Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 121 of 176 (476096)
07-21-2008 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2008 3:36 AM


Personally, I would like more guns about. I'd like to carry one myself and assume the man next to me also has one. I bet that all these assholes I bump into on the streets of St Louis would be far more cordial if they thought I was packing. That they "know" that I'm not yields all sorts of assholishness that I bump into everyday (well, maybe not everyday, but all the days that I do go downtown. I mean, no body ever says "excuse me" anymore. No simple "hellos", nothing but a bunch of assholes bumping into each other without remark. It sucks ass. Nobody is friendly and it really "grinds my gears" [thanks Peter Griffen]. I honestly believe that if all of the law abiding citizens were "packing", then those assholes would be less assholish. Its that fact that we really cannot do anything about it, that permits the behavior. Now, having a gun on your hip doesn't mean you could actually "do anything" about it. Their use is strictly regulated. But it certainly, to me, makes people more friendly to each other. No talking shit or failing to excuse thyself would not be "acceptable" and people would be more cordial.)
Gotta say, CS, that has to be one of the scariest paragraphs I have ever read on EvC
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2008 3:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2008 12:02 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 122 of 176 (476111)
07-21-2008 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2008 3:36 AM


Re-Weapons
Catholic Scientist writes:
The NRA, while being a tax law, defines the categories on what is and is not a "firearm".
You did mean the NFA National Firearms Act did you not.
Rather than the NRA National Rifle Association.
Nice rant.
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 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2008 3:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2008 12:02 PM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 176 (476131)
07-21-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by cavediver
07-21-2008 4:32 AM


Gotta say, CS, that has to be one of the scariest paragraphs I have ever read on EvC
Come to St. Louis and walk around with me for a while. That'll give you a benchmark with which to judge scary-ness. You might even want to have a gun afterwards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2008 4:32 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by anglagard, posted 07-22-2008 2:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 176 (476132)
07-21-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
07-21-2008 8:26 AM


Re: Re-Weapons
Catholic Scientist writes:
The NRA, while being a tax law, defines the categories on what is and is not a "firearm".
You did mean the NFA National Firearms Act did you not.
Rather than the NRA National Rifle Association.
Yep. Whoops. I'll edit that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2008 8:26 AM ICANT has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 176 (476160)
07-21-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Rrhain
07-21-2008 12:48 AM


Disarmament
you targeted Hollywood. Let's not play dumb as to why.
My use of "Hollywood" extends to the entertainment industry as a whole. Video games, movies, television, etc could all fall within that category. I suppose it is a good case for asking whether the entertainment industry receives its inspiration from society, or if the entertainment industry seduces society to act a certain way.
quote:
:Should all guns be outlawed in the United States?
If you would bother to read my posts, you'd know my position.
A yes or no answer would be a whole lot easier than me reading pages of posts.
When are you going to do your own homework?
I will take it as a classic dodge and assume that, yes, you want the United States unarmed effective immediately.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 07-21-2008 12:48 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2008 2:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 126 of 176 (476216)
07-22-2008 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2008 12:02 PM


CS writes:
Come to St. Louis and walk around with me for a while. That'll give you a benchmark with which to judge scary-ness. You might even want to have a gun afterwards.
How weird. When due to business I walk around downtown Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, the 4th, 6th, and 8th largest cities in the US, each one full of over a million supposedly crazy Texans, I am surprised by how friendly and accommodating almost all people are in such urban centers.
Is Saint Louis a hellhole or are you wandering around at 3 am?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2008 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2008 8:25 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2008 11:26 AM anglagard has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 176 (476313)
07-22-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by anglagard
07-22-2008 2:35 AM


Gun laws
How weird. When due to business I walk around downtown Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, the 4th, 6th, and 8th largest cities in the US, each one full of over a million supposedly crazy Texans, I am surprised by how friendly and accommodating almost all people are in such urban centers.
While I would agree that Texans have a bad rap; they mostly are very generous and accommodating people, that still does nothing to detract from the ones that would kill you over even the most innocent glance.
It's a pretty simple argument, really. Criminals, by definition, are people who either don't follow the law, or break them altogether. Quaint little laws won't dissuade them greatly if they sense they can get away with it. Bad guys don't play by the rules, which is partly what makes them bad in the first place. Bad guys get guns anyway, regardless. A ban only hurts law-abiding citizens.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by anglagard, posted 07-22-2008 2:35 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 9:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 133 by anglagard, posted 07-22-2008 10:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

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


Message 128 of 176 (476316)
07-22-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
07-22-2008 8:25 PM


Re: Gun laws
Bad guys don't play by the rules, which is partly what makes them bad in the first place. Bad guys get guns anyway, regardless. A ban only hurts law-abiding citizens.
There is a slight flaw in this argument, which is this.
If you have a society (such as my own) in which only bad guys, plus the police and the Army, own guns, then you can use possession of a gun as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.
Of course, you don't have to follow this example. But here are a few more suggestions.
If you have a society in which only bad guys plus the police and the Army and licensed gun-owners own guns, then you can use possession of an unlicensed gun as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.
Or if you have a society in which only bad guys plus the police and the Army and licensed gun-owners who have to do a course on gun safety before they get their license own guns, then you can use possession of an unlicensed gun as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.
Or if you have a society in which only bad guys plus the police and the Army and licensed gun-owners who have to do a course on gun safety before they get their license and who have to use chemically marked ammunition own guns, then you can use possession of an unlicensed gun or unfingerprinted ammunition as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.
And so forth. Which brings me on to my second argument, which is that only the first of these propositions involves repealing the Second Amendment. The rest of them don't really infringe on personal liberty any more that the legal requirement that if you drive a car you have to have passed a driving test; and the car needs to show numberplates; and you can't drive if you've been found DUI a few times, and so on.
---
Of course, as has been pointed out, America is not my country, but these are my thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2008 8:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2008 9:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 136 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-23-2008 8:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 129 of 176 (476318)
07-22-2008 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2008 9:09 PM


Re: Gun laws
Dr Adequate writes:
Of course, as has been pointed out, America is not my country, but these are my thoughts.
Let me add something for you to think about.
There are over 20 million people in the US that has served in the military that have weapons, of which I am one. These men are highly trained. Some snipers, some riflemen, some armored infantry and all branches of service. Our country is in much better shape if we were attacked with weapons in those hands.
Just food for thought.
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 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 9:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 9:40 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 9:46 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 130 of 176 (476322)
07-22-2008 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ICANT
07-22-2008 9:28 PM


Re: Gun laws
There are over 20 million people in the US that has served in the military that have weapons, of which I am one. These men are highly trained. Some snipers, some riflemen, some armored infantry and all branches of service. Our country is in much better shape if we were attacked with weapons in those hands.
I'm not sure that I follow you. Is your point that the U.S. would do better if it came to guerilla warfare against an invader under your present laws than if you didn't have ex-servicemen with guns?
Here's a thought: why not break out the guns when the invasion actually happens, and distribute them to ex-servicemen?
But it's not going to happen, is it? 'Cos it's actually your regular armed services that keep you safe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2008 9:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2008 10:04 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 131 of 176 (476323)
07-22-2008 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ICANT
07-22-2008 9:28 PM


Answer #2
You haven't really argued with my point. 'Cos such concepts as firearm safety, not letting felons have guns, chemical fingerprinting of ammunition, and so forth, don't prevent a guerilla uprising against an invader, do they?
All you need to do is to trash every database the moment the Chinese arrive as your new overlords, and there's no harm done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2008 9:28 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 132 of 176 (476324)
07-22-2008 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2008 9:40 PM


Re: Gun laws
Dr Adequate writes:
But it's not going to happen, is it? 'Cos it's actually your regular armed services that keep you safe.
Actually a lot of those people who have been in Iraq over the last 2 or 3 years were exservice men called up to active duty.
But it is not going to happen because that 20 million is not going to give their weapons up.
Dr Adequate writes:
Here's a thought: why not break out the guns when the invasion actually happens, and distribute them to ex-servicemen?
That would probably take a couple of months according to how our government worked during huricane katrina.
You see the UK is only about 3% of the land mass of the continental US.
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 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 9:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 133 of 176 (476325)
07-22-2008 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
07-22-2008 8:25 PM


Re: Gun laws
NJ writes:
While I would agree that Texans have a bad rap; they mostly are very generous and accommodating people, that still does nothing to detract from the ones that would kill you over even the most innocent glance.
It's a pretty simple argument, really. Criminals, by definition, are people who either don't follow the law, or break them altogether. Quaint little laws won't dissuade them greatly if they sense they can get away with it. Bad guys don't play by the rules, which is partly what makes them bad in the first place. Bad guys get guns anyway, regardless. A ban only hurts law-abiding citizens.
Sheesh NJ, you are already lecturing me on the error of my ways before I even stated any position.
You obviously don't know me very well. I grew up with guns and had that little medal that said expert when I was in the army. I still have guns in the house, two pistols and a rifle.
I was avoiding this argument because I think each side has an excellent point that does not translate across the Atlantic. The UK ways work great, for the UK. The US ways are the way things are and I can't see any realistic possibility for change.
I believe that the relatively, and immensely higher, rate of violent crime in the US is largely, but not exclusively, due to the philosophy of hate and fear of the other and the different. As best I can tell this stance is considered paranoid in much of Europe but in the US is even by some considered gospel above and beyond all else in either the OT or NT. Otherwise why wouldn't the Swiss be blowing each other away with those government issued machine guns that go to every male twixt 18 and 45 last I heard?
IMO Michael Moore (aka the AntiChrist to conservatives) made some excellent points concerning gun ownership in the US in the documentary Bowling for Columbine Namely that the availability of firearms is not a predictor of violence.
Now as to why the crime rate is so high in the US, perhaps the answer is not just poverty, guns, racism, or even the philosophy of fear and hate preached by politicians, religious leaders, and the media. Rather I think it is the complex interaction of all these factors that are responsible.
But that is what the US is, something neither good nor bad but so complex that there are no intellectually simplistic solutions to the problems it faces. Perhaps it would help if political power was in the hands of the much feared 'intellectuals' rather than the beloved 'bumpkin act' that Americans so insist on voting into office due to their own lack of self-esteem.
Edited by anglagard, : to correct the fact that US voters choose not bumpkins (most are actually cold, calculating, vicious bastards) but rather those who successfully act like bumpkins for the audience.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2008 8:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2008 5:12 PM anglagard has replied

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


Message 134 of 176 (476336)
07-23-2008 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2008 3:36 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
The topic is the SCOTUS ruling that me, as one of "the people", I have an indivdual right to own a firearm.
What's the problem?
The "problem" is that the Second Amendment clearly indicates that your right to bear arms as one of "the people" is not based in a right to self-defense, hunting, pleasure shooting, etc. It is based specifically on the need for "a well regulated militia."
You are not a militia.
Note, this doesn't mean you don't have an individual right to own a firearm.
It simply means that the Second Amendment is not what protects that right. The ruling is bad law not because of the result, in and of itself, but because the justification presented does not actually support the conclusion.
quote:
What is the argument against me having this right?
That you are not a militia. The Second Amendment grants you the right to a firearm so that you can use it as part of the militia. Scalia's argument is backwards, focusing on "the people" rather than on the restriction: "A well regulated militia."
The Second Amendment has always been interpreted as being in reference to a militia...up until now.
Again, my point is not that you don't have a personal right to a firearm. It's that the Second Amendment does not protect that right and this decision, based upon a prima facie misreading of the Second Amendment, is a bad decision.

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 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2008 3:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2008 11:44 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 135 of 176 (476337)
07-23-2008 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Hyroglyphx
07-21-2008 4:13 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
quote:
you targeted Hollywood. Let's not play dumb as to why.
My use of "Hollywood" extends to the entertainment industry as a whole.
I know. But I asked you nicely not to play dumb. You said, "Hollywood," for a very specific reason. Let us not pretend that you were not using it as a shortcut reference for more than simply "forms of entertainment."
quote:
quote:
If you would bother to read my posts, you'd know my position.
A yes or no answer would be a whole lot easier than me reading pages of posts.
You doing your homework would be a whole lot better, though. You would learn about the background as to why the answer is what it is. That way, you would be able to respond without making more assumptions than you need to.
quote:
quote:
When are you going to do your own homework?
I will take it as a classic dodge and assume that, yes, you want the United States unarmed effective immediately.
(*chuckle*)
Read my posts and find out for yourself.
Homework for you: Quote me where I said anything of the sort.
Be specific.

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 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2008 4:13 PM Hyroglyphx 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