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.
You had “Alley Oop” on your comics page?
That is SO COOL!!! The Cleveland Plain Dealer never had “Alley Oop.”
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…
Don’t forget Prince Valiant, Mary Worth and Dondi.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, yeah, there it is. If you had a point, what might it be?
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.
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.
Funny how none of the other amendments have a clause explaining why they’re important, don’t you think?
And guns claim another victim - in this case, this thread.
Farewell, SLIOTD thread, we scarcely knew ye.
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.
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.
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.
That was all settled in the landmark case of Grant v. Lee.