Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 10:24 AM
356 online now:
Coragyps, Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, halibut, Heathen, jar, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (10 members, 346 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,689 Year: 27,295/21,208 Month: 1,208/1,714 Week: 51/365 Day: 7/44 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Texas Small Town Church Terrorism
frako
Member
Posts: 2715
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 16 of 38 (823560)
11-12-2017 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
11-12-2017 1:50 PM


Re: To Mr. Ryan
Blame the supreme court and the NRA, read your second amendment Americans.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Start applying the first part again. Especially the WELL REGULATED PART.

United States v. Cruikshank (1876)

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.

United States v. Miller (1939)

the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

The idea that the second amendment protects an individuals right to bare arms is NEW!!!

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 11-12-2017 1:50 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-13-2017 11:08 AM frako has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1819
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 17 of 38 (823566)
11-12-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
11-12-2017 1:50 PM


Re: To Mr. Ryan
Phat asks:
Or was Pogo right?

I vote Pogo!!!


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 11-12-2017 1:50 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 18 of 38 (823579)
11-13-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
11-12-2017 1:50 PM


Re: To Mr. Ryan
Phat writes:

Shall we blame guns, or human nature?


Regardless of what "human nature" is, a human with a gun is more dangerous than a human without a gun.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 11-12-2017 1:50 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 11-13-2017 11:06 AM ringo has responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 10041
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 19 of 38 (823581)
11-13-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by ringo
11-13-2017 10:53 AM


Guns Pro and Con
Regardless of what "human nature" is, a human with a gun is more dangerous than a human without a gun.
And yet if we enact laws to outlaw gun ownership, the critic's standard reply is that the outlaws (or dictatorships or organized criminals) will still have guns and that the average citizen has no weapon against them. Just in the recent shooting in Texas, only a quick-acting neighbor with a gun was able to stop the killer from causing more collateral damage.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 11-13-2017 10:53 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 11-13-2017 11:27 AM Phat has responded
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 11-17-2017 4:42 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 20 of 38 (823582)
11-13-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by frako
11-12-2017 4:07 PM


The idea that the second amendment protects an individuals right to bare arms is NEW!!!

No it isn't. The idea goes back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689: "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law".

The militia stuff comes from the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776: "Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;

The individual rights in the Bill of Rights are not granted to the individuals by the Bill - the Bill identifies rights that exist and that won't be taken away.

The 1st amendment doesn't grant us free speech. We have free speech. The 1st prevents the government from taking that away from us.

Look at the 4th: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

That's not granting us that right, we have that right. It simply says that it won't be violated.

That's where the second part of US v Miller comes in: "neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence".

The rights do not depend on the Bill of Rights for their existence.

And here's the next line: "The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

So it doesn't grant us the right because we have it by default. It just prevents the government from taking that right away.

Make sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by frako, posted 11-12-2017 4:07 PM frako has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 21 of 38 (823588)
11-13-2017 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
11-13-2017 11:06 AM


Re: Guns Pro and Con
Phat writes:

the critic's standard reply is that the outlaws (or dictatorships or organized criminals) will still have guns


My standard reply to that is it would make the outlaws easy to spot.

Edited by ringo, : Inserted word "is".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 11-13-2017 11:06 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 11-13-2017 11:31 AM ringo has responded
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 11-15-2017 2:40 PM ringo has responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 10041
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 22 of 38 (823589)
11-13-2017 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by ringo
11-13-2017 11:27 AM


Re: Guns Pro and Con
In the case of a dictatorship or martial law, a lot of good that would do. The nazis were easily spotted carrying guns, but the population was powerless to fight them.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 11-13-2017 11:27 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 11-13-2017 11:50 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 23 of 38 (823591)
11-13-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
11-13-2017 11:31 AM


Re: Guns Pro and Con
Phat writes:

The nazis were easily spotted carrying guns, but the population was powerless to fight them.


That's a bogus argument.

First, the Nazis were voted in. The populace had no desire to fight them. They didn't even need guns to control the populace. The guns were for oppressing foreigners.

Second, a bunch of armed civilian yahoos has no chance against a well-trained and disciplined modern army.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 11-13-2017 11:31 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by frako, posted 11-13-2017 1:07 PM ringo has responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2715
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 24 of 38 (823597)
11-13-2017 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
11-13-2017 11:50 AM


Re: Guns Pro and Con
Second, a bunch of armed civilian yahoos has no chance against a well-trained and disciplined modern army

Yea but, they all believe that one day a situation will happen when they will be called to use their gun, and like steven segal they wil reach for their holster and double tap every bad guy in sight, and every woman in a hundred mile radius will be wet from their awesome heroics. Thas why they need a gun. reality has nothing to do with it else the whole world would ban all guns and weapons.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 11-13-2017 11:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 11-14-2017 10:48 AM frako has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(2)
Message 25 of 38 (823615)
11-14-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by frako
11-13-2017 1:07 PM


Re: Guns Pro and Con
frako writes:

Yea but, they all believe that one day a situation will happen when they will be called to use their gun....


I know what they believe. They're idiots - yet another reason why they shouldn't have guns.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by frako, posted 11-13-2017 1:07 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 11-14-2017 11:25 PM ringo has responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 10041
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 26 of 38 (823641)
11-14-2017 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
11-14-2017 10:48 AM


Re: Guns Pro and Con
You may be right, but I am against the state having that much control over my buying habits. The state should not meddle in peoples freedoms and rights.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 11-14-2017 10:48 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 2:28 PM Phat has responded
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 11-17-2017 4:49 AM Phat has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 27 of 38 (823687)
11-15-2017 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
11-14-2017 11:25 PM


Re: Guns Pro and Con
Phat writes:

The state should not meddle in peoples freedoms and rights.


Arguably, the purpose of the state is to protect the group from its individuals.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 11-14-2017 11:25 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 11-15-2017 2:33 PM ringo has responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 10041
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 28 of 38 (823690)
11-15-2017 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
11-15-2017 2:28 PM


Re: Guns Pro and Con
Arguably, the purpose of the state is to protect the group from its individuals.
Yet in our current system, what we have is legislation protecting some groups of individuals from other groups of individuals and a political tug-of-war as to which group is in power.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 2:28 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 2:38 PM Phat has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 29 of 38 (823692)
11-15-2017 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phat
11-15-2017 2:33 PM


Re: Guns Pro and Con
Phat writes:

Yet in our current system, what we have is legislation protecting some groups of individuals from other groups of individuals and a political tug-of-war as to which group is in power.


You have legislation protecting the right of shooters to shoot. That's a bit one-sided.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 11-15-2017 2:33 PM Phat has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 30 of 38 (823693)
11-15-2017 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ringo
11-13-2017 11:27 AM


Re: Guns Pro and Con
My standard reply to that is it would make the outlaws easy to spot.

The guy who shot up the church should have been denied guns already because of his mental condition. He was already easy enough to spot. I'm not sure about the Vegas shooter but i'd be all for any measures that would have identified his dangerous tendencies. What we don't want to do is restrict reasonable gun possession from responsible people, but be able to keep them out of the hands of the dangerous ones.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 11-13-2017 11:27 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 2:50 PM Faith has responded
 Message 34 by frako, posted 11-16-2017 6:11 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017