A modest proposal for gun control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2012, 12:07 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(19-12-2012 10:30 AM)LadyJane Wrote:  
Quote:The question now is: Are those of us who have not yet been killed by guns going to allow these massacres to continue unimpeded? Are Americans that callous? Is life here so cheap? I have read the Second Amendment, and I find no mention there of any right to possess any gun more advanced than an 18th-century musket? Do I really have the right to bear a nuclear weapon? Or a rocket-propelled grenade? Then why in God’s name would any U.S. civilian have the right (or the need) to bear a .223-caliber assault rifle made by Bushmaster?
[Image: piers-morgan-gun-control.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBlackKnight's post
19-12-2012, 12:26 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
So I can haz nukes?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
19-12-2012, 01:42 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
Please spare some time to watch this:





Once you're done, please tell me your thoughts. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like yongkykun's post
19-12-2012, 02:06 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
That is the first time I have ever watched all of anything that the Young Turks have produced. Not because I disagree with them, but because the guy I normally see doing it is a bit to over the top for my taste.

All in all I agree with what they are saying, my post prior to this one is that trying to read intent from the Constitution in the manner that this Carol Roth did works both ways. It gives the right to bear arms. Nuclear arms? Firearms? What? It doesn't say musket and it doesn't say nuke. It also doesn't say explicitly for the citizens to be able to fully possess every weapon their potential enemies may posses.

The issue is about where the line gets drawn. Looking at how other countries have drawn those lines and how they have impacted them. And using the statistics and data to support your argument.

Unless you either A) don't know how to use statistics or B) believe that anyone and everyone using statistics just cooks their numbers to make whatever point they want.

All in all, I liked the video and the points it made.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2012, 11:52 AM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinio...l?hp&_r=1&

Something else to ponder when wondering what the numbers really are.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2012, 01:32 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2012 01:40 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
And, as stated in the video, the amendment was not interpreted to encompass individuals, but State Militias. This would not have been a debate prior to 1977.

The 2nd amendment:
Quote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.





America
-Startin' em' young.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
20-12-2012, 06:44 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(20-12-2012 01:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  And, as stated in the video, the amendment was not interpreted to encompass individuals, but State Militias. This would not have been a debate prior to 1977.

The 2nd amendment:
Quote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.





America
-Startin' em' young.
The Supreme Court has interpreted it as an individual right.

If you read the history of the discussions among the framers, it is clear that it is an individual right.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2012, 07:20 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(20-12-2012 06:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  The Supreme Court has interpreted it as an individual right.

If you read the history of the discussions among the framers, it is clear that it is an individual right.
Furthermore, the arms of a militia were those possessed by the citizens themselves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2012, 07:22 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(20-12-2012 07:20 PM)ImproperUsername Wrote:  
(20-12-2012 06:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  The Supreme Court has interpreted it as an individual right.

If you read the history of the discussions among the framers, it is clear that it is an individual right.
Furthermore, the arms of a militia were those possessed by the citizens themselves.


Precisely.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2012, 09:28 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(20-12-2012 06:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-12-2012 01:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  And, as stated in the video, the amendment was not interpreted to encompass individuals, but State Militias. This would not have been a debate prior to 1977.

The 2nd amendment:





America
-Startin' em' young.
The Supreme Court has interpreted it as an individual right.

If you read the history of the discussions among the framers, it is clear that it is an individual right.

Yes. There can can be little doubt that the 2nd Amendment is a guarantor of an individual right.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: