Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,217 Year: 5,474/9,624 Month: 499/323 Week: 139/204 Day: 9/4 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 126 of 5179 (684143)
12-16-2012 12:30 AM


School shootings are easy to eliminate.
No schools with more than one classroom per grade level. No schools with more than 250 students. No towns with more than 5,000 people.
Problem solved.

Love your enemies!

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 5179 (684193)
12-16-2012 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2012 6:02 AM


Re: Second Amendment
Whatever the intentions of the Founders, I don't think the evidence of what they deliberately decided not to do can have evidential value except in the negative
I don't think this holds. Whenever we look at the originally-proposed versions of early parts of the Constitution, they are always clear, specific, and inline with the mindset we'd expect from post-revolutionaries.
The versions that end up in the actual document, however, are always the distilled trash we'd expect as the byproduct of political haggling. If we are looking for intentnot sure why we are, but if we are, the final version is really not the place to look.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2012 6:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 12:50 PM Jon has replied
 Message 271 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 12:13 PM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 5179 (684203)
12-16-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 12:50 PM


Re: Second Amendment
The mindset of the original drafter is not really of ultimate importance if the original drafter could not get his peers to go along with his idea, or if it was clear that the states would not ratify the draft as originally penned.
But that's not what Dr. A said. Dr. A said:
quote:
Dr. A in Message 135:
... if they considered saying that, and ultimately decided not to say that, it's probably not what they wanted to say.
I don't reject your position entirely. Some modifications to the original draft are mere wordsmithing. But quite often, and in particularly in the case of the first and second amendments, it is pretty clear that not all of the intent of the original drafter survived the early parts of the drafting process once the drafter's fellow Congressman got hold of the text.
I quite frankly don't give a rat's ass what the intentions were of anyone. The document we have is the document we have.
But to say that the document we have accurately represents the intentions of its writers is just bullshit. There are a lot of intentions left out of the final version, and this is only all too obvious given the records of ideas as proposed checked against the record of ideas as adopted (the Constitution we have).
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 12:50 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 2:24 PM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 183 of 5179 (684232)
12-16-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 2:24 PM


Re: Second Amendment
What you say simply means that the document does not reflect the intention of the original drafter. When we refer to the writers, we mean more than just the original drafter.
Too funny. A drafter writes and a writer drafts. Your argument is bullshit.
A secondary issue is that we have amended the constitution many times since the Bill of Rights was enacted.
Again too funny. How many times has the second amendment been changed since originally being adopted?
Dr. A is perfectly correct to refer to the intention of the writers and not just the original drafter as you do here.
And that isn't what he is referring to. Have you even read his post? I give Dr. A more credit than to assume he is making the pointless and evasive distinction between a writer and a drafter.
Have some Christmas spirit...
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 2:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 8:52 PM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(2)
(1)
Message 185 of 5179 (684235)
12-16-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Tangle
12-16-2012 7:32 PM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Many countries have legislated strongly against guns. The USA can too. Open your eyes.
Why is anyone even bothering to reply to you?
You are clearly so damned ignorant of the workings of even the most basic aspects of the U.S. legal system that your comments on its ability to control gun ownership are just pointless hogwash.
Get a clue. Then come back and lay out a realistic plan whereby the U.S. could actually enact the kind of gun 'control' found in these other countries whose gun restrictions you so worship.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2012 7:32 PM Tangle has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 5179 (684252)
12-16-2012 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 8:52 PM


Re: Second Amendment
My argument is that ...
My replies were to Dr. A. Your argument doesn't matter.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 8:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 9:56 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 541 of 5179 (684847)
12-18-2012 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Theodoric
12-17-2012 10:09 AM


Re: Removal of Constitutional rights
1st Amendment
We now have first amendment zones in this country
4th Amendment
Slowly been chipped away for years, but the Patriot Act completely eviscerated this amendment. All that needs to be made is a claim of national Security and law enforcement has very few limits on searches.
National Security Letters
Current laws do not adhere to the 4th amendment.
I for one think the way free speech is handled in this country is a down-right disgusting slap in the face to all the people who fought and died to free the fledgling colonies from their British king.
And the Patriot Act is not only unconstitutional, but immoral; it is also one of the great examples of why a citizen's right to bear arms is so importantto recoil against encroaching tyranny.
And you might have known these things about some of the 'American people at large' if you weren't quite so busy arguing against positions no one has taken...
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 10:09 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by Panda, posted 12-18-2012 11:19 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 544 by NoNukes, posted 12-18-2012 11:26 PM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1011 of 5179 (686250)
12-30-2012 12:12 PM


What Matters Here Matters Not
This thread has suffered from an artificially maintained irrelevance for quite some time now:
quote:
Percy in Message 571 (emphasis added):
I thought I'd clarify the topic just a little bit, since my opening post was a bit terse.
I wanted to discuss how or if we can reduce gun deaths in the US.
Is there really anyone in this world that concerned with how they get murdered? I'll be no happier the day I am stabbed to death simply knowing that I wasn't shot instead.
Pushed from a tall building? Nothing comforting there just because it didn't involve a pistol.
Neglected in a nursing home? Small comfort that the nurses aren't armed.
If we want to give this thread some meaningful new direction, how about we talk about the effect of gun ownership on overall violent crime in generalyou know, the stuff that actually matters?
Even worse, relevant alternatives to gun control for reducing violent crime have also been ruled out:
quote:
Percy in Message 571:
But single motherhood's and welfare's impact on crime is clearly not part of the topic.
What gives here? To point out that violent crime is more than just 'gun deaths' appears off-topic. To point out all the alternatives to reducing violent crime that don't involve disarming the populace is also 'off-topic'.
So what the hell is on topic, then? Well, apparently it's only the discussions and evidence that favor a predetermined mind set and point of view, all else being banned.
If we want to give this thread some new life, we could start by bringing in some relevant topics for discussion and pushing down these silly artificial walls against meaningful worldly-relevant examples and evidence.
Or we could let it die...

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 1012 by Faith, posted 12-30-2012 1:29 PM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 1213 of 5179 (686904)
01-05-2013 8:55 AM


I think it is pretty obvious that the 'reducing gun ownership will reduce homicides' crowd is well aware that they are treating symptoms instead of underlying causes.
But it is equally obvious that they don't care, and have such high and irrational fears of guns that they will attempt to infringe upon/ignore the plain-as-day right of the people to keep and bear arms at any cost.
I see no reason to keep beating my head; Crash: save your breath; these sheep be lost.

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 1214 by Tangle, posted 01-05-2013 9:20 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 1215 by Percy, posted 01-05-2013 9:27 AM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1221 of 5179 (686922)
01-05-2013 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1215 by Percy
01-05-2013 9:27 AM


You don't state why you believe guns are a symptom rather than a contributing cause of the high gun death rate in the US, but those in favor of reducing gun prevalence believe high gun ownership rates are a contributing cause to high gun death rates, not a symptom.
I've stated several times that I have no interest in discussing this matter with people who want only to focus on gun deaths.
When you're ready to discuss things that matter, give my post another reply and we can talk.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1215 by Percy, posted 01-05-2013 9:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1222 by Tangle, posted 01-05-2013 12:17 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1226 of 5179 (686940)
01-05-2013 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1223 by Percy
01-05-2013 1:52 PM


Just to add my 2 cents, if he's saying he wants to talk about non-gun deaths, since in this thread the topic is gun control it doesn't seem like the right place for that discussion.
As I said a while back, you have done nothing but create an environment in which only evidence that supports your position can be considered, because all other evidence is 'off topic', despite its obvious relevance to the issue of gun control's effectiveness.
Which reminds me of why I stopped posting in this thread in the first place...
Have a nice day.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1223 by Percy, posted 01-05-2013 1:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1228 by Percy, posted 01-05-2013 7:21 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1653 of 5179 (690098)
02-08-2013 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1631 by saab93f
02-08-2013 3:07 AM


Re: Yet another "isolated" incident
As nave it is to say
Nave

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1631 by saab93f, posted 02-08-2013 3:07 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1654 by saab93f, posted 02-09-2013 4:40 AM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 1993 of 5179 (693016)
03-09-2013 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1992 by NoNukes
03-09-2013 1:43 PM


Re: Nancy has a bill before Congress right now....
Registration obviously simplifies confiscation. It's hard to confiscate something you don't even know exists.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1992 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2013 1:43 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1994 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2013 4:51 PM Jon has replied
 Message 1995 by Eli, posted 03-09-2013 4:56 PM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 1996 of 5179 (693021)
03-09-2013 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1995 by Eli
03-09-2013 4:56 PM


Re: Nancy has a bill before Congress right now....
It is about setting a precedent for others to follow for the safety of all. Just like insurancing your car.
Interestingly, car insurance doesn't make anyone safer.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1995 by Eli, posted 03-09-2013 4:56 PM Eli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1998 by Eli, posted 03-09-2013 5:24 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 2004 by Omnivorous, posted 03-09-2013 10:04 PM Jon has replied
 Message 2007 by kofh2u, posted 03-10-2013 1:49 PM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1997 of 5179 (693022)
03-09-2013 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1994 by NoNukes
03-09-2013 4:51 PM


Re: Nancy has a bill before Congress right now....
The fear of confiscation is pure gun nut fantasy.
Because history has shown us that governments never confiscate guns; obviously...

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1994 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2013 4:51 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1999 by Theodoric, posted 03-09-2013 5:28 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 2017 by Theodoric, posted 03-11-2013 11:53 PM Jon 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