Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-04-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 11:11 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 11:04 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Okay, I should clarify. Illinois does not allow people to carry personal weapons in public, concealed or openly. The reason why I said 'concealed' is because that is what usually requires a permit in America. Some states require a "Concealed Carry Permit" to carry either openly or concealed. Either way, in the general public you have a constitutional right to bear arms.

The constitution talks about the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. The average person carrying their gun, is not a part of a militia and we have a well-regulated militia, it's called the Military.

Your opinion might be that it violates the constitution, but that hinges upon ignoring or redefining the rest of that section.

Don't forget that there were a lot of well-regulated militias created in the south whose jobs were to keep the Negroes from getting uppity.

Hey...our so-called founding fathers were a bunch of slavers....so they knew what laws to pass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 11:11 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 11:04 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Okay, I should clarify. Illinois does not allow people to carry personal weapons in public, concealed or openly. The reason why I said 'concealed' is because that is what usually requires a permit in America. Some states require a "Concealed Carry Permit" to carry either openly or concealed. Either way, in the general public you have a constitutional right to bear arms.

The constitution talks about the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. The average person carrying their gun, is not a part of a militia and we have a well-regulated militia, it's called the Military.

Your opinion might be that it violates the constitution, but that hinges upon ignoring or redefining the rest of that section.

Well, the supreme court disagrees with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o..._v._Heller
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago.

According to the supreme court, as well as myself, the second amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia". Now Logica Humano may have an argument, one that I disagree with, but your argument is something I don't even feel like bothering with, no offense. It would be pointless for me and I just have no desire in going down the rabbit hole.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 11:33 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 11:27 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 11:11 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The constitution talks about the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. The average person carrying their gun, is not a part of a militia and we have a well-regulated militia, it's called the Military.

Your opinion might be that it violates the constitution, but that hinges upon ignoring or redefining the rest of that section.

Well, the supreme court disagrees with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o..._v._Heller
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago.

According to the supreme court, as well as myself, the second amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia". Now Logica Humano may have an argument, one that I disagree with, but your argument is something I don't even feel like bothering with, no offense. It would be pointless for me and I just have no desire in going down the rabbit hole.

I'm aware of the Supreme Court's decisions, which includes its early rulings on the matter as well. It's almost as if the political agenda of whomever is on the court at the time has an influence on what is and is not said. I mean, the government wouldn't blatantly do anything that is knowingly against the Constitution.


In God We Trust

“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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
26-04-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 11:11 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The constitution talks about the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. The average person carrying their gun, is not a part of a militia and we have a well-regulated militia, it's called the Military.
Your opinion might be that it violates the constitution, but that hinges upon ignoring or redefining the rest of that section.

Oh look, another post thats sucks and is wrong.

James Madison, Federalist Paper #46

Quote:To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence

10USC311

Quote:(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 04:29 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 10:37 AM)Julius Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 04:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is also the fact that many of the federal guns laws are not enforced.

Criminals who could be charged with violations of federal law simply are not.
Non-federal prosecutors don't bother. They don't want to make a federal case of it.
The accused are charged with the state crime and not the federal crime.

Especially 18 U.S.C. §922(g), §922(j), §922(i), §924(a), §924(b), §924(e) §924(g), §924(j)

These are laws against possession of firearms or ammunition by felons, possession of stolen firearms, transport or shipping or receipt of stolen firearms across state lines, carrying or using a firearm during the commission of violent or drug crime, and so on.


I disagree. Gun laws are pretty harshly prosecuted by the states, where even BB Guns are considered firearms.

Anyways...let's face it: More Guns = More Murder. Less Guns = Less Murder. Pretty simple, huh? I got to agree with the antis on this one.

BTW...I like guns - I don't believe we can be both safe and free, so I accept Freedom. I deal with it.

You are disagreeing with the wrong thin; it is federal gun laws that are ignored.

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
26-04-2013, 04:33 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 10:53 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 12:08 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I don't disagree with the fact that it's difficult to amend the constitution. I also don't think that the constitution doesn't prohibit gun restrictions. I'm just of the opinion that the proper restrictions are already in place. There are places which violate the constitution. Illinois, for example, doesn't permit people to carry concealed weapons outside of their personal property. That pretty blatantly goes against the second amendment in my opinion.

Nowhere does the constitution give citizens the right to carry concealed firearms, so it does not contradict the second ammendment.

(26-04-2013 10:18 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Depends what you mean by "banning guns altogether".

I said on here before that I'm for banning guns, and as far as the Constitution, that's just a sign for people to hide behind. It's used completely for bullshit, propaganda, political gain and rhetoric.

Imagine if we had as many people worried about the rest of the amendments as they were about intentionally misconstruing the second amendment for their own personal benefit.

The problem with the entire gun debate is that this wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for the circumstances/history in the US, but the dilemma comes in hard when you realize that those circumstances are also what is so damaging and is really the source to a lot of negativity and lack of progress in our country.

For me, it's almost like the nations problems could be solved, if you could resolve the gun debate; but as it looks, you are not going to resolve the gun debate.

Not currently. Like any social issue in the United States, it will be accepted late in the game by a future generation.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it prohibit carrying firearms concealed, nor give the government the power to prohibit it.

Remember, the Constitution is an agreement amongst states, and states are agreements among people. The Bill of Rights limits what states may do to people.

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
26-04-2013, 11:26 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 11:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 11:27 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Well, the supreme court disagrees with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o..._v._Heller
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago.

According to the supreme court, as well as myself, the second amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia". Now Logica Humano may have an argument, one that I disagree with, but your argument is something I don't even feel like bothering with, no offense. It would be pointless for me and I just have no desire in going down the rabbit hole.

I'm aware of the Supreme Court's decisions, which includes its early rulings on the matter as well. It's almost as if the political agenda of whomever is on the court at the time has an influence on what is and is not said. I mean, the government wouldn't blatantly do anything that is knowingly against the Constitution.


In God We Trust

That is a fair point, and I agree that the Supreme Court doesn't always do a good job at ruling on Constitutional matters. I do think, however, that all citizens should be allowed to be armed to defend their property and should the need arise, a foreign threat in their area; This includes a runaway federal government. Whether you think a militia needs to be organized or not. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the Constitution is in need of an amendment, an amendment to protect ordinary citizens from having their firearms taken by a tyrannical government.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 05:23 AM
Re: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
The power of the people does not reside in the number of firearms they possess. It resides in their power to vote and make their voices heard. No movement in the us had ever been successful at the tip of a gun. Civil rights movement, women's suffrage, gay marriage, etc. The abolishment of slavery did, but only because the people took up arms to stop it.

The government is not coming after your guns so they can take your freedoms next.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 09:16 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(27-04-2013 05:23 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The power of the people does not reside in the number of firearms they possess. It resides in their power to vote and make their voices heard. No movement in the us had ever been successful at the tip of a gun. Civil rights movement, women's suffrage, gay marriage, etc. The abolishment of slavery did, but only because the people took up arms to stop it.

The government is not coming after your guns so they can take your freedoms next.

This may be the direction this debate is headed. As the Pro-firearms movement becomes more radicalised and it's rhetoric tips over from just vaguely threatening violence against anyone who dares to voice any opposition to actual armed revolt. I'm not saying that this is going to happen but just there is a chance of it.

If this hypothetical situation were to play out the Government probably would begin taking peoples guns and ya know what they would be able to easily. Every dumb redneck who thinks owning a gun keeps the government from doing anything they want to them is hopelessly naive. We aren't quite at the point where someone can push a button and a laser from space zaps you but we can hit a building from halfway across the world. Add to that the fact that if this armed revolt were to happen most of the country would run towards the government to save them from the rebels.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(27-04-2013 05:23 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The power of the people does not reside in the number of firearms they possess. It resides in their power to vote and make their voices heard. No movement in the us had ever been successful at the tip of a gun. Civil rights movement, women's suffrage, gay marriage, etc. The abolishment of slavery did, but only because the people took up arms to stop it.

The government is not coming after your guns so they can take your freedoms next.

The problem is the voting system is rigged by the powerful. Additionally you are forgetting the American Revolution, the French Revolution, pretty much any uprising against oppressors. There are more modern examples, and even American ones, such as The Battle of Athens, from our home state.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: