:dubious: I was stating that the one particular article referencing which topics people are rating as highest priority isn’t going to prove your original statement true or false. I don’t see what opinion that has that will change by your links.
Your link list does prove, however, my assertion that the elected officials are out of touch with their electorates.
A further assertion: Polls suck. They are rarely a large sample size, and they tend to be influenced by how they are worded, what method of response they are trying (phone calls versus internet polls), and where the respondents are (fox news vs CNN; downtown New York versus Wichita). I don’t believe one should be trying to make a point with polls as they aren’t as useful as people like to pretend they are.
You got the Word of the Day calendar from Guns and Ammo too? It apparently just came out, seeing as how so many of you are using that silly invented word as if it gives your position credibility. Hint: It doesn’t mean *quite *what you wish it did.
How many dead kids would it take not to be “overblown”? :rolleyes:
No, and you fucking well understand why, and no, it isn’t made up. Scroll up. :rolleyes:
Are you under the impression that if you keep asking the question, it will make the fact that it’s already been rubbed into your face multiple times go away? :rolleyes:
Apparently so. Pity.
Think about that point just a little more, will you?
Which politicians are you talking about? Max Baucus (along with a number of other Senate Democrats) is in touch enough to know he’s got nothing to gain and a lot to lose by voting for gun control. OTOH, Morse and Giron were rather out of touch with their electorates.
I agree. For example, the NRA finds poll results that their members overwhelmingly oppose the latest gun control efforts while Bloomberg crafts polls so that he can claim that NRA members overwhelmingly support gun control.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
How many dead kids would it take not to be “overblown”?
[/QUOTE]
How many kids died in non-gun related accidents at that same time? WAG…more than 12. Probably by at least an order of magnitude. Perhaps 2. It’s called ‘perspective’…you should try and get some. Also, try to use less smiley faces. There are several 12 step programs you could put yourself on to try and ween yourself off of them if you want to check it out.
Many many more than die from pools considering the relative hysteria surrounding the two.
Of course its made up, as a matter of fact you’re the one that made it up and we all saw you do it.
I googled “right to be free from mortal danger” and apparently you have identified a right that google doesn’t even know exists. YOU should totally tell google to fix that.
When you start your response with seomthing along the lines of “No you’re wrong and you already know why” you are basically saying you Elvis have no clue why you believe what you do, but you believe it without reservation.
Could you please do me the honor of rubbing it in my face just one more time because I’ve asked Hentor and he says he has no idea, he just knows that all the published studies are wrong in this area because he can pick some nits.
I would tell you the same thing but the irrational stuff you say only helps my arguments so I have no desire or incentive try and stop you. Unlike you Blaylock makes a lot of good points (aside form the whole second amendment is not subject to interpretation stchick). You just undermine the credibility of the entire gun grabber side of the argument, you are picking up were Pierce Morgan left off.
OK, share yours with us. How many preventable deaths of children are acceptable to those of you with “perspective”?
Damuri, you really need to step back a moment and consider the effect your method of disputation has upon both your personal credibility and that of the position you’re desperately trying to uphold. You’re causing both a fair amount of damage with your endless use of invective and JAQ’ing instead of facts and reasoning.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
OK, share yours with us. How many preventable deaths of children are acceptable to those of you with “perspective”?
[/QUOTE]
As a society we aim to prevent as many deaths as possible while giving acceptable freedom to people to actually live their lives and take risks. Sadly, this means that we can’t wrap the entire population in bubble wrap and prevent all deaths, only attempt to mitigate them to the greatest extent possible while allowing those freedoms. From a probability perspective, guns are well down on the list of things that can kill children by accident or are otherwise ‘preventable’, which sort of tells the tale on your fantasy about a ‘right’ to safety (or from mortal peril or whatever). The ‘perspective’, which obviously you lack, is the ability to judge actual risk and determine relative danger coupled with allowing the maximum freedom within those constraints. As a SOCIETY, we collectively determine what is or isn’t ‘acceptable’ wrt ‘preventable deaths’. For instance, we COULD limit the speed of automobiles to 10 miles per hour (or 1 or half or some other arbitrary number) and mandate the installation of much much higher levels of safety equipment in all cars, lowering (by a rather larger amount than deaths due to firearms) the number of ‘preventable deaths’ per year. We COULD ban the use of any and all intoxicants, which would also cut down on more ‘preventable deaths’ than deaths due to firearms per year. And so on. As a society, however, such draconian measures have been deemed to be intolerable, thus we collectively determine what is or isn’t ‘acceptable’. Seems simple enough to me.
Still no cite to your ridiculous assertion? Keep on flailing.
And I thought it was you who insisted on the whole “no ducking” thing. You may want to revisit that. Add this to the list of things that you’re ducking:
I must say, out of 7 lines of text from post #283, 5 of them ended with a smiley face. How very emotive. Too bad those aren’t the cites your grasping for.
However perfect or imperfect it may be, the Constitution remains the highest law of the land. We have a government, that in its arrogance and corruption, feels free to disregard it in order to pursue policies which blatantly violate it; and a large part of our population that is ignorant and apathetic enough to allow this to happen.
If one disagrees with the Constitution, if one wants policies to be put into place which are not consistent with the Constitution as it currently stands, then there is a process, defined in the Constitution itself, to make whatever changes are deemed necessary in order to allow previously-unconstitutional policies to be legitimately put into effect. By wise design, this procedure is non-trivial.
I very rightfully hate those who will disregard the highest law of my land, in order to strip from me and my countrymen the rights which our Constitution explicitly affirms. Why shouldn’t I hate this?
I further hate that those who wish to pursue these policies do so by putting forth what they know damn well to be outright lies; and that—knowing that they could never muster enough public support to put their policies in place through the legitimate process of amending the Constitution—they seek to do so through entirely corrupt and illegitimate means.
If you have a soft spot in your heart for tyranny and corruption and lies, then that’s your business. I have no tolerance for it, and I see no reason why I should. My ancestors fought and shed blood, to protect themselves and their posterity from exactly the sort of tyranny and corruption that the gun control crowd now seeks to impose on us.
And the courts have no power to rule that “shall not be infringed” means anything other than “shall not be infringed.”
The Constitution never gave the courts this power. This is a power that the courts illegally seized on their own, in violation of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen, and it has.
“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” — Thomas Jefferson
Not in the Constitution itself. By the court claiming this power for itself. Just as Jefferson warned could happen.
“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” — Thomas Jefferson
:dubious: But whose right that might be is open to a great many interpretations. See here. Consisting of two (or maybe even three, depending on whether it has one or two commas) clauses with no very clear relationship to each other, it is really the most ambiguous element in the Constitution. You seem to think it is the least ambiguous element in the Constitution, but that is pure-D bullshit. Debate and litigation over what the 2nd Amendment means, including such basic questions as whether it embodies a collective or individual right, goes back to the 1820s. In fact, even “shall not be infringed” is also open to a great many interpretations, as we often see with First Amendment litigation.
See here. There may be many interpretations, but there is only one interpretation that matters, and that is the one promulgated by SCOTUS. Their interpretation is not in any way ambiguous. Not recognizing or denying what was clearly laid out in Heller is willful ignorance.
Are you seriously suggesting that ANYBODY should be taking advice about credibility from YOU?!??!?
LOLOLOLOL. Pffft!!!
You may not be aware of this but you are clipping the quote out of context.
Here is the full quote:
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
You see how that last sentence puts a different gloss on things?
The judiciary has neither the power of the sword nor the purse. They cannot enforce their own opinons and rely on the cooperation of the other two branches to get anything done. In fact, they are virtually powerless to do anything other than give their opinion.
If you read the full letter, it is even clearer that he was not objecting to judicial review. here is a link:
I think that Brainglutton is arguing against the notion that the only reasonable reading of the second amenment leads to the conclusion that you can’t regulate guns in any way shape or form.
Heller explicitly condones gun reulations like licensing and registration requirements in dicta.
I doubt that is what **BG **is responding to. He explicitly calls into question who’s right is protected by the “shall not be infringed” phrase. He continues in the same paragraph to bring up the “collective rights” idea. For someone who is unfamiliar with the issues around the 2nd amendment I’d give a pass - but in this case it certainly seems like willful ignorance.
If my interpretation of BG’s response is wrong, I welcome clarification from BG.
No that’s not a correct reading. The opinion states:
(my bold)
The opinion does not cast doubt on those restrictions. It only condones them to the extent that Heller was not concerned with any of those things so the opinion is effectively silent on them. It is not an endorsement of those restrictions.
