarify the nature of the evidence for the claim than Kable or Lumpy or you. It just happened to come up in your braindead google search, so you vomited it on my screen.
My rating: TOTAL FAIL
This one is blessedly briefer, but it’s just an opinion piece by Bill Bennett for fuck’s sake. To top that off, the only bit on the safety of CCW people is a reference to the SAME Goldberg article from the Atlantic that you linked to above, and which, again, CONTAINED NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
My rating: TOTAL FAIL
As you note yourself, this cite has fuck all to do with the relative safety of CCW people, and doesn’t even provide unequivocal information about the effect of CCW on overall crime rates. Why you have repeatedly cited it regarding the question of the safety of CCW people relative to non-CCW people is a mystery.
My rating: TOTAL FAIL
This is from an opinion piece on a website called “The Independent Institute”, which features a banner stating “THE INCONVENIENT FACTS THAT EXPOSE THE MYTHS OF FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE.”
It’s by a guy who is purportedly a criminologist, and he is claiming that 90% of murders had a criminal record. First, so fucking what? Secondly, his “cites” are to a New York Times analysis. A cursory google search finds this from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which shows that across the 75 most populous US counties, 67% of murders had a history of any arrest, and 53% had a history of any convictions. So, depending on what level of criminal record you mean (and I do not believe that just being arrested would be sufficient to prohibit firearms possession; I think it requires a conviction) about one-half to one-third of people in heavily populated areas who commit murder have no criminal record. So, you say a slim minority, the data says about one-half.
Finally, you know what other group of people have disproportionately high rates of criminal histories? Those who end up getting murdered. It’s because murder occurs disproportionately in areas that also engender other criminal offending.
My rating: TOTAL FAIL
There’s two elements of bullshit here. First, there’s just no good reason to believe that there are 350,000 defensive gun uses. As you would say, WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT this estimate is unreliable. Secondly, you’re including only accidental deaths, rather than any firearms deaths. A dead wife is just as dead if the gun went off accidentally or if her husband, in a singular fit of rage, shot her.
Actual researchers who have looked at this in a rigorous empirical fashion, in contrast to your effort to pull shit from your ass, and have published those results in peer reviewed journals, find that people with guns in the home are more likely to die from firearms than people without, by a factor of somewhere between double the risk to 43 times the risk.
My rating: TOTAL FAIL
“Given all this”!!! All of what? The sum total of your Google vomit, which you undoubtedly did not review yourself, is one report written up by a guy on the internet based on a Texas state dataset and a bunch of assertions made by other people either without direct expertise or without relevance to the question of the safety of CCW people.
So again, you are worthless. You are a disingenuous bullshitter and a little scared man who spends his time practicing his quick draw so that he can get the drop on the boogie man. Do not expect me to waste another second on you.
As I reflect upon how important the wording of the Constitution is for interpretation, I is a wonder that the authors weren’t more precise.
I figure they just wanted to go home and have a drink.
This must be about the tenth time I’ve posted this in various gun threads, but here we go again: Alexander Hamilton from the Federalist #29, “Concerning The Militia”, using the phrase “well-regulated militia” while specifically arguing against the idea of regimenting every armed man.
Dude. My bowel movements are more well-regulated than you and your binkies. By *any *century’s standards.
Hamilton was arguing against having the phrase 'well-regulated" in the Second Amendment. F29 was not a definition of ‘well regulated’ so much as it was a rejection that the militia should be regulated at all. Hamilton argued against having the whole Bill of Rights, and the constitutional convention rejected that idea as well. The Founders concluded the militia should be well regulated, against the views of Hamilton.
So when was the last time that you kids all assembled for your twice yearly reasonable training?
When was the last time you shared your political opinions by going to the town square and shouting them?
Actually, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, I AM well-regulated by the 1700s definition of the term–I know how to properly use and maintain the firearms I own, and I am capable of following reasonable orders.
Dude, I live in a city. I practice with my firearms because it’s fun, but at this point they aren’t even at my house–I keep them at the range, because I didn’t feel like moving my heavy-ass gun safe when I changed cities last. The odds of me having to defend myself are minuscule right now even in my relatively (by US standards, it’s 4x the average violent crime rate) dangerous neighborhood (so I don’t carry a gun), and the odds of my needing to be involved in an actual rebellion are so far off the radar I’d need an electron microscope.
I’ve argued repeatedly and loudly in many of these threads (including this one) for regulations that make gun nuts think I’m a gun grabber, including compulsory training, graduated licenses for firearms ownership with significantly stricter training requirements for handgun ownership, registration and harsh penalties for gun negligence (your bullet did it? you’re charged with it).
The “stupid gun news of the day” is that you can’t distinguish my clearly and repeatedly stated position from someone with “resisting tyranny” fantasies, apparently based SOLELY on the fact that you don’t know what well-regulated meant in a 1700s context and that you know I practice enough with firearms to not be a menace when I choose to use them recreationally.
Well, I think you’re an idiot too but unlike you, its just not the crux of my argument. :smack:
The fact that you are easily baffled doesn’t make it bullshit. It just means that you have trouble understanding things that aren’t consistent with what you already believe. :smack:
IOW, you ask me for cites and then don’t like the fact that I can provide them. So you call them google vomitting. So where are all your cites? :smack:
Wait. It sounds like you are saying that if you or someone in your home owns a gun then you are more likely to be murdered by THAT gun than you are to use that gun self defense? 
Or are you really saying that you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound (frequently self inflicted or inflicted by the criminals you were afraid of when you got the gun in the first place)?
Because if you meant the first thing, then I would indeed be interesting information. BUT, if you mean thte second thing and phrased it the way you just did then that would make you a lying scumbag who distorts information to support their arguments (IOW, it would make you a Republican). :eek:
So your response to my cites is to give your OPINION about how good my cites are? :dubious:
You go on to dismiss these cites without providing countercites of your own because they are not perr reviewed (or if they are peer reviewed, you disagree with their assumptions and therefore their conclusions)
Ahh so now you aren’t arguing that felons are disproportionately more likely to commit murder, you are arguing that it may not be 90% the way it is in NYC or Baltimore. I agree that murderers in NYC might not be representative of the whole country.
So what percentage of gun murders does your cursory google search tell you is committed by previously law abiding citizens who are permitted to possess a gun?
Do these people also have a disproportionately high rate of having a gun in the home? Would this be relevant to the study you reference at the beginning of your post?
So the Bureau of Justice Statistics are good evidence when they say that 67% of murderers have previous arrest records but not such a good source when they say that there are ~350,000 defensive gun uses every year?
Its like there are two standards of evidence depending on which side the evidence helps.
We’ve established that YOU don’t like the estimate because it undermines your argument but you can’t cite the BJS when it helps you and totally dismiss them when it undermines you.
I know you don’t believe anything published by outfits like the Independent Institute (because obviously they must be lying) but the Violence Policy Center? You think they’re making up pro-gun stuff too? theya re using the exact same evidence I am presenting to argue in favor of gun control its just that they are honest enough to stipulate to the facts, they just present them in way that makes their argument seem to make sense.
We were talking about the safety of having a gun in the house (this was most broadly discussed on this board in the context of accidentally shooting your kid to death). I was comparing it to accidental deaths because these are deaths that absolutely wouldn’t have occurred if a gun wasn’t invoved. Some abusive husband shooting his wife to death might have happened anyway with the husband beating his wife to death with his fists (more common than all deaths by rifles of any sort (including almost all assault weapons)).
If you want to give me some number of deaths that were committed by angry (but previously law abiding husbands) who would not have killed his wife but for having a gun, let me know how you figure that one out.
But, if we ignore your childish attempt to impeach the Violence Policy Center (a pro-gun control outfit) on the number of defensive gun use, we have ~350,000 incidents of defensive gun use compared to whatever number you can support.
How much of that is suicide? How much of that is because they were simply more likely to die by the gun with or without having a gun in the house? How many of those people got a gun because they were afraid something like that was going to happen? How many of those people were criminals getting shot by other criminals? Your study didn’t seem to give a shit about those factors. Or is that sort of rigor only expected of people who support gun rights?
We’ve looked at those studies and they are bullshit and you know it. They infer causation where we only find correlation.
Your arguments largely amount to:
“You’re a poopyhead”
“you have not proved your case to a scientific certainty so your cite is worthless”
“my cite (from the same source as your cite) is the word of god”
“my opinion peices are better than your opinion peices”
Your unwavering certainty in your position (despite at least some evidence that you might be wrong) makes me wonder what knowable thing (if anything) would make you change your position on guns?
As if that mattered in the 2000’s. You may nor may not know, but many words have evolved in meaning over the centuries, and the meaning of the Constitution has, yes, evolved too.
But not the ones you consider unreasonable? Your CO would have to persuade you first? Here’s a hint: No, you are *not *capable of following orders. You don’t know the meaning of the word, by any century’s standards. You are *not *capable of being well-regulated. You would not be part of a functioning militia at all.
A member or a military unit follows orders, period. Not only the ones he himself judges to be reasonable. You would not; you’ve just told us.
A member of an actual military unit actually trains as one. You do not; you just imagine yourself to be doing so at times.
A member of an actual military unit knows what it’s named, who’s in it, who he is commanded by (and commands), what its mission is, and how it’s executed. You do not, none of those things.
IOW, you are indeed a lone yahoo who luvs hiz bangstick and exercises some perverted fantasies., that’s all.
Then what good are you when the jackboots come?
Pardon me for not giving a damn about your previous posts enough to read and memorize them, then. Where’s that Putz smiley when we need it?
It isn’t about well you fucking aim, fella. It’s about how you control yourself enough not to even draw. Are you incapable of getting drunk, or angry, or scared? If you are, then yes, you’re a menace any time you’re carrying. We’re only talking a matter of degree.