Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 91 of 176 (475822)
07-18-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
07-18-2008 1:41 PM


Re:What I Don't Know
Dr Adequate writes:
Overall, the BCS puts the fall in crime at 6% during 2007, with violent crime also down 6%, and significant falls in car crime and vandalism.
If you don't mind I will wait until the yearly results are in. The report you refer to sounds like a politician running for office.
The last six months of 06 and the first six months of 07 it seems
Vandalism was up 10%. Violent crime up 5% Drug offences up 9% and all BCS crime up 3%.
Levels of crime have remained stable in England and Wales over the last 12 months, Home Office figures show.
Here
But if the UK has evolved so much, why did they start the Armed Response Units in 1992?
Better yet why do they still have them?
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 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2008 1:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2008 3:16 PM ICANT has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 176 (475823)
07-18-2008 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
07-18-2008 2:42 PM


Re: Re:What I Don't Know
If you don't mind I will wait until the yearly results are in.
How will what happens in the future have any bearing on your statements about what is happening now?
The report you refer to sounds like a politician running for office.
And it isn't, good heavens, you're wrong again.
Let's quote this again:
The British Crime Survey, which is based on a survey of 40,000 people's experience of crime, confirms this, with the risk of being a crime victim falling to 23% - the lowest since the survey began in 1981.
That does kinda suggest a downward trend, does it not?
The last six months of 06 and the first six months of 07 it seems
Vandalism was up 10%. Violent crime up 5% Drug offences up 9% and all BCS crime up 3%.
And now the figures are falling.
But if the UK has evolved so much, why did they start the Armed Response Units in 1992?
Better yet why do they still have them?
What a strange non sequitur.
We have armed response units because it is best for the police who use firearms to be thoroughly trained in their use, is there any other aspect of the bleedin' obvious you don't understand?
We've had specialized firearms officers for ages, I don't know where you're getting this "1992" stuff from, apart from your fertile imagination.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2008 2:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2008 9:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 93 of 176 (475839)
07-18-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
07-18-2008 3:16 PM


Re: Re:What I Don't Know
Dr Adequate writes:
We've had specialized firearms officers for ages, I don't know where you're getting this "1992" stuff from, apart from your fertile imagination.
I am truly sorry I misinformed you as my 69 year old memory is failing me these days.
So I missed it by a year can you forgive me?
You will find the information Here
The Metropolitan Police Service first introduced 'Armed Response Vehicles' to the streets of London in 1991.
These vehicles are crewed by uniformed officers who have been selected and trained to stabilise and control armed incidents, stop and search suspects, their vehicles and to search premises for armed suspects.
Dr Adequate writes:
The British Crime Survey, which is based on a survey of 40,000 people's experience of crime, confirms this, with the risk of being a crime victim falling to 23% - the lowest since the survey began in 1981.
That does kinda suggest a downward trend, does it not?
It does suggest that they believe what the media is telling them.
I notice you did not refute the crime stats I presented. Here
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 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2008 3:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 07-19-2008 3:43 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2008 9:11 AM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 94 of 176 (475851)
07-19-2008 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
07-18-2008 2:05 PM


Re: Anti Everything
At the present we have over 20 million people in the US illegally.
We have a bunch of bleeding hearts that won't send them home. If you think I am giving up my weapons you got another think coming.
God Bless,
I do have to ask... how many of the 20 million do you think you can personally kill? Being a pastor, I would hope that you'd merely shoot them in the leg, but I guess that would sort of stop them making their way back home, so I can see the argument that death would be the more obvious solution.
When you raise the gun at someone, do you see Jesus standing there beside you, raising his as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2008 2:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 07-19-2008 10:09 AM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 95 of 176 (475852)
07-19-2008 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
07-18-2008 9:53 PM


Re: Re:What I Don't Know
It does suggest that they believe what the media is telling them.
Again, perhaps in 700 years or so you might just have a press that actually isn't scared of its own government
The press have been scaremongering crime for all time - as one BBC journalist asked the other day, when the latest figures were released (paraphrase from memory) "so do you think we the press have been responsible for making the public believe that crime has been increasing when in fact it has been decreasing?" related link here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2008 9:53 PM ICANT has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 176 (475860)
07-19-2008 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
07-18-2008 9:53 PM


Re: Re:What I Don't Know
I am truly sorry I misinformed you as my 69 year old memory is failing me these days.
So I missed it by a year can you forgive me?
That is talking about the new vehicles they brought in. We have had firearms units for much, much longer.
It does suggest that they believe what the media is telling them.
It suggests that who is believing what the media tells them?
The survey is produced by asking people whether they have been crime victims. Did the people who answered "no" do so because "the media" told them to?
I notice you did not refute the crime stats I presented.
And I notice that the statistics you presented do not confirm your claim that "the crooks are getting more plentiful in UK".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2008 9:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 07-19-2008 10:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 97 of 176 (475868)
07-19-2008 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by cavediver
07-19-2008 3:36 AM


Re: Anti Everything
cavediver writes:
When you raise the gun at someone, do you see Jesus standing there beside you, raising his as well?
The only time I ever pointed a gun at a person the gun belonged to that person. Which he had pointed at me. I was in special services in the Army.
I hope I never have to raise a gun at a human being. But rest assured if I do I have no problems with using it. If my life or the life of one of mine is in danger.
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 94 by cavediver, posted 07-19-2008 3:36 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2008 10:24 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 98 of 176 (475870)
07-19-2008 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
07-19-2008 10:09 AM


Re: Anti Everything
I hope I never have to raise a gun at a human being. But rest assured if I do I have no problems with using it. If my life or the life of one of mine is in danger.
And your life and the lives of your loved ones is statistically and obviously much more likely to be in such danger in the gun wielding US than the non-gun friendly UK. The very obvious link to danger here is the prevalence of, and attitude to, guns.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 07-19-2008 10:09 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 99 of 176 (475871)
07-19-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2008 9:11 AM


Re: Re:What I Don't Know
Dr Adequate writes:
That is talking about the new vehicles they brought in. We have had firearms units for much, much longer.
It said introduced to the streets.
That means they had not been on the streets before that time.
Dr Adequate writes:
The survey is produced by asking people whether they have been crime victims. Did the people who answered "no" do so because "the media" told them to?
Apparently you have never done a survey. You can get any answer you want by the way you ask the question.
Dr. Adequate writes:
And I notice that the statistics you presented do not confirm your claim that "the crooks are getting more plentiful in UK".
According to the stats for 06-07 crime was up 3% over 05-06.
With the link cavediver provided the figures for 07-08 shows a 8% decrease over 06-07.
That is great only problem is drug crimes were up 17% that does not look good for the future. But I hope the police are able to control the drug crime.
That is one of our biggest problems people steal, rob, and kill to be able to get drugs. Then we have our drug gangs that war with each other. Then we have the police trying to control the drugs and drug dealers.
I not giving up my weapons.
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 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2008 9:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2008 10:41 AM ICANT has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 176 (475873)
07-19-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by ICANT
07-19-2008 10:29 AM


Re: Re:What I Don't Know
It said introduced to the streets.
That means they had not been on the streets before that time.
It is talking about the ve-hi-cles.
Do you suppose that until the introduction of these vehicles our firearms units spent all their time in police stations?
Apparently you have never done a survey. You can get any answer you want by the way you ask the question.
What has this statement got to do with (a) the survey that was actually carried out (b) the year on year differences in the results of the survey (c) your fantasies about "the media"?
According to the stats for 06-07 crime was up 3% over 05-06.
With the link cavediver provided the figures for 07-08 shows a 8% decrease over 06-07.
So, we don't have "more crooks".
That is great only problem is drug crimes were up 17% that does not look good for the future.
As you can see from the article I cited, this is because police are now issuing more warnings for the possession of cannabis, not because of an increase in the posession of cannabis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 07-19-2008 10:29 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 101 of 176 (475874)
07-19-2008 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by ICANT
07-18-2008 12:01 PM


Re: Anti Everything
I do not know what ARU was so I typed "London ARU" into google and got a load of links to architecture and art websites. Obviously not a common term here.
Ah I see. Armoured response Unit. In other words a set of highly trained police officers that do have fire-arms but which are only called upon to respond when there is the fairly rare threat of a criminal actually using a fire-arm.
Eminently sensible and pragmatic without compromising the basic principle of not arming the general police in my view.
Hardly the same as an armed police force is it......?
Straggler there are about 25 other countries with worse murder rates than the US. Depending on whose charts you choose to believe. Many have tight gun controls.
Such as? Are any of them 1st world democracies? That would seem to be the most relevant comparison to make given that the US is the richest, and supposedly one of the freest, countries in the world. Especially given that poverty and crime are almost invariably linked.
I truly hope that your government never becomes corrupt. We know the crooks are getting more plentiful in UK. What would you do if it got to the point the police was just as corrupt as the crooks and you could not even tell them apart except for the uniform.
What recourse would you have.
I am far from convinced that the crooks are "getting more plentiful". But anyway......
The best answer to this is to invest in the the police force properly.
Street level corruption invariably occurs where the level of public financing is such that the police are woefully under invested in (as I would imagine is the case in Jamaica).
I have met many good British police officers. I have also met some bigoted power tripping wankers who are part of the British police force. However I have yet to hear of any police officer 'on the take' and I do know many of my local community who, shall we say, are 'on the fringe of the law'.
Also the idea that we are all going to triumph over the the state run militia and law enforcement in the event of a military coup or some such thing if we all own a pistol is a fantasy from the world of John Wayne (or wherever)
The best way to make such a scenario impossible is through the systems of freedom and democracy. Via both the national and international bodies.
Do you really believe that the US government is going to start laying siege to your town anytime soon?
I lived in Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands for a total of 15 years. It has a British Governor. One of which was a good friend. No gun's are ammunition are allowed on the island except at the police sponsored shoot club. All weapons that individuals own are kept by the police. The last year I was there they had a shoot out in the emergency room at the hospital. Between a man who had gone there to kill his wife, and the police.
And what.....?
Do deranged psychos with guns never go on murderous rampages in the US because you all own guns? Quite the opposite seems to be the case........ You guys have had plenty of such incidents. If anything because of the easy access to guns.
And if Hell does not exist that would make it just that much harder to freeze over.
Whether we actually believe in heaven or not wouldn't it be better to aim for a system that is closest to heaven rather than a system designed to not let hell get any worse? Does everyone in heaven own a gun..........?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2008 12:01 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 102 of 176 (475906)
07-19-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by subbie
07-16-2008 9:48 AM


subbie responds to me:
quote:
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.

Two problems here. First, let's deal with the details:
Let's not play the creationist's game of pretending one dictionary definition is the sole meaning. That would be disingenuous.
dis·in·gen·u·ous (ds'n-jn'y-s)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
What part of "calculating" is inappropriate? Yours and Scalia's argument is to approach the subject backwards: To argue about the "operative" clause (to use Scalia's words) before examining the "prefatory" clause. In doing so, you build up so much momentum regarding "the people," that you expect you can just roll over the "preamble" (to use your words) that indicate that the amendment isn't talking about that.
As I said...it seems you think the Second Amendment begins with an ellipsis. There's a reason that the NRA prints the Second Amendment that way...and I mean that literally. In their literature, they hardly ever quote the militia reference. It always begins with an ellipsis.
How are we to deal with the fact that you avoided discussing the "preamble" (to use your words). You know it's there, you know that that is the point I am focusing upon, but you skip it to keep banging on the words "the people" as if that's the only thing the amendment has to say on the subject.
Calculating, not straightforward, not candid, pretending to be unaware.
Why is it "disingenuous" doesn't apply?
quote:
Please don't use big words if you don't know what they mean.
Physician, heal thyself!
Now for the second part: Pointing out something as "disingenuous" is not calling someone a name.
And the fact that you ignored 95% of the post to focus on two sentences would seem to indicate that I was correct in describing your argument as disingenuous. If you don't wish to defend your argument, that's fine. But don't pretend that it's because I'm insulting you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 9:48 AM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-20-2008 6:59 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 103 of 176 (475911)
07-19-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ICANT
07-16-2008 11:24 AM


Re: Re-Control
ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Them not having guns sure made it a lot easier for the government.
Right...because they were clearly in a position to provide resistance. They were organized, had significant provisions, support of neighboring groups, etc. The only thing that was lacking and would have tipped the tide was guns. That they had just gone through a devastating war could have been countered if they had just had guns. That the world was going through an economic crisis could have easily been overcome if they had just had guns.
quote:
The people would have died fighting instead of in gas chambers and before firing squad's, etc.
Nazis? You're comparing the United States to Nazi Germany? So what does that make the UK?

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 44 by ICANT, posted 07-16-2008 11:24 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 104 of 176 (475912)
07-19-2008 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2008 7:43 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Of course, this violent obsession doesn't come by the gun, but by Hollywood's glorification of violence.
Right...because before the 1900s and the development of movies, there was no violence to speak of.
This is the same argument that was made 50 years ago with respect to comic books. If it was a crap argument then, what makes it legitimate now? Or are you saying that comic books cause violence, too?

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 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2008 7:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-20-2008 1:53 PM Rrhain has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 105 of 176 (475959)
07-20-2008 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Rrhain
07-19-2008 6:13 PM


And the fact that you ignored 95% of the post to focus on two sentences would seem to indicate that I was correct in describing your argument as disingenuous. If you don't wish to defend your argument, that's fine. But don't pretend that it's because I'm insulting you.
he probably learned that from you, you are the professional at this.
To my fellow liberty loving americans:
1. why even argue with these brits about this issue? this is our business, our country, our issue. anything they are saying about it is trollbait as far as i am concerned.
2. the second amendment is a response by our ancestors to thier ancestors, after reading thier dribble on the past two pages it is so obvious that the founding fathers knew so much about the british back then that so adequately applies to british today.
3. we are free independent citizens, they are still subjects to a crown. I cannot even begin to fathom the idea of a monarchy, that's how free i am.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : nope

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2008 6:13 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by cavediver, posted 07-20-2008 8:23 AM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2008 1:14 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 118 by Rrhain, posted 07-21-2008 12:37 AM 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