Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 7:21 PM
332 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (2 members, 330 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,103 Year: 28,709/21,208 Month: 775/1,847 Week: 150/475 Day: 43/17 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again Summations Only
Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
341342343
344
345346Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 5146 of 5179 (823682)
11-15-2017 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5136 by NoNukes
11-14-2017 12:47 PM


Re: Texas This Time
NoNukes writes:

Why don't you cite a relevant Supreme Court decision?


Try any Supreme Court decision that interprets "a well regulated milita" as "every hillbilly with a trigger-finger".

NoNukes writes:

I am suggesting that you don't have either an opinion or an understanding.


If you're suggesting that I don't have a doctrinaire pick-a-side-and-stick-to-it opinion, you're right.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5136 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2017 12:47 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5148 by Phat, posted 11-15-2017 2:30 PM ringo has responded
 Message 5150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2017 2:55 PM ringo has responded
 Message 5159 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2017 8:08 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


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 acknowledged this reply

Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 5148 of 5179 (823689)
11-15-2017 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5146 by ringo
11-15-2017 2:17 PM


Re: Texas This Time
ringo writes:

If you're suggesting that I don't have a doctrinaire pick-a-side-and-stick-to-it opinion, you're right.

That's why I always called you a contrarian! You just like the sport of argumentation, it appears. The honesty is refreshing...

I eagerly await the contrary response to this post...


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 5146 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 2:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5149 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 2:42 PM Phat has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


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 yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11841
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 5150 of 5179 (823698)
11-15-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5146 by ringo
11-15-2017 2:17 PM


Re: Texas This Time
Try any Supreme Court decision that interprets "a well regulated milita" as "every hillbilly with a trigger-finger".

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5146 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 2:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5151 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 5151 of 5179 (823699)
11-15-2017 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5150 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2017 2:55 PM


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2017 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5152 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2017 3:27 PM ringo has responded

New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11841
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 5152 of 5179 (823704)
11-15-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5151 by ringo
11-15-2017 2:57 PM


Re: Texas This Time
Why does it mention militia at all if it doesn't mean "the people" who are members of the militia?

I'm not exactly sure, but the phrasing was recycled and then chopped up and re-written and it's a bit of a mess. The prefatory clause is unnecessary and seems to be included as, like, an FYI or something. I dunno, it's weird.

But it doesn't matter, when the Constitution refers to "the people" it refers to all individuals and not some subset of them.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5151 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 2:57 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5153 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 3:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 5153 of 5179 (823705)
11-15-2017 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5152 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2017 3:27 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5152 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2017 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2017 3:52 PM ringo has responded

New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11841
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 5154 of 5179 (823706)
11-15-2017 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 5153 by ringo
11-15-2017 3:47 PM


Re: Texas This Time
It doesn't matter, when the Constitution refers to "the people" it refers to all individuals and not some subset of them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5153 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 3:47 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5155 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 3:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 5155 of 5179 (823707)
11-15-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5154 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2017 3:52 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2017 3:52 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5156 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2017 4:05 PM ringo has responded

New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11841
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 5156 of 5179 (823708)
11-15-2017 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 5155 by ringo
11-15-2017 3:57 PM


Re: Texas This Time
That seems like a phony self-serving distinction.

I didn't make it up:

quote:
the Court said that the people refers to those persons who are part of a national community,

...

the Court commented on the meaning of the people in other parts of the Constitution, noting that the phrase appears seven times.
And in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention the people, the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.
source


The wording strongly suggests that it was referring to a subset.

Turns out you don't know what you're talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5155 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 3:57 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5162 by ringo, posted 11-16-2017 10:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 5157 of 5179 (823711)
11-15-2017 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5137 by New Cat's Eye
11-14-2017 4:09 PM


sense, possibly even common
Really? How huge is it?

Around 1- in-5 to 1-in-3 sales are done in such a way that avoids background checks as a requirement.

Are the "common sense" gun control measures only at the federal level? What are they, explicitly? What would the legislation look like?

Firearm Owners Protection Act is a Federal law, right? The one that bans the sale of automatic weapons, with exceptions surrounding grandfathered weapons?

What are the top five common sense gun control measures that will have the biggest impact on the goals that are trying to be achieved?

Good question. Here's my attempt to an answer:

1) Ban handguns
2) Band semi-automatic weapons
3) Ban weapons capable of holding more than four rounds
4) Require a licence to hold a firearm. The licence can be free to obtain - but does require meeting various standards such as age, the passing of a short safety examination and possibly a practical test (like having a car). Make showing the licence a requirement for the purchasing of a firearm, and any purchase requires the seller to advise some local authority which licence was used to purchase - name address etc etc.
5) Require insurance for owning a weapon to cover expenses to property and payment of injury claims that may occur as a result of accidents, negligence or deliberate misuse of a weapon. If you are able to afford it, you can become self-insured - perhaps with a fund under a third party's control held in reserve.

Number 4 would also include reasons to lose the licence: Committing certain offences for example. Possibly include a points system for more minor offenses - once a certain number of points are on your licence, you lose the licence. Also a path for reacquiring a lost licence should be included.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-14-2017 4:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2017 11:33 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10119
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 5158 of 5179 (823719)
11-15-2017 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 5145 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2017 1:34 PM


Re: Endless Mass Shootings
Piss off, there are natural rights.

Sure, when you want to argue about guns, then there are natural gun rights. At other times, apparently, there were not.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up theyre not going to shoot me. This is what Im thinking theyre not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5145 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2017 1:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2017 10:36 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10119
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 5159 of 5179 (823720)
11-15-2017 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5146 by ringo
11-15-2017 2:17 PM


Re: Texas This Time
Try any Supreme Court decision that interprets "a well regulated milita" as "every hillbilly with a trigger-finger".

It turns out, that your supposition about the state of US law is wrong.

Yes, it is true that DC v. Heller did say that the 2nd amendment bestows a personal right to others including hillbillies, but the same decision also held that states do have the right to pass and enforce gun control laws.

From the opinion in DC v Heller:

quote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

I'll note that the Supreme Court specifically mentioned laws targeting the mentally ill.

If you're suggesting that I don't have a doctrinaire pick-a-side-and-stick-to-it opinion, you're right.

I'm suggesting that a post of a BS opinion that you won't defend probably is not worth the paper it is printed on. In this case, it seems that you do have an opinion, which is a good thing. However, your opinion can easily be shown not to reflect reality. 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.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up theyre not going to shoot me. This is what Im thinking theyre not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5146 by ringo, posted 11-15-2017 2:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5160 by Pressie, posted 11-16-2017 7:58 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 5163 by ringo, posted 11-16-2017 10:49 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1856
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 5160 of 5179 (823737)
11-16-2017 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5159 by NoNukes
11-15-2017 8:08 PM


Re: Texas This Time
Read some of this. I can buy a Kalashnikov with 10 loaded cartriges for 10 bucks at the Komatipoort border post.

The crime rate in my country is one of the highest in the world.

Guns don't kill people. People with access to those guns do it. You Amcans should reallly look at those gun laws.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5159 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2017 8:08 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
341342343
344
345346Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017