Author
|
Topic: Gun Control Again
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 5147 of 5179 (823684)
11-15-2017 2:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5139 by Phat 11-14-2017 7:07 PM
|
|
Re: Endless Mass Shootings
Phat writes: It's a bit like the nuclear genie. Getting rid of nuclear weapons will likely never happen. I feel that the chances are even less likely with guns.
Another analogy would be drugs. As long as there's a demand, you'll never get rid of them. In Canada, for example, there is relatively little demand for guns, so there are fewer guns and less gun violence.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 5139 by Phat, posted 11-14-2017 7:07 PM | | Phat has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 5149 of 5179 (823694)
11-15-2017 2:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5148 by Phat 11-15-2017 2:30 PM
|
|
Re: Texas This Time
Phat writes: That's why I always called you a contrarian! You just like the sport of argumentation, it appears. The honesty is refreshing...
Try googling "two Jews, three opinions".
This message is a reply to: | | Message 5148 by Phat, posted 11-15-2017 2:30 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Texas This Time
New cat's Eye writes: But the 2nd doesn't say that the right of the militia shall not be infringed, it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
Why does it mention militia at all if it doesn't mean "the people" who are members of the militia?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Texas This Time
New Cat's Eye writes: For reference, here's what the Virginia Declaration of Rights had to say:
quote: 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.
But that isn't the reality today. You do have a standing army. You're not defended by a bunch of Minutemen who keep their muskets hanging over the fireplace. It doesn't make sense to interpret the Constitution in terms of a myth.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Texas This Time
New Cat's Eye writes: It doesn't matter, when the Constitution refers to "the people" it refers to all individuals and not some subset of them.
That seems like a phony self-serving distinction. The wording strongly suggests that it was referring to a subset.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Texas This Time
New cat's Eye writes: Turns out you don't know what you're talking about.
I know what it says in English. Ignoring half of the sentence is egregiously wrong, whether it's the Supreme Court doing it or not.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 5163 of 5179 (823745)
11-16-2017 10:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5159 by NoNukes 11-15-2017 8:08 PM
|
|
Re: Texas This Time
NoNukes writes: The Supreme Court has not, in fact, rendered any decision that make it impossible to prevent violently insane people from obtaining guns, provided due process is provided.
You seem to have lost the plot. My point is that the Supreme Court could make it harder for violently insane people to obtain guns - and for violently sane people to obtain guns and for clumsily incompetent people to obtain guns, and so on. The wording is right there in the sacred 2nd amendment but they choose to studiously ignore it.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 5159 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2017 8:08 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 5170 of 5179 (823758)
11-16-2017 12:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5169 by NoNukes 11-16-2017 12:26 PM
|
|
Re: Texas This Time
NoNukes writes: I notice the subtle shifting of the goalposts from your original statement which claimed that the Supreme Court and the NRA had made such laws impossible.
Anybody who reads the thread can see that I said no such thing.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 5169 by NoNukes, posted 11-16-2017 12:26 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 5171 by NoNukes, posted 11-16-2017 12:42 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|