# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 202
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4021 "2015-10-08T00:15:37Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > Manipulate the statistics as you wish (and what is “age-adjusted”?) but still probably safer in the desert or in the South, than in inner-city Chicago, Detroit, or any other such liberal utopia. I too am curious as to what “age-adjusted” means. The graphic indicates a footnote but there is no link to the original study that I can see. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4022 "2015-10-08T00:30:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Grew up in Waco, Texas, a little bit of all of the above. My local paper always put certain news on the comics page, down below Alley Oop. That’s where you might read about the altercation at the Dew Drop Inn or another popular watering hole, where guns were drawn and fired, some injuries sustained, seldom fatal. I thought that was normal. Until I left. You had “Alley Oop” on your comics page? That is SO COOL!!! The _Cleveland Plain Dealer_ never had “Alley Oop.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4023 "2015-10-08T00:54:30Z")
_Dick Tracy_ as well. Jeez, he had a two way radio on his _wrist_! Like a watch! I even remember the day I first inkled that maybe Chester Gould was losing his grip. And the sublime beauty of _Pogo_, like a single Christmas light on a massive basalt block of grey mediocrity… ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4024 "2015-10-08T01:26:03Z")
Don’t forget Prince Valiant, Mary Worth and Dondi. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4025 "2015-10-08T02:03:08Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I’ll put it this way: for 100 years or more everyone seemed to think it did. Consider that at the Confederate surrender at Appomattox Court House at the end of the American Civil War, _defeated rebel officers_ were allowed to _ **keep their private sidearms** _. Rebels, allowed to remain armed (at least as individuals- the Army of Virginia’s ordnance was collected). For a right some claim has never been conferred or protected, it sure commanded respect back in the day. I remember learning that, but I took two different things away from it. First, I felt it meant that the leadership of the US Army felt that sidearms posed no real threat to them. Second, it was only the officers, which made me wonder if the intent was to avoid a “frag the lieutenant” situation more than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4026 "2015-10-08T03:54:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The 2nd Amendment is a masterpiece of ambiguity, it can be interpreted reasonably and fairly as stating two entirely opposite imperatives. I entirely scorn any argument that insists otherwise. Now that’s funny, because last time that argument was made it was over whether states without federal exchanges got subsidies. Then your side pleaded “context!” Well, the context of the Bill of Rights is that all 10 of them recognize rights of the people. It would be pretty weird if all but one did. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4027 "2015-10-08T03:56:19Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > Can I quote this next time “states rights” are brought up by conservatives? Cause it sounds like you are saying that the only rights that matter are individual rights. Even the 10th amendment recognizes individual rights. The 10th says that all powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states or the people. And states rights is a lot less controversial in legal circles than gun rights. While the 2nd is ambiguous, the 10th is not. “States rights” may be a dirty phrase in non-legal liberal circles, but in the legal world it’s a well accepted doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4028 "2015-10-08T04:33:07Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, the context of the Bill of Rights is that all 10 of them recognize rights of the people. It would be pretty weird if all but one did. It would be pretty weird if the framers, after debating for three months, included a dependent clause that was meant to have no legal meaning. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4029 "2015-10-08T04:38:46Z")
It does have a meaning. It’s an explanation for why the right to bear arms is important from the perspective of a compelling state interest. I’ll grant that it does seem to give the government the power to regulate the bearing of arms, but as we know from the abortion debate, regulation can be used to nullify a right, so it can never go that far. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4030 "2015-10-08T05:03:24Z")
Referencing what you think is hypocrisy on the part of your opponents in an unrelated debate only wins you scorn, once you get past middle school debate squad. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4031 "2015-10-08T05:09:00Z")
I wasn’t going for hypocrisy, I was going for the context argument. Any argument that nullifies the 2nd entirely is an invalid argument on its face. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4032 "2015-10-08T05:33:27Z")
Well, yeah, there it is. If you had a point, what might it be? ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4033 "2015-10-08T05:41:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Even the 10th amendment recognizes individual rights. The 10th says that all powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states or the people. > > And states rights is a lot less controversial in legal circles than gun rights. While the 2nd is ambiguous, the 10th is not. “States rights” may be a dirty phrase in non-legal liberal circles, but in the legal world it’s a well accepted doctrine. That superficially seems related to my post, unless you actually follow the thread of conversation and remember that I was replying to this (context added): [QUOTE=adaher] [the Second Amendment] does [protect the right to individual carry], or else it doesn’t make any sense. If you only have the “right” to bear arms as part of a militia, then that’s not a right, that’s a duty. And last I checked, it’s not the Bill of Duties. [/QUOTE] So let me spell it out for you clearly: If “States Rights” are a thing, then the 2nd amendment can easily be read as a right of the _states_ to form militias (note that I’m not trying to make a claim that this is definitively so; I’m simply stating that this is a fair reading of the plain text of the document). Your stated conclusion–that a “right” for people to join the militia isn’t really a right–requires you to assume that _only individuals can have rights_. Therefore, to be logically consistent, you must either 1) acknowledge your second-amendment argument was flawed, or 2) never bring up “states rights” again, since you’ve tacitly assumed that there is no such thing. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4034 "2015-10-08T06:09:47Z")
The states already had the right to form militias. The 10th already assures that. Even with the qualifier, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” means exactly what it says. Also, “states’ rights” is a legally ignorant term. Governments don’t have rights, they have powers, and of course the 10th doesn’t refer to rights, it refers to powers. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4035 "2015-10-08T07:09:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It does have a meaning. It’s an explanation for why the right to bear arms is important from the perspective of a compelling state interest. Funny how none of the other amendments have a clause explaining why they’re important, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4036 "2015-10-08T11:03:28Z")
And guns claim another victim - in this case, this thread. Farewell, SLIOTD thread, we scarcely knew ye. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4037 "2015-10-09T19:09:39Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > It would be pretty weird if the framers, after debating for three months, included a dependent clause that was meant to have no legal meaning. The Bill of Rights was not exactly drafted by the framers, as such. It went through the first session of Congress. It should be worth noting that Rhode Island and North Carolina had representatives at the Constitutional Convention but not in Congress at the time that the Bill of Rights was debated and posted for ratification (because they had not yet ratified the Constitution). Yes, many of the signers (framers) were in the 1st Congress, but I think some of them were not, and there were some other guys n there. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4038 "2015-10-09T19:27:19Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > I too am curious as to what “age-adjusted” means. The graphic indicates a footnote but there is no link to the original study that I can see. Presumably, the likelihood of being shot is found to be correlated with age, that age demographics varied from state to state, and so the data were adjusted to remove this effect since age wasn’t the covariate being studied. Seems like a reasonable thing to do. ETA: Also, for the record, the idea of analyzing this data as total number of deaths per state rather than as deaths per capita is inane. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4039 "2015-10-09T20:04:14Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > If “States Rights” are a thing, then the 2nd amendment can easily be read as a right of the _states_ to form militias (note that I’m not trying to make a claim that this is definitively so; I’m simply stating that this is a fair reading of the plain text of the document). > [@adaher](#): > > The states already had the right to form militias. The 10th already assures that. Even with the qualifier, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” means exactly what it says. > > Also, “states’ rights” is a legally ignorant term. Governments don’t have rights, they have powers, and of course the 10th doesn’t refer to rights, it refers to powers. Furthermore, the Constitution and it’s amendments distinguish between “The States” and “The People”. It seems questionable to me to claim that “The People” means “the people as incorporated in their state governments” when the document simply says “The States” in that case. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4040 "2015-10-09T20:06:16Z")
That was all settled in the landmark case of _Grant v. Lee_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=201) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=203)