Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 31 of 176 (475446)
07-15-2008 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Artemis Entreri
07-15-2008 2:33 PM


Artemis Entreri writes:
quote:
I dont think Tolerance is the answer. I dont think people should be forced to tolerate things they dont like. you can be intolerant if you want to.
And Miss Manners has a heart attack.
Strange how it is that the people who are so against the concept of etiquette are the ones who are so upset to see other people doing things they don't like and want to stop it. They're the ones that want to turn matters of sociability into matters of law.
If you expect others to be tolerant of you, then you have to be tolerant of them in return. I seem to recall a certain president's "favorite philosopher" saying something like that...doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and all that.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-15-2008 2:33 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 32 of 176 (475447)
07-15-2008 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Chiroptera
07-15-2008 8:32 PM


Chiroptera writes:
quote:
Is a militia an organized state-controlled military organization, or is it the able-bodied male population
Not quite. It isn't so much who makes up the militia as it is what is the purpose of the militia.
Remember: The military forces have no jurisdiction in the United States, per se. The Army and the Navy are there to be used against foreign powers.
Internal issues are for the militia to hand. The definition of "militia" isn't defined in the Constitution and while at the time, it certainly meant "able-bodied men," I very much doubt anybody today would deny women from being part of the militia.
Remember, too: The States are considered somewhat sovereign powers in their own right. That's why the military is kept out of State issues. That's a Federal power which shouldn't be used on State actions.
The militia is there in service to the State. The way the Second Amendment is written, it is clear that the point of the right of the people to own a gun is so that it can be used in service of the State as part of the militia.
As I mention elsewhere: Might there not be another part of the Constitution that would deal with the question of the right of the people to own a gun for purposes other than the militia? One of the reasons the DC ban managed to get as far as it did is because technically, DC is not a State. It was created as an independent entity because it was felt that the seat of the government should not be held hostage by the whims of the State in which it resides. The way the law works there is quite different from that which happens in an actual State. To claim "State's rights" with regard to DC is inappropriate.
But again: Might there not be another part of the Constitution that would deal with the question of the right of the people to own a gun for purposes other than the militia?
To my mind, this isn't a Second Amendment question at all.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 07-15-2008 8:32 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 33 of 176 (475448)
07-15-2008 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ICANT
07-15-2008 8:59 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
These kind of things is the reason they can my weapon from take it from my cold dead fingers.
And the US can be compared to the USSR, Turkey, Nazi-era Germany, China, Guatamala, Uganda, and Cambodia why?
You can't think of a more significant reason why the political dissidents were rounded up and killed other than gun control? Are you seriously claiming that the exterminations wouldn't have happened otherwise?
How is it that so many other countries such as the UK have extremely tight gun control and don't have any of these problems you mention?
What other common thread runs through your examples?
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." ” George W. Bush
The "No Fly" list is up to a million names. Do you seriously think there are a million terrorists in the US?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 07-15-2008 8:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 07-16-2008 11:24 AM Rrhain has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 34 of 176 (475451)
07-16-2008 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Chiroptera
07-15-2008 7:18 PM


Re: Is subbie aroun[d]?
There's a hell of a lot going on in all three opinions, resulting in an awful lot of stuff to digest. I'll admit that Second Amendment jurisprudence isn't high on my personal radar, so it's not something I have a lot of prior exposure to. This makes the slogging even slower going.
My initial impression is that there is strained reasoning on both sides. (I suspect this is caused by Justices on both sides of the issue struggling to reach the conclusions they want. This, I think, is an artifact of a disturbing trend in judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, in focusing more in ideology than judicial temperament and reasoning. [Off topic rant over.])
Certainly the depth of historical research demonstrated in all opinions is far beyond my ability, time and inclination to duplicate. As such, I have little to say in that particular area.
At this moment, the best I can do is give my seat of the pants analysis of what I might have done with the question myself, had some fool made the mistake of putting me on the Court.
I would have been inclined to come to much the same conclusion as Scalia on the question of whether the Second Amendment preserves an individual or collective right, although I find much of his reasoning unpersuasive. It seems like a rather simple question to me: the right that is guaranteed against infringement is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I think Breyer's attempt to avoid what is, to me, the clear meaning of the words "the people," is unpersuasive.
However, I do think that there is a great deal to be said for the analysis that Breyer gives for the idea that, even if the right is the people's, there is room for some state regulation. (To be fair, Scalia acknowledges this is as well, but I think he gives short shrift to the D.C. regulation.) I'm not sure I would go as far as to uphold the D.C. regulation, I'd need to give that part of it more consideration. But to me, it's a much closer call that Scalia seems to think that it is.
I understand that much of this is rather amorphous, and if I'm so inclined, I may give the matter more attention. But I thought I'd at least get something posted here, in response to the clamor of my adoring fans.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 07-15-2008 7:18 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 07-16-2008 12:31 AM subbie has replied
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 07-16-2008 1:01 PM subbie has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 35 of 176 (475453)
07-16-2008 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by subbie
07-16-2008 12:16 AM


subbie writes:
quote:
It seems like a rather simple question to me: the right that is guaranteed against infringement is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
So the Second Amendment begins with an ellipsis?
What part of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is irrelevant to the meaning of the Second Amendment?
quote:
I think Breyer's attempt to avoid what is, to me, the clear meaning of the words "the people," is unpersuasive.
And yours and Scalia's attempt to avoid what is, directly stated, the clear text of the amendment ("militia") is disingenuous.
For the third time: Might there be another part of the Constitution that deals with an individual right to own a gun for something other than the service of the State as part of the militia?
What on earth makes this a [I][B]Second[/I][/b] Amendment question? Just because it's about a gun doesn't mean it has anything to do with the Second Amendment.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 12:16 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 12:50 AM Rrhain has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 36 of 176 (475454)
07-16-2008 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rrhain
07-16-2008 12:31 AM


quote:
What part of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is irrelevant to the meaning of the Second Amendment?
What part of it is inconsistent with guaranteeing to "the people" the right to keep and bear arms?
quote:
And yours and Scalia's attempt to avoid what is, directly stated, the clear text of the amendment ("militia") is disingenuous.
And your attempt to ignore the established meaning of the phrase "the people" by appealing to the preamble of the Amendment in an attempt to graft onto it limiting language that clearly isn't there is, at best, inartful. (Feel free to continue with your snarky language, I've heard worse.) The preamble describes the justification for guaranteeing the right, the rest of it describes to whom the right is guaranteed and describes the substance of the right. There is nothing inconsistent with recognizing the need for a well trained militia at the ready and guaranteeing to that body the general right to keep and bear arms.
I'd be happy to debate the fairly simple matter of parsing the language with you if you disagree, but it would be nice if you could do it without name calling.
quote:
For the third time: Might there be another part of the Constitution that deals with an individual right to own a gun for something other than the service of the State as part of the militia?
Not that I'm aware of, other than the largely ignored and emasculated Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 07-16-2008 12:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 07-16-2008 1:28 AM subbie has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 37 of 176 (475456)
07-16-2008 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
07-16-2008 12:50 AM


subbie responds to me:
quote:
What part of it is inconsistent with guaranteeing to "the people" the right to keep and bear arms?
The part where it says your right to bear those arms is for a reason other than in service to the State as part of the militia.
quote:
quote:
And yours and Scalia's attempt to avoid what is, directly stated, the clear text of the amendment ("militia") is disingenuous.
And your attempt to ignore the established meaning of the phrase "the people" by appealing to the preamble of the Amendment in an attempt to graft onto it limiting language that clearly isn't there is, at best, inartful.
That isn't an answer. At best, it is nothing more than repetition of Scalia's (typically) incoherent argument: That if I tell you that I'm about to say something in reference to a certain concept, then you are free to completely ignore that concept in trying to determine what I mean by what I say.
You cannot understand what the "operative clause" (to use Scalia's term) means without first investigating what the "prefatory clause" says. That's why Scalia's interpretation is so inane: He does it backwards. He goes through the motions of interpreting what "the people" means without bothering to realize that there is a restriction on what it might possibly mean.
In short, Scalia goes on and on about something the Amendment clearly states it is not talking about.
This is exactly akin to the error made by the conservatives (surprise!) that "Gore said he invented the internet." Ignoring the fact that Gore literally did not say that (the word "invent" or any derivative did not escape his lips), the fact remains that Gore's statement came as a result of Wolf Blitzer asking him to talk about his accomplishments as a Senator. Therefore, it is disingenuous at best to think that anything Gore was saying should be interpreted as implying that he was pulling all-nighters coding the TCP/IP stack and living on Hot Pockets and Mountain Dew.
He was referring to his work in Congress as a Senator that led to the creation of the internet. And what do Senators in Congress do? They pass laws that provide funding for projects that result in things like the internet.
And, indeed, the High Performance Computing and Communication Act that was the basis for the funding of the project that resulted in the Internet as we know it today is known as the "Gore Act" because he was the one who came up with it. He was the one who was championing it.
That's the point: You cannot possibly understand what the people's right to bear arms means without first recognizing that the entire topic is about how the State is going to defend itself through the use of the militia.
That's why you have a right to have a gun as far as the Second Amendment goes. It isn't for personal protection. It isn't for hunting. It's so that when the State calls you up to defend it, you have something to fight with.
Which is a problem for DC: It isn't a State, though I do admit ignorance about what the "militia" means with regards to US holdings that aren't States such as territories, protectorates, and other insular areas. Given that the reason for the militia is that the US Army and Navy do not have jurisdiction within the United States, I don't know how DC, which is specifically outside of all State jurisdictions, would handle an attack upon itself. I have a vague recollection that it is, indeed, the military who are charged with protecting DC, but I won't swear to that.
If that is the case, then no, you don't have a right to a gun under the Second Amendment in DC: There is no militia for you to serve under there.
But there's more to the right to own a gun than the militia.
quote:
The preamble describes the justification for guaranteeing the right, the rest of it describes to whom the right is guaranteed and describes the substance of the right.
So close. What does the substance mean without the justification? The First Amendment doesn't mention "political speech," and yet somehow "freedom of speech" has been interpreted to mean political speech rather than personal speech. It's why you can make any political statement you want but say something "obscene" and you run into trouble because you weren't being "political" when you said it.
And the reason why the interpretation has gone that way has to do with unstated assumptions about what the term "speech" means.
So if we understand this with regard to the First Amendment, even though that "preamble," as you call it, isn't there, why do we get to ignore it with regard to the Second Amendment when it is explicitly stated that the purpose of the right is with regard to the militia?
quote:
There is nothing inconsistent with recognizing the need for a well trained militia at the ready and guaranteeing to that body the general right to keep and bear arms.
I didn't say there was.
What I said was that the Second Amendment only speaks to the first, not to the second. If you are wondering about the right to have a gun for a reason other than the militia, you're not going to find anything in the Second Amendment to help you.
Thankfully, the Constitution is more than just the Second Amendment.
quote:
I'd be happy to debate the fairly simple matter of parsing the language with you if you disagree, but it would be nice if you could do it without name calling.
And if you can provide an instance of me calling you a name, you might have something there.
Please respond to what I actually say, not what you wish I would say.
quote:
quote:
For the third time: Might there be another part of the Constitution that deals with an individual right to own a gun for something other than the service of the State as part of the militia?
Not that I'm aware of, other than the largely ignored and emasculated Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
So why does the fact that they're ignored make it any less true? I should think that a direct statement that the people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution would have something to bear on the case, wouldn't you?
Clearly the courts understand that an implement can have multiple uses and the fact that one use is illegal doesn't automatically overshadow the legitimate uses. This reasoning was what led to the ability for you to have a video recorder to tape a television program and watch it later. The fact that such a device can be used to circumvent copyright does not negate the right of a person to use it for his own, private use.
So the fact that guns are used in crimes doesn't negate the fact that a gun can be used for things like self-defense and hunting. Ignoring the hunting aspect, I should think that it is well established that the people have a right to self-defense. They even have the right to use deadly force in doing so.
So if the people coming at you are using guns, why would we necessarily tie the hands of the victim?
None of this is Second Amendment. It's all Ninth and Tenth. I certainly agree with you that those two amendments have become the bastard children of the Constitution, but that doesn't make it any less real.
The Second Amendment is about the militia.
That hardly means that's the end of the discussion of what the Constitution has to say about guns.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 12:50 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 9:48 AM Rrhain has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 38 of 176 (475470)
07-16-2008 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ICANT
07-15-2008 8:59 PM


Re: Anti Everything
Are you seriously suggesting that countries with restrictions on weapons are more dangerous.....?
Aren't the intenational murder and gun crime statistics firmly against you regards this?
Should we all just have the right to own a personal thermonuclear device? By your own warped logic the world would be an incredibly safe place if this were the case!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 07-15-2008 8:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 07-16-2008 10:57 AM Straggler has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 39 of 176 (475478)
07-16-2008 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by bluegenes
07-15-2008 7:07 PM


South, and the old south, in lots of ways. It was actually part of Virginia at one time before becoming a state, if my memory serves me right. Although, along with Maryland, it was neutral in the civil war, it was definitely southern in heart and sympathies.
I lived there for three years, a long time ago, and there were a lot of your flags on the cars, etc. So I say south, and I think most old Kentucky families would agree.
thanks for your input. IMHO if your state didn't leave the union, you aren't in the south.
BTW Illinois was once "part of Virginia" Virginia extended all the way to the Mississippi River.
confederate naval battle flags are in southern Illinois (the land of Lincoln) as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by bluegenes, posted 07-15-2008 7:07 PM bluegenes has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 40 of 176 (475480)
07-16-2008 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Rrhain
07-16-2008 1:28 AM


quote:
And if you can provide an instance of me calling you a name, you might have something there.
Please respond to what I actually say, not what you wish I would say.
dis·in·gen·u·ous /‘dsnd’nyus/
-adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.
I take no offense at anyone disagreeing with me. In this particular instance, I wouldn't even mind if you said my conclusion was illconsidered. I as much as announced the fact that it was at the beginning of my post. But there was nothing insincere, false or hypocritical about what I said.
Please don't use big words if you don't know what they mean.
As soon as you indicate you're done being snarky, I'll continue this conversation. Until then, this issue's just not important enough to me to put up with it.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 07-16-2008 1:28 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2008 6:13 PM subbie has not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 41 of 176 (475483)
07-16-2008 10:42 AM


The only thing I would be intolerant of is intolerance. Intolerance in the form of violence against those whose views you oppose is an absolute recipe for disaster. The biggest barrier to peace and the greatest threat to genuine freedom that there can be.
you mean the Ghandi method over the American, or South African (Umkhonto we Sizwe) method?
Sorry but this country was founded on violence against "those with different views you oppose". Im not so sure any colonial empire from western europe wasn't created the same way.
and so was south africa, i guess violence against aparthied was a total disaster. I guess the non-whites in south africa should have continued thier peaceful resistence in the face of beatings, rape, and murder. IMO, with that attitude, thier would stiil be aparthied in south africa today.
Why do you think that there is such strongly felt opposition to Americans (in particular "Bush friendly" Americans) in Western nations that are allies of the US and with which there is fundamentally much culture and belief in common. What is it that inspires these feelings in your view?
general ignorace of the mass of population. liberal propaganda, maybe a combination of both. maybe its our desire to remain seperate from the socialist global government agenda. the way of thinking that facilitates a creation of an economic and governing body like the European Union, is something that we cannot allow. we are not that common, because we have a similar language, and may have evolved from the same base, does not make a common. one of us is a horse and the other is a donkey.
Just to get back sort of on topic - Aren't homicide rates, and gun related homicide rates in particular, higher in the US than in any other Western country? Are not the gun related homicide rates in Southern states amongst the highest in the US?
maybe, its hard to tell, since stats are not all that reliable. for arguemnt say we are.
i cannot answer that honestly without being called a racist.
It carries down. More "liberal" areas have less crime than more "conservative" areas. In fact, more "liberal" areas tend to be better on standards of living from crime, divorce, education, teen pregnancy, obesity, etc.
why dont you be a little more "specific". i am still taking about cities, and in that case you are still wrong. but i see that you are trying to be very vague and general in where you are talking, and as to what you call "liberal" and "conservative" (as im sure our defintions are not even close to each other). i would love to discuss this with you, but im not falling into that trap.
If you expect others to be tolerant of you, then you have to be tolerant of them in return. I seem to recall a certain president's "favorite philosopher" saying something like that...doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and all that.
I dont expect that. my only exception is that here in this medium i expect some common an rather undefined things. like trying to refrain from ad hominem, logical fallicies, and try to be civil. i like that everyone doesn't agree with me.
" never learned from a man who agreed with me. " Robert A. Heinlein
How is it that so many other countries such as the UK have extremely tight gun control and don't have any of these problems you mention?
i cannot answer that honestly without being called a racist.
What part of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is irrelevant to the meaning of the Second Amendment?
i think that was an example of use.
it sure wasn't mandating a militia or saying guns were only for the militia. I would think federalists (Washington, Adams, Hamilton) may see it that way, but there where strong anti-federalists (Jefferson, Burr, Mason, Henry) with republican virtues present. I see it as a compromise between the two ideologies.
Are you seriously suggesting that countries with restrictions on weapons are more dangerous.....?
yes. definately more dangerous to thier own people. dangerous to others, possibly. to us its about the danger of the government, something we learn 1st hand from George III and his government.
Aren't the intenational murder and gun crime statistics firmly against you regards this?
if that is how you wish to look at it. obviously we see things differently though. the majority of gun crimes exist because there are so many gun laws. less laws = less law breaking = less crime. high murder rate is an urban issue, we have already talked about urban america vs. rural america. of course you feel the rural is more dangerous even though there is less murder, even less murder by ratio of population. I dont know how to debate with you when you switch sides so often. you say the cities with the high murder are safer, then on the next page you use the "safer" murder capitals to argue for another point you are trying to make.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : errors
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : typos

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by steeley42, posted 07-16-2008 9:58 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 42 of 176 (475489)
07-16-2008 10:56 AM


I'd just like to point out that Deftil from Virginia is in no associated with Artemis from Virginia, and Artemis isn't representative of Virginians or most Americans either.
yes im not from virginia. i have only lived here two months, but it is my location.
I think most of the people from across the pond are great.
loyalist (sarcasm)

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 43 of 176 (475490)
07-16-2008 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Straggler
07-16-2008 9:00 AM


Re: Anti Everything
Straggler writes:
Are you seriously suggesting that countries with restrictions on weapons are more dangerous.....?
Yes.
Jamaica tops the list. If I am not mistaken England disarmed the public for their own protection.
That experiment proves gun ownership has nothing to do with violent crime's.
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Confirms that Reducing Gun Ownership by Law-Abiding Citizens Does Nothing to Reduce Violence Worldwide
There is a nice article Here.
You might be interested in this little tidbit.
Citing England, for instance, they reveal that "when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime." By the late 1990s, however, "England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns." As a result, "by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States."
Straggler writes:
Aren't the intenational murder and gun crime statistics firmly against you regards this?
Depends on whose report's you go by.
Straggler writes:
Should we all just have the right to own a personal thermonuclear device?
What does thermonuclear device's have to do with owning a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle?
You need to quit putting lemon in your tea.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 07-16-2008 9:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 07-16-2008 5:42 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 44 of 176 (475493)
07-16-2008 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Rrhain
07-15-2008 11:46 PM


Re-Control
Rrhain writes:
You can't think of a more significant reason why the political dissidents were rounded up and killed other than gun control? Are you seriously claiming that the exterminations wouldn't have happened otherwise?
Them not having guns sure made it a lot easier for the government.
It might have happened but the price would have been a lot higher for the government.
The people would have died fighting instead of in gas chambers and before firing squad's, etc.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Rrhain, posted 07-15-2008 11:46 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2008 6:33 PM ICANT has not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 45 of 176 (475499)
07-16-2008 11:53 AM


Please don't use big words if you don't know what they mean.
hahaha, BUSTED!
As soon as you indicate you're done being snarky, I'll continue this conversation. Until then, this issue's just not important enough to me to put up with it.
wow you have me agreeing with subbie on this one. I think all he does is make snarky comments. he takes me out of contet most of the time. I think i have a liberal troll to play with. though i will continue, this d00d is too much fun.

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 5:20 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024