JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 192
  1. #101
    Slut DreamTeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Rugby UK
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    209

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Congress could give tax credits for purchasing specified firearms it wants the militia to have; that would come under "arming".
    Why should money have to be spent in this way? And what makes you think that government WANTS the militia to have firearms, you know, if government aren't to be trusted and all that, its hardly in their interest to incentivize arming the people. The government has its own militia, there to serve the public, in a disciplined, organized, and well resourced body already, they're called the police. The general public do not NEED to be equipped with militia weapons, because they don't NEED to be part of any militia.
    As Tx-Beau mentioned in an earlier post, the constitution does not define what 'arms' are or aren't. As such, there is no constitutional weight behind the right to bear a firearm, beyond what is 'understood' at any given time to be meant by the amendment. The right is already restricted, due to its fundamental point conflicting with good sense, so rocket launchers and missiles and bombs, despite being arms, are not allowed. This is the result of current understanding.
    It is determined that the common man has the right to bear arms that the common soldier possesses. This suggests that it would be very easy to ban handguns, simply by disarming soldiers from having them. It cannot be argued that the government are trying to deny your precious right either, since you already recognize that they have a responsibility for rules regarding the arming of the militia, and that in banning handguns, they are effectively arming you with the kind of firearms they want, i.e, shotguns and rifles, in the same vein that your tax credit incentive allows for them to do, except, this way, its cheaper, and saves lives by cleaning up the streets of weapons.
    You can't say they can't ban handguns, because you don't have the right to choose what you 'keep and bear' ONLY that you have the right to do so. So if you only have shotguns or rifles available to you, you're right is uninfringed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    This is a joke:



    The current GOP is an excellent example of why we still need the full depth of the Second Amendment -- they are bound and determined to turn this country into a plutocratic oligarchy. When politicians are owned by corporations, "democratic procedures" become meaningless.

    His thesis that police forces are "democratically accountable" is also a joke. Cops protect their own; they get away with shooting innocent people at ten times or more the rate regular citizens do -- even when they get the wrong dwelling, break down the door and kill the residents, they aren't sent to prison for murder as they should be.

    He's a total moron on the subject of self-defense: guns aren't just the route of defense when the criminal has a gun, but always. The firearm is what makes the weak able to resist the strong, thus democratizing the playing field.

    Finally, his belief that guns can be kept from criminals is total foolishness. People can, and do, make firearms at home. The tools to do so are available in stores such as Home Depot. And if criminals aren't able to buy guns or steal them, they'll make them.

    A people who have been disarmed are no longer a civilized people, they're just pawns living in the borderlands of tyranny. All one need do is look at the way the Nazis used the exact same sort of laws that liberals long for here to enslave a nation.
    This is about as scaremongering a post as you could possibly make without losing comprehension. All these faults that you bring up need fixing, simple as that. They aren't problems that can't be sorted without guns, just like they aren't problems being sorted by having them. The argument that you need them because government is a threat, in a democratic society is clutching at straws. When that argument falls flat, its back to the home invader trying to kill you, when the reality is, they're more often than not, simple burglars.
    And this argument about criminals going to the effort to make their own weapons if they can't obtain them via purchase or theft is truly a joke. It barely happens here in the UK, most weapons are in fact smuggled in rather than homemade. Why? Because its a crime to make them, so you get harsher penalties when its no longer just possession of firearms, but manufacturing too.

    The pro gun lobby uses every possible argument it can to create a bog of an issue in order to detract from the inevitable, that you only have your 2nd amendment rights secured by the support of the people, most of whom can be reasoned with and change their minds about what 'understanding' arms pertain too, should they get pig sick and tired of seeing people killed all the time. And statistics would show that the younger generations are far less in favour of guns than those before them.

  2. #102
    JUB Addict vulgar_newcomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    St. Petersburg
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    2,687

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	nra edited 2nd amendment.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	37.1 KB 
ID:	1047616


    As you enter the NRA Headquarters off Waples Mill Rd in Oakton Virginia the edited version of the 2nd amendment faces you on the wall. They omitted the first part of the sentence to meet their needs realizing most of the rednecks don't know or care anyway. Its the part that serves their modern agenda.


    The entire 2nd amendment; "“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Politcomagazine has a decent article on this dated May 19, 2014. Its worth a read.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz33VQmOCdZ

    The focus on the wild west was a place called Dodge City Kansas (1877), the gateway. However firearms weren't allowed in Dodge city and a big wooden billboard in the middle of town made that clear. The same with Deadwood and Tombstone.
    The folklore and bullshit in movies just are not factual history. Gun laws were tough in the tiny towns or what could be considered the urban centers. Every one had guns but at there home, you couldn't legally brandish them like you can today. Business and growth demanded regulation and the laws were quickly amongst the first passed in the wild west to regulate guns once a town or city incorporated. Of course later things changes as business fled to attract tourist and the dollar the wild west became from fantasy to red neck land reality.
    All of this changed with the NRA history lesson and powerful lobbyist in the later part of the 20th century. With the supreme court finally ruling on this in 2008, and it shocks people to learn thats when it happened.

    Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-w..._b_956035.html
    Last edited by vulgar_newcomer; June 2nd, 2014 at 11:13 AM.

  3. #103
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Posts
    8,169

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    And you are pointing this is why? I'm not saying that guns are not and cannot be regulated, I'm simply pointing out that using the example of how cars are regulated is not a good comparison. There are some similarities that can be drawn though, as long as the right is taken into consideration the state can regulate use on public property and owners can regulate on private property.
    Sorry, I misread your first post.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Mea Culpa....
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  4. #104
    Thankfully Liberal & Gay
    frankfrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Illinois (Agent Provocateur and Refujiunderground you can do it)
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    15,307
    Blog Entries
    5

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    the constitution DOES NOT MENTION GUNS!
    It does mention the right to bear arms, though; close enough. "Bearing arms" has not been understood to mean wielding a knife or a baseball bat; "arms" usually refers to machines which propel projectiles at lethal velocity.

    Quote Originally Posted by andysayshi View Post
    **WEST** Germany? How old is this poster, anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    The current GOP is an excellent example of why we still need the full depth of the Second Amendment -- they are bound and determined to turn this country into a plutocratic oligarchy. When politicians are owned by corporations, "democratic procedures" become meaningless.
    Unfortunately, the "right to bear arms" may not be a remedy at all, if this scenario were to fully come to pass. "Second Amendment remedies" against a totalitarian, Talibangelical GOP in absolute control would likely be futile, because many of the people who have the guns would be sympathetic to the whims and mindsets of those who are ruling, and those who would use arms to overthrow the repressive government would simply be overwhelmed by the hordes of many gun owners who would like the government precisely as it is at that moment. The Second Amendment would, more than protecting against tyranny, be used instead to PROTECT and strengthen that tyranny.

    I wish the Kuli's of this nation were in the majority; you do not tolerate tyranny but I hate to think that there are many who do, when the tyranny is in a form which allows tens of millions to have their way. Tyranny used to mean that virtually 100% of the population were screwed by the ruling forces.

    The Founding Fathers never imagined that there would ever be a time that the militia would mostly want to PROTECT an absolute authoritarian tyranny, because things had never worked that way before, but I think that would happen now.
    "All legal U. S. residents who are 18 years or older, shall have an unconditional right to vote." - 28th Amendment, US Constitution?
    "But, hey, who cares about women and their rights when the religious liberty of a nationwide chain of arts and crafts stores is at stake?" - Daily Kos, 30 June 2014
    "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" - Susan B. Anthony

  5. #105
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by EastMed View Post
    Paranoid libertarianism succinctly expressed: militaristic and anti-democratic.

    So what are you and your libertarian friends going to do? Surround some corporate headquarters with your guns and threaten them to mend their ways?
    My position is pro-liberty and pro-democratic. And there's no paranoia involved: even the Tea Party people who went to Washington have been bought by corporations.

    The rest is just reality.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  6. #106
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Ummm... ...that's the standard definition of "brandish."
    No, it isn't -- not in legal terms, anyway. And the way you use it shows that you don't understand the legal definition: carrying a firearm, however openly, is not brandishing.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You keep referring to me as "dishonest" because I cite published facts. You keep insisting that the scientific literature is all wrong, that the entire scientific community worldwide is out to get you because of some agenda you cannot describe, and you keep insisting that you are right simply because you know you are right and it is therefore not permissible for anyone to challenge you with facts.
    No, I call you dishonest because you continue to lie about what other people have said, and make shit up like the above.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    I appreciate that you have a disdain for evidence, reason, and scholarship. But most people regard objective data as more honest than somebody's biased opinion
    I rely on evidence, reason, and scholarship. Everything that I've seen from medical people about guns is lying with statistics -- like your favorite one, which would mean that millions of Americans are killed annually by firearms.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Why should it be a hundred times that?

    We're talking about data here. We draw conclusions based on the available data - not what you think the data should be.
    No, you're lying about data -- or lying with it. If the danger from carrying a firearm is what your figures say, then there must be millions of Americans killed annually by their own weapons. Even if you take the lowest figure for people using firearms to protect themselves, then the death toll would have to be in the mid-to-high hundreds of thousands.

    It's simple arithmetic. Of course the people lying to you with those statistics don't want you to think for yourself and do the arithmetic, so you don't, so they get away with their lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Yeah. That says quite a lot, doesn't it?
    Yes -- it says that firearms make the world democratic, because they strengthen the weak.
    Last edited by opinterph; June 9th, 2014 at 05:35 PM. Reason: fixed quote tags

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  7. #107
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    My curiosity involves his proposed solution. What are the key elements of legislation he proposed?
    That there should be mental health care available to everyone. He stops short of allowing the professionals to pass on warnings, though, which pretty much guts the whole idea (though it's a good one all by itself).

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  8. #108
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    I’m not sure ostentatious is the best word. The specific definition varies by state, though not all states include the word “brandish” in their code or legal definitions.
    California law requires that the weapon be drawn or exhibited in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, so in the context of this discussion, just having one visible isn't brandishing. Further, it excludes the context of self-defense. It is possible to be convicted of brandishing even if the other person didn't see the weapon, but that happens when an individual makes it very clear that he has such a weapon and does so in a threatening manner.

    I can't find it online, but there was a case some time back when someone shouted "I have a gun" while trying to stop a violent situation, and it worked; people backed down. He wasn't lying; he had a gun-- at home, not with him. They couldn't get him for brandishing, because the weapon wasn't present, and they couldn't get him for disturbing the peace, because he'd made things more peaceful.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  9. #109
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    And since you seem to want to get technical, the constitution DOES NOT MENTION GUNS!
    If you want to get technical, yes it does. What the frak do you think "arms" means?

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  10. #110
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by andysayshi View Post
    30,000 gun deaths each year seem to suggest that whatever regulations DO currently exist are not doing a very good job.
    That's because they're trying to regulate firearms, which isn't constitutional, instead of using the authority specifically given to Congress to provide for the discipline of the militia -- in other words, "regulating" behavior instead of objects.

    It's criminal that the mental health profession can't send a warning to the NICS, criminal that Congress has not required safe and secure storage, and even more criminal that they have passed laws which depend on ignoring the Fifth Amendment in order for them to work (criminals cannot legally be required to admit they have a firearm).

    Sometimes I'm tempted to suggest Congress require everyone with a firearm to belong to an organized militia (which would mean one registered with the state government), and anyone found using a firearm improperly would be subject to military tribunal, and anyone making illegal use and not being a member of such a militia would be considered an enemy combatant. That would founder on the fact that they're not under federal jurisdiction when not having been called up for federal service, though.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  11. #111
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Amazingly enough that is what the NRA says too. Unfortunately, how to reform the existing laws and create effective ones that don't infringe on the protected right is difficult when neither side of the gun debate trusts the other.
    So long as La Pierre and his PR firm are running the NRA, there's not going to be any dialogue anyway --dialogue doesn't make the money flow, and that's all he cares about. The only way to deal with the issue is for Congress to exercise its Article I Section 8 authority to provide for the discipline of the militia. We need a new Militia Act defining every able-bodied person as a member of the militia, and then requiring simple common-sense discipline such as safe and secure storage and providing for mental health professionals to suspend the qualification for purchasing arms or ammunition of anyone judged to be a danger to self or others.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  12. #112
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    As Tx-Beau mentioned in an earlier post, the constitution does not define what 'arms' are or aren't. As such, there is no constitutional weight behind the right to bear a firearm, beyond what is 'understood' at any given time to be meant by the amendment. The right is already restricted, due to its fundamental point conflicting with good sense, so rocket launchers and missiles and bombs, despite being arms, are not allowed. This is the result of current understanding. It is determined that the common man has the right to bear arms that the common soldier possesses. This suggests that it would be very easy to ban handguns, simply by disarming soldiers from having them. It cannot be argued that the government are trying to deny your precious right either, since you already recognize that they have a responsibility for rules regarding the arming of the militia, and that in banning handguns, they are effectively arming you with the kind of firearms they want, i.e, shotguns and rifles, in the same vein that your tax credit incentive allows for them to do, except, this way, its cheaper, and saves lives by cleaning up the streets of weapons.
    The Second Amendment means what the people who wrote it meant by it -- nothing else. Otherwise, there's no point in having a constitution, if you can change the meaning. "Common sense" has nothing to do with not allowing ordinary citizens to have "rocket launchers, missiles, and bombs" -- that restriction is inherent in the concept of militia. The only thing individuals are authorized to keep and bear are the common weapons of the regular soldier, not crew-served or specialized weapons. The tax credit was an illustration of the authority Congress is given. It has nothing to do with how practical it might be. For that matter, the Second Amendment isn't interested in practicality; the Founding Fathers and Framers were quite aware that some people would misuse arms, but understood that the fact that some abuse a right is not a reason to take away the right or impose a burden on those exercising it.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  13. #113
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by vulgar_newcomer View Post
    ... you couldn't legally brandish them like you can today.
    What's with this lie? You cannot legally brandish a firearm anywhere I know of. Carrying a firearm is not brandishing. Wearing one openly is not brandishing. Biking down the street with one over your shoulder is not brandishing. Brandishing means to draw or exhibit openly in a threatening manner. That's not legal anywhere.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  14. #114
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by frankfrank View Post
    Unfortunately, the "right to bear arms" may not be a remedy at all, if this scenario were to fully come to pass. "Second Amendment remedies" against a totalitarian, Talibangelical GOP in absolute control would likely be futile, because many of the people who have the guns would be sympathetic to the whims and mindsets of those who are ruling, and those who would use arms to overthrow the repressive government would simply be overwhelmed by the hordes of many gun owners who would like the government precisely as it is at that moment. The Second Amendment would, more than protecting against tyranny, be used instead to PROTECT and strengthen that tyranny. I wish the Kuli's of this nation were in the majority; you do not tolerate tyranny but I hate to think that there are many who do, when the tyranny is in a form which allows tens of millions to have their way. Tyranny used to mean that virtually 100% of the population were screwed by the ruling forces. The Founding Fathers never imagined that there would ever be a time that the militia would mostly want to PROTECT an absolute authoritarian tyranny, because things had never worked that way before, but I think that would happen now.
    In other words, fascism is on the march. The FFs expected the populace to be educated. Neither the reactionaries nor the liberals want that, though liberals are certainly more tolerant of it in some ways. They would have expected us to rally and stand up against the military-industrial complex long ago, and then against corporations which buy politicians to serve them instead of the people. We have truly become, as the book title says, a nation of cowards, content to let our freedoms be whittled away so long as we have our toys and games.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  15. #115
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    London
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,266

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    I am more shocked that there are people who quote Fox that means they have to watch it !

  16. #116

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    My position is pro-liberty and pro-democratic. And there's no paranoia involved: even the Tea Party people who went to Washington have been bought by corporations.

    The rest is just reality.

    In what way would a militia bring to task corporate malfeasance or a corporate takeover of government?


    Freedom is the product of orderly democratic governance and the rule of law. Popular militias are overwhelming likely to foster not democracy or the rule of law, but warlordism, tribalism and civil war.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ.../gun-control-1

  17. #117
    Lil' Demon Beggar MakeDigitalLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Voorhees
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,864

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Yes -- it says that firearms make the world democratic, because they strengthen the weak.
    Who is the weak here? And how does it make the World more democratic?

    Because to me it said that you consider people who own guns weak and they need Guns to compensate for that fact.

  18. #118
    JUB Addict vulgar_newcomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    St. Petersburg
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    2,687

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    So long as La Pierre and his PR firm are running the NRA, there's not going to be any dialogue anyway --dialogue doesn't make the money flow, and that's all he cares about. The only way to deal with the issue is for Congress to exercise its Article I Section 8 authority to provide for the discipline of the militia. We need a new Militia Act defining every able-bodied person as a member of the militia, and then requiring simple common-sense discipline such as safe and secure storage and providing for mental health professionals to suspend the qualification for purchasing arms or ammunition of anyone judged to be a danger to self or others.
    Do you know how hard it is to get a Doctor to write a prescription for Oxycontin unless hospitalized? They are afraid of the legal ramifications should there even be the slightest hint of abuse by a patient that very well may have a direct need for it.
    Putting more legal pressure on mental health providers over saying which of their patients/clients should be allowed gun will be the same. They will protect themselves and deny the majority just in case someone decides to pop someone in a movie theater.

    You and these militias. There time had passed even before some of the founding Fathers. Men weren't attending because they had things to do, lives, responsibilities. There were attendance problems for certain.
    There was a reason in 1912 when the government tried to send militias to Mexico that finally it was decided to squish the militia and start a new National Guard, which is basically a Federal force with a tiny bit of State input.

    Along with that we have professional police for law enforcement on the homelands.

    How in the world living in the 21st century can you continue to believe that a militia would solve the complicated gun issues that have plagued this country since the vague creation of the 2nd amendment.
    Outside of the nut bags that already belong in far right wing militas who would join? People are busy trying to pay there power bills and keep their head above water they don't have time for that 18th century bullshit. Damn back then when it got dark there was nothing to do but sleep, now we are 24/7.

  19. #119
    Slut DreamTeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Rugby UK
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    209

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    the Founding Fathers and Framers were quite aware that some people would misuse arms, but understood that the fact that some abuse a right is not a reason to take away the right or impose a burden on those exercising it.
    Quite obviously, there are those who believe the Founding Fathers and Framers were wrong to include keeping and bearing arms as a right in the first place. It is an extension of a fundamental right (self-defence), and is not considered a right in itself (to those who so believe, which is pretty much most people outside of the US).

    That aside, can you address my point about the banning of handguns. It can not be an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms, if the government has the legal right to prohibit certain types of weapon. Arguing what constituted as a legal prohibition, on the basis of whether common soldiers were equipped with certain weapons, at the time of the Founding Fathers and Framers, means that you can't prohibit the restriction of ANY arms if the US armed forces 'common' soldiers are also unequipped. What is your position on that interpretation?

  20. #120
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by EastMed View Post
    In what way would a militia bring to task corporate malfeasance or a corporate takeover of government?


    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ.../gun-control-1
    Have you ever heard of a little thing called the American Revolution? It started when the Crown tried to disarm the militia. It ended badly for the Crown.

    That site won't let me read. But from the quote above, it's plain he doesn't know what he's talking about. How can something that's under the authority of a state governor lead to "warlordism"?

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  21. #121
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by MakeDigitalLove View Post
    Who is the weak here? And how does it make the World more democratic?

    Because to me it said that you consider people who own guns weak and they need Guns to compensate for that fact.
    Try reading the NRA's monthly collection of self-defense stories called The Armed Citizen. The weak are the grandmother in New York that three muggers tried to kick to death, but she was armed; the dad who told the home invaders to take what they wanted but not to go up the stairs to where his kids were -- they tried, but he was armed; the gal shoved into a corner by a rapist with a knife -- but she had a revolver; and anyone else who is threatened with violence and is not a trained fighter.

    That makes the world more democratic, because it means the strong can't just have their way with anyone they feel like picking on.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  22. #122
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by vulgar_newcomer View Post
    Do you know how hard it is to get a Doctor to write a prescription for Oxycontin unless hospitalized? They are afraid of the legal ramifications should there even be the slightest hint of abuse by a patient that very well may have a direct need for it.
    Putting more legal pressure on mental health providers over saying which of their patients/clients should be allowed gun will be the same. They will protect themselves and deny the majority just in case someone decides to pop someone in a movie theater.
    You think that a mental health professional who has already told a college or other institution that a person is dangerous isn't going to be willing to make that call to the NICS, too? There probably aren't that many, actually, so there's no burden except a phone call. And every mental health professional I've ever known (except perhaps the one who violated confidentiality without a blink) would be relieved to be able to tell the NICS, "This person should not be allowed a firearm at the present time".

    Quote Originally Posted by vulgar_newcomer View Post
    You and these militias. There time had passed even before some of the founding Fathers. Men weren't attending because they had things to do, lives, responsibilities. There were attendance problems for certain.
    There was a reason in 1912 when the government tried to send militias to Mexico that finally it was decided to squish the militia and start a new National Guard, which is basically a Federal force with a tiny bit of State input.
    The militia was never "squished". The National Guard is an organized militia drawn from the general militia, which when called up by the federal government ceases to be militia.

    Quote Originally Posted by vulgar_newcomer View Post
    Along with that we have professional police for law enforcement on the homelands.
    The cops don't do anything to prevent crime or protect specific people. At best they're a general deterrent, but that doesn't do a person any good when someone has decided to ignore that deterrent.

    I know three people who would be dead if gun-banners had their way. No matter how good the police, their response time isn't going to get there before the knife or bullet or tire iron. To tell people to rely on the police is to tell them that the bad guy gets it all his way until after the fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by vulgar_newcomer View Post
    How in the world living in the 21st century can you continue to believe that a militia would solve the complicated gun issues that have plagued this country since the vague creation of the 2nd amendment.
    Outside of the nut bags that already belong in far right wing militas who would join? People are busy trying to pay there power bills and keep their head above water they don't have time for that 18th century bullshit. Damn back then when it got dark there was nothing to do but sleep, now we are 24/7.
    There's nothing vague about the Second Amendment -- it's a plainly stated individual right with a supporting reason given for protecting that right.

    The fact is that the people are already the militia. Congress has neglected discipline for the militia, and that's why we're in the situation we are, where people known to be dangerous can still buy firearms, or walk into someone's house and just walk out with firearms. So there's no question of "joining", there's only a question of whether Congress is going to require that the militia which is all of us is a disciplined militia.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  23. #123
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    Quite obviously, there are those who believe the Founding Fathers and Framers were wrong to include keeping and bearing arms as a right in the first place. It is an extension of a fundamental right (self-defence), and is not considered a right in itself (to those who so believe, which is pretty much most people outside of the US).

    That aside, can you address my point about the banning of handguns. It can not be an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms, if the government has the legal right to prohibit certain types of weapon. Arguing what constituted as a legal prohibition, on the basis of whether common soldiers were equipped with certain weapons, at the time of the Founding Fathers and Framers, means that you can't prohibit the restriction of ANY arms if the US armed forces 'common' soldiers are also unequipped. What is your position on that interpretation?
    Where in the Constitution is Congress assigned the authority to "prohibit certain types of weapons"? Remember that Congress has only that authority it is granted; it has no rights, and no powers that have not been delegated to it by the citizens.

    As for those people outside the US, the practical result of their belief that you reference is that criminals are protected from private citizens -- they only have to worry about the police. Laws that deny the means to actual self-defense make the people just livestock.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  24. #124
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,069
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Where in the Constitution is Congress assigned the authority to "prohibit certain types of weapons"? Remember that Congress has only that authority it is granted; it has no rights, and no powers that have not been delegated to it by the citizens.

    As for those people outside the US, the practical result of their belief that you reference is that criminals are protected from private citizens -- they only have to worry about the police. Laws that deny the means to actual self-defense make the people just livestock.
    Democracy provides robust controls over public officials. Letting government become so corrupt and dangerous that shooting them is the only way out is a form of civic laziness that may appeal to you and your countrymen, but it is an example of carelessness to be ignored in the rest of the world, and even pitied.

    As far as your constitution, you have already said that the second amendment does not apply to personal ownerships of tanks or yellowcake uranium. If it is proper for the government to enact against tanks or yellowcake uranium, then the constitution assigns the authority "to prohibit certain types of weapons" to that government.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  25. #125
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,669

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    No, it isn't -- not in legal terms, anyway. And the way you use it shows that you don't understand the legal definition: carrying a firearm, however openly, is not brandishing.
    It is "brandishing" to everyone who is faced with the threat of being killed by your firearm.

    Which is, of course, everyone in the vicinity of the bearer!


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    No, I call you dishonest because you continue to lie about what other people have said, and make shit up like the above.
    You insist, over and over again, that ALL of the objective data is biased, and that only your opinions matter.

    I do not have the luxury of choosing which facts I will accept. Facts are facts. You can make up whatever numbers please you. I am obligated to accept the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    I rely on evidence, reason, and scholarship. Everything that I've seen from medical people about guns is lying with statistics -- like your favorite one, which would mean that millions of Americans are killed annually by firearms.
    It used to be thousands. Now, "millions" of Americans "should" be killed every year.

    Why do you think that millions of Americans should be killed every year? Do you think guns are really that dangerous?

    The data disagree with your opinions. The data show that slightly more than 30,000 Americans every year are killed by guns - most of them killed by their own guns or the guns of friends or family members. If guns are saving so many lives, how is it that most of the people being killed are the people "defending" themselves?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    No, you're lying about data -- or lying with it. If the danger from carrying a firearm is what your figures say, then there must be millions of Americans killed annually by their own weapons.
    Data does not lie.

    Data is data. It is not sentient. It is not capable of making judgments.

    You keep saying that "millions" of Americans should be killed every year by firearms. You seem to think firearms are more deadly even than the data indicate. How do you arrive at these numbers?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Even if you take the lowest figure for people using firearms to protect themselves, then the death toll would have to be in the mid-to-high hundreds of thousands.
    And what would that "lowest figure for people using firearms to protect themselves" be? How many lives are saved by guns every year? I guess we'll never know, since you gun people will not permit those studies to be done!

    You fabricate a "mid-to-high hundreds of thousands" death rate out of the air (and what happened to the millions of people you just said should be killed?). You invent numbers without any evidence or data whatsoever. It is astoundingly dishonest.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    It's simple arithmetic. Of course the people lying to you with those statistics don't want you to think for yourself and do the arithmetic, so you don't, so they get away with their lies.
    You say they don't "want you to think for yourself and do the arithmetic."

    Yet, you gun people prevent the studies and arithmetic from being done. You are afraid of the truth.

    Why are you so afraid of evidence, reason, and scholarship? If you are so certain of your opinions, why do you not want anyone to prove your case for you?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Yes -- it says that firearms make the world democratic, because they strengthen the weak.
    We agree on this one thing, at least. That gun people perceive themselves as weak and in need of a talisman that will make them equal to the rest of us.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; June 3rd, 2014 at 12:39 PM.

  26. #126
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Posts
    8,169

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Obviously, we already regulate, the constitutional argument is bunk. A nice rallying cry for the small penis crowd. There there's the delusion that a pistol is going to stop the "government" when it comes for you.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  27. #127
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Democracy provides robust controls over public officials. Letting government become so corrupt and dangerous that shooting them is the only way out is a form of civic laziness that may appeal to you and your countrymen, but it is an example of carelessness to be ignored in the rest of the world, and even pitied.

    As far as your constitution, you have already said that the second amendment does not apply to personal ownerships of tanks or yellowcake uranium. If it is proper for the government to enact against tanks or yellowcake uranium, then the constitution assigns the authority "to prohibit certain types of weapons" to that government.
    No, it doesn't provide any such authority -- it has to be specified, and it isn't. The right to keep and bear arms is protected, and no authority is anywhere granted to limit it.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  28. #128
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    It is "brandishing" to everyone who is faced with the threat of being killed by your firearm.

    Which is, of course, everyone in the vicinity of the bearer!
    Both are lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You insist, over and over again, that ALL of the objective data is biased, and that only your opinions matter.

    I do not have the luxury of choosing which facts I will accept. Facts are facts. You can make up whatever numbers please you. I am obligated to accept the truth.
    Picking and choosing "facts" is exactly what you do. You cite figures that if taken seriously mean that millions of Americans are killed by firearms annually. I'm just asking where the bodies are.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    It used to be thousands. Now, "millions" of Americans "should" be killed every year.

    Why do you think that millions of Americans should be killed every year? Do you think guns are really that dangerous?

    The data disagree with your opinions. The data show that slightly more than 30,000 Americans every year are killed by guns - most of them killed by their own guns or the guns of friends or family members. If guns are saving so many lives, how is it that most of the people being killed are the people "defending" themselves?
    But that number isn't possible, according to your figures. You say that anyone trying to defend themselves with a firearm is many times more likely to be killed with it than to succeed. That means that millions of Americans are killed annually by firearms -- so where are the bodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Data does not lie.

    Data is data. It is not sentient. It is not capable of making judgments.

    You keep saying that "millions" of Americans should be killed every year by firearms. You seem to think firearms are more deadly even than the data indicate. How do you arrive at these numbers?
    Those numbers come from your claims. If your claims are true, then show me the millions of bodies. They have to be somewhere!

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    And what would that "lowest figure for people using firearms to protect themselves" be? How many lives are saved by guns every year? I guess we'll never know, since you gun people will not permit those studies to be done!
    Those studies are done regularly. They're done by people who actually are professionals in the field. The studies you cite lie with statistics, as is proven by the fact that there are not millions of dead bodies every year from firearms.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You fabricate a "mid-to-high hundreds of thousands" death rate out of the air (and what happened to the millions of people you just said should be killed?). You invent numbers without any evidence or data whatsoever. It is astoundingly dishonest.
    I fabricated nothing. People defend themselves with firearms anywhere between 600k and 2.5 million times per year. You claim that when someone draws a gun to protect himself, he is many times more likely to be killed with his own weapon -- so it is indeed simple arithmetic: if he's five times more likely to be killed, then you just multiply the number of defensive uses by five, and get a number between three and twelve-and-a-half million.

    Where are the bodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You say they don't "want you to think for yourself and do the arithmetic."

    Yet, you gun people prevent the studies and arithmetic from being done. You are afraid of the truth.
    No, we don't. We want them done by qualified people. When someone's studies come up with statistics that if true would mean millions of Americans are being killed by firearms annually, that someone is plainly either incompetent or lying -- and if they're lying, they're incompetent.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Why are you so afraid of evidence, reason, and scholarship? If you are so certain of your opinions, why do you not want anyone to prove your case for you?
    I'm not -- I thrive on evidence, reason and scholarship. That's exactly why I don't want the government doing such studies -- so far, all they've done is abuse evidence, reason, and scholarship.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    We agree on this one thing, at least. That gun people perceive themselves as weak and in need of a talisman that will make them equal to the rest of us.
    Nice of you to come up with yet another lie.

    I got tired of benvolio's lies. I really don't need yours, either.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  29. #129
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    Obviously, we already regulate, the constitutional argument is bunk. A nice rallying cry for the small penis crowd. There there's the delusion that a pistol is going to stop the "government" when it comes for you.
    And you think "conservatives" don't have any respect for the Constitution. You're demonstrating just how right I am: neither side cares about the Constitution.

    In a free country, the government should fear the people. That they don't, that they regard us as livestock to be herded, worth only the attention required to run a circus and get some to vote their way, shows how far from freedom we really are. Obama is a nice example of that, actually -- he was elected as a progressive, but he's gone on to act as a conservative and especially as a corporate tool.
    Last edited by Kulindahr; June 3rd, 2014 at 01:33 PM.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  30. #130
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Democracy provides robust controls over public officials.
    Maybe in an actual representative democracy, but the US hasn't been one for generations.

    If we had "robust controls", then Tea Party candidates who got elected to Congress with net worths around $100k would not now be millionaires due to the fact that Congress has exempted itself from insider trading rules. If we had "robust controls", corporate lobbyists wouldn't be writing legislation. If we had "robust controls", we wouldn't be stuck with the same two sorry faces of the "re-elect us" corporate-owned single entity pretending to be two parties.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  31. #131
    Slut DreamTeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Rugby UK
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    209

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Where in the Constitution is Congress assigned the authority to "prohibit certain types of weapons"?
    And where in the constitution does it specify what constitutes arms?

    Remember Bankside saying:
    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    As far as your constitution, you have already said that the second amendment does not apply to personal ownerships of tanks or yellowcake uranium. If it is proper for the government to enact against tanks or yellowcake uranium, then the constitution assigns the authority "to prohibit certain types of weapons" to that government.
    Lawmakers have every right to dictate to you what can and cannot be used as arms. The 2nd amendment only guarantees an inherent right to self defence through the use of them. Let's not forget that the debate as to the legality of banning handguns was incredibly narrow in SCOTUS, (5-4) with only the dissenting argument representing bi-partisan opinion. The result is hardly a reflection on sound democratic values, that a right has been secured through an imbalance of political ideology within SCOTUS whose arguments were too weak to convince the opposition, despite the reverse being true.



    As for those people outside the US, the practical result of their belief that you reference is that criminals are protected from private citizens -- they only have to worry about the police. Laws that deny the means to actual self-defense make the people just livestock.
    Firstly, the practical result of banning handguns, is as much that the private citizen is protected from criminals, not to mention protected from the good ol law abiding postman who is yet to go postal, or from in fact themselves in a moment of futility in their life which makes suicide that much easier. The consequence of this is a far greater reduction in loss of life.
    Secondly, no law banning a specific 'arms', is infringing on the right to self defence. You can make the case that such a ban impedes your ability to enact your right, but this is counterbalanced by two points. One, that it actually does not, it simply affects the outcome, and two, that the criminal is impeded by such a ban also.

    On a further point also. The current allowance of handguns can be argued to be protecting the criminal from the private individual, and from justice. I raise you George Zimmerman.
    Last edited by DreamTeam; June 3rd, 2014 at 04:28 PM.

  32. #132
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    And where in the constitution does it specify what constitutes arms?
    In the Second Amendment. The inclusion of the militia concept tells us what arms are meant: the common arms of a regular soldier.

    This business of taking words out of context and thus pretending they don't have meaning is idiocy.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    Remember Bankside saying:
    Yeah -- he was engaging in the idiocy I mentioned above.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    Lawmakers have every right to dictate to you what can and cannot be used as arms. The 2nd amendment only guarantees an inherent right to self defence through the use of them.
    No, they don't. And the Second Amendment most certainly does NOT "only guarantee an inherent right to self defense through the use of them" -- though SCOTUS said it does do that.

    And actually their scholarship was off on that: at the time of the Bill of Rights, the right to self-defense with the means of your choice was so taken for granted that no one conceived it would ever be questioned. It was considered the mark of a free man, and any government which didn't honor it was regarded as a tyranny.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    Let's not forget that the debate as to the legality of banning handguns was incredibly narrow in SCOTUS, (5-4) with only the dissenting argument representing bi-partisan opinion. The result is hardly a reflection on sound democratic values, that a right has been secured through an imbalance of political ideology within SCOTUS whose arguments were too weak to convince the opposition, despite the reverse being true.
    The votes in favor of government authority to ban handguns were based mostly on utterly dishonest scholarship, the sort that lawyers from Yale love: you throw out the actual meaning of words, and then marshal arguments to make them mean what you want. The discussion of the Second Amendment at the time of ratification leaves absolutely no room for considering it a "state right" (an argument invented by racists in the time right after the Civil War, in order to justify disarming blacks) -- both those for it and those against understood it as an individual right. Use of the term "the people" shows that; nowhere in the Constitution or in any discussion about it is the term "the people" used to mean "the state"; it always means the individuals in the country all taken together.

    The honest justices were the ones who understood that and voted accordingly.

    BTW, using "bipartisan" the way you did is dishonest: it implies that the truth is determined by whatever compromise can be worked out. That really means there is no truth but what you want it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    Firstly, the practical result of banning handguns, is as much that the private citizen is protected from criminals, not to mention protected from the good ol law abiding postman who is yet to go postal, or from in fact themselves in a moment of futility in their life which makes suicide that much easier. The consequence of this is a far greater reduction in loss of life.
    Secondly, no law banning a specific 'arms', is infringing on the right to self defence. You can make the case that such a ban impedes your ability to enact your right, but this is counterbalanced by two points. One, that it actually does not, it simply affects the outcome, and two, that the criminal is impeded by such a ban also.
    The result of banning handguns is that criminals would be able to kill people without worrying about them fighting back -- it informs all law-abiding citizens that it is their duty to be victims.

    Again, the Constitution does not grant any authority to ban any type of arms. That would have to be in Article I, and it just isn't there.

    <sigh> Criminals will not be impeded by laws against handguns. They aren't impeded when it's harder to buy those, and they won't be impeded of no one is allowed to buy them. As has been pointed out, it's easy to make them.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    On a further point also. The current allowance of handguns can be argued to be protecting the criminal from the private individual, and from justice. I raise you George Zimmerman.
    Zimmerman is a case with no real bearing on the issue. "Stand Your Ground laws would horrify the Founding Fathers: they had a phrase, "to the wall", meaning that a citizen was expected to retreat from violence until his back was "against the wall".
    Last edited by Kulindahr; June 3rd, 2014 at 08:52 PM.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  33. #133
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,069
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    kulindahr, you're so driven by ideology you don't even recognise the parts of my argument where i agree with you.

    you're the one who time and time again has pointed out, or agreed, that the american right to arms does not extend to advanced military weaponry.

    congress may say "no you may not own your own stealth bomber" and the reason it may thusly make a distinction between a musket and a stealth bomber is because it is constitutionally proper for it to do so.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  34. #134
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    you're the one who time and time again has pointed out, or agreed, that the american right to arms does not extend to advanced military weaponry.
    I have never said such a thing. I have pointed out that the type of weaponry the citizen may keep and bear is defined by the militia concept, since it is given as a reason for the right being protected. The right as envisioned pertains to all military weaponry, however advanced, of the common weapons of the regular soldier. So what is excluded is not any level of technology, but weapons reserved for specialists and crew-served weapons -- though those could belong to an organized militia.

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    congress may say "no you may not own your own stealth bomber" and the reason it may thusly make a distinction between a musket and a stealth bomber is because it is constitutionally proper for it to do so.
    No, it may not. The types of weapons permitted are already set in the Constitution. Congress doesn't get to decide them -- it has no say in the matter, save the option of providing an effective subsidy for some specific type of weapon it would like to see pretty common among the militia. It doesn't have the privilege of excluding any kinds, because its only authority that pertains is to arm the militia, a right positive in its effects only.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  35. #135
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,669

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Picking and choosing "facts" is exactly what you do. You cite figures that if taken seriously mean that millions of Americans are killed by firearms annually. I'm just asking where the bodies are.
    You keep saying that the data "should" show things that it does not.

    Why do you keep inventing numbers when the real numbers are well known?

    Your point that guns make us safe be being only devastatingly more bad than good - when they could be horrifically more bad than good is ridiculous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    But that number isn't possible, according to your figures. You say that anyone trying to defend themselves with a firearm is many times more likely to be killed with it than to succeed. That means that millions of Americans are killed annually by firearms -- so where are the bodies?
    You keep making this horrific statement - that guns are wonderful because they could be killing far more people in the USA than the 87 people per day that they kill now. You seem to think it great that the USA has a death rate from guns that is only 4x greater than any other developed nation on earth.

    That's a bit like celebrating our high infant mortality rate - because, you know, it could be even worse if we were a third world country without any functional government. I refuse to champion the fact that we compare favorably to lawless states.




    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Those numbers come from your claims. If your claims are true, then show me the millions of bodies. They have to be somewhere!
    The numbers come from the coroner's reports of every county of every state in the USA. They have nothing to do with "me." The numbers are readily available, and not contested by anyone I know except you.

    You keep insisting that guns are so dangerous that it is remarkable that only ~32,000 people every year (87 people per day) die of gun violence in the USA every year. You keep commenting on how good it is that gun deaths in the USA are so high, compared to the rest of the developed world. You keep saying that we should be pleased, given our gun culture, that more people are not dying. That we should be pleased that we have by far the highest gun death rate in the developed world!


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Those studies are done regularly. They're done by people who actually are professionals in the field. The studies you cite lie with statistics, as is proven by the fact that there are not millions of dead bodies every year from firearms.
    Please cite these "studies" which disprove the scientific literature on guns.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    I fabricated nothing.
    You fabricate everything.

    You have not one shred of objective evidence to support your claims.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    People defend themselves with firearms anywhere between 600k and 2.5 million times per year.
    No, they don't. Those numbers are bogus, and demonstrably so.

    The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.

    A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.


    http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...nsive-gun-use/

    The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.


    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...nsive-gun-use/
    "There were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” in 2010. That's 230 out of 31,076 firearm deaths for the year 2010. In other words, carrying a gun is more good than bad for the bearer about 0.7% of the times that the gun gets used.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    You claim that when someone draws a gun to protect himself, he is many times more likely to be killed with his own weapon -- so it is indeed simple arithmetic: if he's five times more likely to be killed, then you just multiply the number of defensive uses by five, and get a number between three and twelve-and-a-half million.

    Where are the bodies?
    Your numbers are bogus. Hence, so also are your conclusions.

    See above.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    No, we don't. We want them done by qualified people. When someone's studies come up with statistics that if true would mean millions of Americans are being killed by firearms annually, that someone is plainly either incompetent or lying -- and if they're lying, they're incompetent.
    That's true.

    And, as the data clearly show, the people who are lying are the NRA.

    Hence, the NRA's reluctance to allow anyone to study the issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    I got tired of benvolio's lies. I really don't need yours, either.
    Almost everything you say about guns is a lie.

    That's not my opinion. I can cite genuine data, from dozens of real studies. You can't.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails _65077559_us_gun_compared_624.gif  
    Last edited by T-Rexx; June 4th, 2014 at 09:30 AM.

  36. #136
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You keep saying that the data "should" show things that it does not.
    I have not said such a thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Why do you keep inventing numbers when the real numbers are well known?
    I'm not inventing any numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Your point that guns make us safe be being only devastatingly more bad than good - when they could be horrifically more bad than good is ridiculous.
    I haven't said anything resembling that.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You keep making this horrific statement - that guns are wonderful because they could be killing far more people in the USA than the 87 people per day that they kill now. You seem to think it great that the USA has a death rate from guns that is only 4x greater than any other developed nation on earth.

    That's a bit like celebrating our high infant mortality rate - because, you know, it could be even worse if we were a third world country without any functional government. I refuse to champion the fact that we compare favorably to lawless states.
    Please stop making crap up -- nowhere have I said anything like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    The numbers come from the coroner's reports of every county of every state in the USA. They have nothing to do with "me." The numbers are readily available, and not contested by anyone I know except you.
    Coroners reports deal with statistical claims about how likely someone is to get hurt by a firearm? Wow.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You keep insisting that guns are so dangerous that it is remarkable that only ~32,000 people every year (87 people per day) die of gun violence in the USA every year. You keep commenting on how good it is that gun deaths in the USA are so high, compared to the rest of the developed world. You keep saying that we should be pleased, given our gun culture, that more people are not dying. That we should be pleased that we have by far the highest gun death rate in the developed world!
    You've learned the Brady bunch methods well: lie, lie, lie. Seriously, do you have to work to make this crap up, or does it come naturally?

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Please cite these "studies" which disprove the scientific literature on guns.
    You haven't cited any scientific studies -- just deception with statistics.

    But here:

    “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

    “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...rime-deterrent

    Sort of blows your claim that the NRA is stopping any studies out of the water, 'cause here's one Obama ordered done -- which just happens to show that if you draw a firearm for defensive use, you're safer than people who don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    No, they don't. Those numbers are bogus, and demonstrably so.
    You're citing the VPC? Seriously?

    They're at least as bad as the Heritage Institute, dependably churning out "studies" put together to reach a predetermined "conclusion".

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    "There were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” in 2010. That's 230 out of 31,076 firearm deaths for the year 2010. In other words, carrying a gun is more good than bad for the bearer about 0.7% of the times that the gun gets used.
    Good God -- this is an error in statistical analysis explained in the first term of a college statistics course. WTF do justifiable homicides have to do with it? That's only a minor subset of the figure of proper comparison, which is how many times a firearm deters, stops, or captures the criminal!

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Your numbers are bogus. Hence, so also are your conclusions.
    the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles...n-self-defense

    Using the low figure, by your claim about defensive gun use, there are a minimum of half a million bodies ever year that are somehow being hidden -- and more likely well over a million.

    See, this is something from a basic college statistics course: to check the results of a comparison, project the results and see if they match reality. If they don't, you goofed. Since there clearly aren't half a million or more dead bodies dropping each year, then the results of the "study" you reference are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Almost everything you say about guns is a lie.

    That's not my opinion. I can cite genuine data, from dozens of real studies. You can't.
    The "studies" you're basing your arguments on are bogus. I keep trying to make that clear, and it's just simple arithmetic, but you're not getting it.

    According to the federal government, your numbers for defensive use are 'way low. And according to the CDC, the claim that defensive firearms use overwhelmingly means the defender is going to get shot is flat out false.
    Last edited by Kulindahr; June 4th, 2014 at 09:44 PM.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  37. #137
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,669

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    ^ You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

    I have recently been carrying on a "discussion" of evolution with someone on another gay site. This person reminds me of you, Kuli. She refuses to accept any of the scientific evidence for evolution. It is ALL bogus and manufactured by a biased scientific community, which has some kind of secret agenda against her religious beliefs.

    It is not possible to "argue" with people who do not accept facts.

    I leave you to your fantasies.

  38. #138
    Slut DreamTeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Rugby UK
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    209

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    In the Second Amendment. The inclusion of the militia concept tells us what arms are meant: the common arms of a regular soldier.
    So we are to understand then, that the anti-federalists, who were fearful of a threat to state security, insisted on having a militia concept included in the constitution, not merely because of that fear, but to define what arms they were allowed to keep and bear?? Get real Kuli. You're applying an interpretation that fits your thinking, and one that is quite odd when you look at it, as why would they (anti-federalists), the ones who pushed to have the amendment included in the first place, leave a big gaping hole of insecurity from a federal force with far heavier weaponry, i.e cannons and anything else 'not' of the common soldier. Either, this is because they did not consider the parameters of arms at all, just the defensive protection they were seeking, OR, they were not thinking of the militia as individual citizens, but a group of such, who could be equipped equally with the federal government, i.e. weapons of the common soldier limitation, not applicable. Either way, your interpretation doesn't add up. Likely due to the fact, ironically, which you accuse me of in a later point, you have adopted the interpretation that suits, rather than the truth. Naturally, this is the interpretation of past SCOTUS decisions, but not even supreme court justices are beyond erring, or corruption, or ignorance.
    The very fact that the 2nd amendment stems from an English Common Law which assured the rights of the 'protestants' to keep and bear arms, to protect them from catholic tyranny, whilst providing no inclusion for catholics (or any other), shows that the law was designed to protect a group of people, not individual people. The fact that SCOTUS adopted an individual rights view, does not validate their position as one of truth. The case for individual rights was partisan and unconvincing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    No, they don't. And the Second Amendment most certainly does NOT "only guarantee an inherent right to self defense through the use of them" -- though SCOTUS said it does do that.
    WOW!!!. Firstly, i didn't know that SCOTUS came to that conclusion. I came to that conclusion ON MY OWN, by reading up on the history of the 2nd in relation to English Common Law, which i mentioned previously. It makes sense. Looks like SCOTUS doesn't always get it wrong. Secondly, Nelson Lund, University Professor at George Mason University School of Law disagrees with you too, they DO have the power to define what weapons the militia are allowed to bear. Again, this probably stems from English Common Law, where the militia were allowed to be armed, in accordance with weaponry permitted by law. And this is why rocket launchers and cluster bombs don't count, because the law decided they don't. And no interpretation of 'arms of the common soldier' makes the case above what is the truth, that these types of weapons are banned because of the destructive nature of them and the devastating effects being detrimental to the 'GREATER GOOD'. It is the greater good that is the key, not any 'interpretation' used to justify the course of action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    And actually their scholarship was off on that: at the time of the Bill of Rights, the right to self-defense with the means of your choice was so taken for granted that no one conceived it would ever be questioned. It was considered the mark of a free man, and any government which didn't honor it was regarded as a tyranny.
    Poppycock. Their scholarship is contemporary. They are looking at things with the purpose of answering questions raised. At the time of the Bill or Rights, they did not have the foresight to envisage what may come, in order to address potential 'problems'.
    And if those problems render a modern nation to change the constitution, or any interpretation of it, for the greater good, to circumvent those problems unforeseen, its common sense to do so. To stand firm to a position, simply because it started that way, makes you a fundamentalist does it not??? And we kinda know how great fundamentalism is for the world right....


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    The votes in favor of government authority to ban handguns were based mostly on utterly dishonest scholarship, the sort that lawyers from Yale love: you throw out the actual meaning of words, and then marshal arguments to make them mean what you want. The discussion of the Second Amendment at the time of ratification leaves absolutely no room for considering it a "state right" (an argument invented by racists in the time right after the Civil War, in order to justify disarming blacks) -- both those for it and those against understood it as an individual right. Use of the term "the people" shows that; nowhere in the Constitution or in any discussion about it is the term "the people" used to mean "the state"; it always means the individuals in the country all taken together.
    Sorry, but this doesn't add up. If we are talking about amendments being secured, prior to forming a union, and creating a federal power, i think its almost inarguable that the contents of the Bill of Rights were there to protect people of individual states from federal supremacy, affording the states to reside over its peoples without federal interference. It was NOT an accord between individuals and the government, it was an accord between the States and the federal government. Thus the use of 'the people' refers to the States people, in relation to federal government. And as the dissenters noted, if it was in reference to individuals, rather than collectively as the people of the state, why was the term 'people' (group of persons) used, instead of persons (individuals). Even the dictionary definitions note people to mean a group, and persons to be a plural of the individual.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    The honest justices were the ones who understood that and voted accordingly.
    The honest judges are the intelligent ones who observed the truth. They were unfortunately in the minority, but at least they were bi-partisan in their group.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    BTW, using "bipartisan" the way you did is dishonest: it implies that the truth is determined by whatever compromise can be worked out. That really means there is no truth but what you want it to be.
    There was no dishonesty whatsoever actually. It was simple fact. Firstly, that a contemporary view differs from a fundamental one, does not render the contemporary one wrong. As what you seem to be implying is that the truth or anything is that which is set out first. In which case Jesuits are sinful people for defying God's word in their faith and embracing the gay community, whilst the WBC are saints.
    And secondly, in any case, your interpretation of the truth is disputed anyway (which means the bi-partisan view is likely correct on both counts).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    The result of banning handguns is that criminals would be able to kill people without worrying about them fighting back -- it informs all law-abiding citizens that it is their duty to be victims.
    Would you like an honorary UKIP membership? Your scaremongering is sensational. Let's look at the fact here, that criminals are having seemingly no difficulty killing people in the USA, as is. So to argue that taking guns away from people (of which criminals are too, however much you like to apply the 'animal' mentality to them) is going to have that effect is stupid. You already have that effect!!!
    And far from informing the law-abiding citizen that they have a duty to be a victim (pure unadulterated scaremongering), its actually a reflection of a government that cares about making society safer. A safer society is the greater good. And please spare me the whole spiel about being treated as a statistic, because it is no different within the status quo, where it seemingly doesn't matter how many people die in order to make you feel safer personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Again, the Constitution does not grant any authority to ban any type of arms. That would have to be in Article I, and it just isn't there.
    It is there. Congress has the authority over the militia, and may choose to arm them as they see fit. If congress wanted to ban handguns, it is able to do so. The individual states cannot do it if congress want the militia to have access, but SCOTUS over-ruled any authority by backing a false interpretation, forcing DC to overturn a handgun ban. Its unlikely that congress had any real issue with the ban.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    <sigh> Criminals will not be impeded by laws against handguns. They aren't impeded when it's harder to buy those, and they won't be impeded of no one is allowed to buy them. As has been pointed out, it's easy to make them.
    And as has been pointed out, making them is rare. In the states, only half of all burglars carry a gun, despite the availability. Every restriction reduces that number of criminals having them, and for those that insist on using them to commit a crime, have to commit a crime in order to obtain them, which is an extra opportunity to get caught before they commit their original purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Zimmerman is a case with no real bearing on the issue. "Stand Your Ground laws would horrify the Founding Fathers: they had a phrase, "to the wall", meaning that a citizen was expected to retreat from violence until his back was "against the wall".
    It is a case which most certainly DOES have a bearing on the issue. If you are going to argue the positive points of guns being used to protect the law-abiding from the criminal, you cannot ignore the negative points of the reverse scenarios, just because the bad man didn't follow the rules lol, what do you expect??
    Last edited by opinterph; June 9th, 2014 at 06:08 PM. Reason: added attributions

  39. #139
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    ^ You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

    I have recently been carrying on a "discussion" of evolution with someone on another gay site. This person reminds me of you, Kuli. She refuses to accept any of the scientific evidence for evolution. It is ALL bogus and manufactured by a biased scientific community, which has some kind of secret agenda against her religious beliefs.

    It is not possible to "argue" with people who do not accept facts.

    I leave you to your fantasies.
    I've shown why at least one study you love to reference is bogus. And I posted the evidence that the CDC says that position is incorrect.

    So now that you're faced with sound data, you bow out. Figures.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  40. #140
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    So we are to understand then, that the anti-federalists, who were fearful of a threat to state security, insisted on having a militia concept included in the constitution, not merely because of that fear, but to define what arms they were allowed to keep and bear?? Get real Kuli. You're applying an interpretation that fits your thinking, and one that is quite odd when you look at it, as why would they (anti-federalists), the ones who pushed to have the amendment included in the first place, leave a big gaping hole of insecurity from a federal force with far heavier weaponry, i.e cannons and anything else 'not' of the common soldier. Either, this is because they did not consider the parameters of arms at all, just the defensive protection they were seeking, OR, they were not thinking of the militia as individual citizens, but a group of such, who could be equipped equally with the federal government, i.e. weapons of the common soldier limitation, not applicable. Either way, your interpretation doesn't add up. Likely due to the fact, ironically, which you accuse me of in a later point, you have adopted the interpretation that suits, rather than the truth. Naturally, this is the interpretation of past SCOTUS decisions, but not even supreme court justices are beyond erring, or corruption, or ignorance.
    My thinking was formed by scholarship. Scholarship begins with the proposition that words have meaning, and that meaning can be determined by analysis.

    There was no "hole" left in the Amendment: the people can also have all the specialized and crew-served weapons -- just not as individuals.

    Have you seen pictures of a cannon or a courthouse lawn? The reason the courthouse had a cannon was that the cannon was part of the arms of the militia.

    So the federal government would have had no advantage in weaponry -- the militia was entitled to it all.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    The very fact that the 2nd amendment stems from an English Common Law which assured the rights of the 'protestants' to keep and bear arms, to protect them from catholic tyranny, whilst providing no inclusion for catholics (or any other), shows that the law was designed to protect a group of people, not individual people. The fact that SCOTUS adopted an individual rights view, does not validate their position as one of truth. The case for individual rights was partisan and unconvincing.
    But that's not what the Second Amendment says. In order to get "a group of people" out of it, you have to maintain that the Framers of the Constitution were sloppy in their language in the foundational document for their nation! "People" in every case in the Constitution means all the individuals, not as a group but as individuals -- and there's no reason at all to believe it means anything different in the Second.

    Nor is it what the people who argued over the Constitution and the amendments said it meant. It's worth noting that the Amendment was almost written to require every able-bodied male citizen to have the appropriate weapons for the militia, not merely to protect the right to do so.

    As for the Protestant aspect, part of the debate on adoption of the amendments concerned excluding anyone by reason of his faith -- and the response was to point to the First Amendment, and conclude that restrictions on the basis of religion were not acceptable.

    "Partisan and unconvincing"? Hardly. One of the often overlooked bits behind that decision was the fact that the Supreme Court, in over a dozen different cases in the nineteenth century, listed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, right there besides freedom of speech and of religion and the rest. That was never questioned until racist in the South came up with the notion that only members of the militia could be armed, i.e. that it was protection of a state's rights, in order to disarm blacks. And that, BTW, was the critical element that got the Fourteenth Amendment passed -- and in the debates, it was always stated as an individual right, because it would guarantee that individual blacks could keep and bear arms just like whites.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    WOW!!!. Firstly, i didn't know that SCOTUS came to that conclusion. I came to that conclusion ON MY OWN, by reading up on the history of the 2nd in relation to English Common Law, which i mentioned previously. It makes sense. Looks like SCOTUS doesn't always get it wrong. Secondly, Nelson Lund, University Professor at George Mason University School of Law disagrees with you too, they DO have the power to define what weapons the militia are allowed to bear. Again, this probably stems from English Common Law, where the militia were allowed to be armed, in accordance with weaponry permitted by law. And this is why rocket launchers and cluster bombs don't count, because the law decided they don't. And no interpretation of 'arms of the common soldier' makes the case above what is the truth, that these types of weapons are banned because of the destructive nature of them and the devastating effects being detrimental to the 'GREATER GOOD'. It is the greater good that is the key, not any 'interpretation' used to justify the course of action.
    The Second Amendment isn't about self-defense -- or rather it wasn't until SCOTUS added that. In colonial law, the right to self defense was so firmly accepted that no one suggested any amendment to protect that right. The Second was meant to sit alongside, to allow arms not just for self-defense, but of the latest military weaponry.

    Or at least that's how it was framed in the whole discussion back then, and I dare to presume that the people at the time knew what their words meant.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    Poppycock. Their scholarship is contemporary. They are looking at things with the purpose of answering questions raised. At the time of the Bill or Rights, they did not have the foresight to envisage what may come, in order to address potential 'problems'.
    And if those problems render a modern nation to change the constitution, or any interpretation of it, for the greater good, to circumvent those problems unforeseen, its common sense to do so. To stand firm to a position, simply because it started that way, makes you a fundamentalist does it not??? And we kinda know how great fundamentalism is for the world right....
    So you believe in changing the meaning of things to fit your views.

    Contemporary scholarship, given the way you present it as being allowed to change the meaning of the Constitution by invoking new conditions, is bogus. That isn't scholarship at all, but its opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    Sorry, but this doesn't add up. If we are talking about amendments being secured, prior to forming a union, and creating a federal power, i think its almost inarguable that the contents of the Bill of Rights were there to protect people of individual states from federal supremacy, affording the states to reside over its peoples without federal interference.
    Why do you insist on this distortion? Are you suggesting that people actually thought it was okay for individual states to restrict the freedom of speech, or of the press, etc? How is it that every single right guaranteed is an individual right -- or are you going to suggest that individuals have no protection against unreasonable search and seizure? -- but you want to make the Second different?

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    It was NOT an accord between individuals and the government, it was an accord between the States and the federal government. Thus the use of 'the people' refers to the States people, in relation to federal government.
    So the right to free speech was for the states, not the citizens?

    Over and over and over the Supreme Court has noted that "the people" means the individuals, that when it says "the people" can peaceably assemble, that doesn't mean only if it's the majority? That doesn't work, because in the debates it was always considered the right of individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    Firstly, that a contemporary view differs from a fundamental one, does not render the contemporary one wrong. As what you seem to be implying is that the truth or anything is that which is set out first.
    It most certainly renders the contemporary one wrong. The reason for that is that words have meaning, and the meaning is the one used by the one (or ones) who spoke or wrote them. The truth is what the words mean -- and of course that's "set down first", because it's the original.

    Your approach would mean that Congress and the President could decide that only people with college degrees were allowed free speech, only property owners were safe from arbitrary search and seizure, etc. Why? Because you're allowing people to change the meanings of words.

    Indeed you're using the same sort of thinking by which Bush and now Obama have been handed the authority to run the country as a police state, that was used to allow torture in Iraq, and now American citizens to be assassinated without trial: they just change the meaning of the words to fit the contemporary situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    And secondly, in any case, your interpretation of the truth is disputed anyway (which means the bi-partisan view is likely correct on both counts).
    That something is disputed has no bearing on its meaning.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  41. #141
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    Would you like an honorary UKIP membership? Your scaremongering is sensational. Let's look at the fact here, that criminals are having seemingly no difficulty killing people in the USA, as is. So to argue that taking guns away from people (of which criminals are too, however much you like to apply the 'animal' mentality to them) is going to have that effect is stupid. You already have that effect!!!
    And far from informing the law-abiding citizen that they have a duty to be a victim (pure unadulterated scaremongering), its actually a reflection of a government that cares about making society safer. A safer society is the greater good. And please spare me the whole spiel about being treated as a statistic, because it is no different within the status quo, where it seemingly doesn't matter how many people die in order to make you feel safer personally.
    Logic is not "scaremongering". At present, with citizens allowed to exercise the right to acquire arms to keep and bear, a criminal has no idea if the person he's planning to make a victim is armed. So he doesn't know if the person will be easy prey or not, so he's more cautious.

    But if the right is infringed by a ban on handguns, then the criminal knows there's not likely to be any effective opposition. That just gives the situation, as evidenced by all the mass shooters going to places where they know guns are banned: law-abiding citizens are required to be victims.

    A "safer society" is NOT a "greater good"! Anything a government might want to do, anything at all, can be justified in the name of "safety".

    And this isn't about me "feeling" safer, it's about being safer. As the CDC study showed, people with a firearm to deter criminals end up with fewer and less sever injuries than those without. That means that firearms do, in fact make individuals safer -- and since society is made up of individuals, it makes society safer.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    And as has been pointed out, making them is rare. In the states, only half of all burglars carry a gun, despite the availability. Every restriction reduces that number of criminals having them, and for those that insist on using them to commit a crime, have to commit a crime in order to obtain them, which is an extra opportunity to get caught before they commit their original purpose.
    Every restriction condemns people to be victims, because it becomes harder for them to have a useful defense.

    Making guns at home is rare now, but so were thousands of back-room stills before Prohibition. The change in the law inevitably brings a change in the demand for a service.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  42. #142
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,669

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    I've shown why at least one study you love to reference is bogus.
    Nonsense.

    You accept the results of an unpublished telephone survey from 20 years ago, in which there were as few as 196 responses to some of the questions. But you reject official national crime statistics.

    I have no idea which study you are referring to that I "love to reference." There are many dozens of them. Which one are you referring to?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    And I posted the evidence that the CDC says that position is incorrect.

    So now that you're faced with sound data, you bow out. Figures.
    Sound data? That's laughable. You accept only a single telephone survey from 20 years ago that you agree with. One that has been laughed at by people who actually study this issue. Gary Kleck never published his telephone survey in a peer-reviewed journal, because he could not find one that considered his "data" acceptable to their standards. Yet he is your sole source of information, because he spouts the nonsense you want to hear.

    I bow out only because I cannot argue with someone who refuses to accept facts. Isaac Asimov once said that, if you let him pick and choose among the data available, he could prove a connection between sun spots and the pattern of burping of cows along the Nile.

    You have proven a connection between sun spots and the pattern of burping of cows along the Nile. I can't argue with that with mere facts.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; June 6th, 2014 at 04:29 AM.

  43. #143
    Slut DreamTeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Rugby UK
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    209

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    My thinking was formed by scholarship. Scholarship begins with the proposition that words have meaning, and that meaning can be determined by analysis.

    There was no "hole" left in the Amendment: the people can also have all the specialized and crew-served weapons -- just not as individuals.

    Have you seen pictures of a cannon or a courthouse lawn? The reason the courthouse had a cannon was that the cannon was part of the arms of the militia.

    So the federal government would have had no advantage in weaponry -- the militia was entitled to it all.



    But that's not what the Second Amendment says. In order to get "a group of people" out of it, you have to maintain that the Framers of the Constitution were sloppy in their language in the foundational document for their nation! "People" in every case in the Constitution means all the individuals, not as a group but as individuals -- and there's no reason at all to believe it means anything different in the Second.

    Nor is it what the people who argued over the Constitution and the amendments said it meant. It's worth noting that the Amendment was almost written to require every able-bodied male citizen to have the appropriate weapons for the militia, not merely to protect the right to do so.

    As for the Protestant aspect, part of the debate on adoption of the amendments concerned excluding anyone by reason of his faith -- and the response was to point to the First Amendment, and conclude that restrictions on the basis of religion were not acceptable.

    "Partisan and unconvincing"? Hardly. One of the often overlooked bits behind that decision was the fact that the Supreme Court, in over a dozen different cases in the nineteenth century, listed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, right there besides freedom of speech and of religion and the rest. That was never questioned until racist in the South came up with the notion that only members of the militia could be armed, i.e. that it was protection of a state's rights, in order to disarm blacks. And that, BTW, was the critical element that got the Fourteenth Amendment passed -- and in the debates, it was always stated as an individual right, because it would guarantee that individual blacks could keep and bear arms just like whites.



    The Second Amendment isn't about self-defense -- or rather it wasn't until SCOTUS added that. In colonial law, the right to self defense was so firmly accepted that no one suggested any amendment to protect that right. The Second was meant to sit alongside, to allow arms not just for self-defense, but of the latest military weaponry.

    Or at least that's how it was framed in the whole discussion back then, and I dare to presume that the people at the time knew what their words meant.



    So you believe in changing the meaning of things to fit your views.

    Contemporary scholarship, given the way you present it as being allowed to change the meaning of the Constitution by invoking new conditions, is bogus. That isn't scholarship at all, but its opposite.



    Why do you insist on this distortion? Are you suggesting that people actually thought it was okay for individual states to restrict the freedom of speech, or of the press, etc? How is it that every single right guaranteed is an individual right -- or are you going to suggest that individuals have no protection against unreasonable search and seizure? -- but you want to make the Second different?



    So the right to free speech was for the states, not the citizens?

    Over and over and over the Supreme Court has noted that "the people" means the individuals, that when it says "the people" can peaceably assemble, that doesn't mean only if it's the majority? That doesn't work, because in the debates it was always considered the right of individuals.



    It most certainly renders the contemporary one wrong. The reason for that is that words have meaning, and the meaning is the one used by the one (or ones) who spoke or wrote them. The truth is what the words mean -- and of course that's "set down first", because it's the original.

    Your approach would mean that Congress and the President could decide that only people with college degrees were allowed free speech, only property owners were safe from arbitrary search and seizure, etc. Why? Because you're allowing people to change the meanings of words.

    Indeed you're using the same sort of thinking by which Bush and now Obama have been handed the authority to run the country as a police state, that was used to allow torture in Iraq, and now American citizens to be assassinated without trial: they just change the meaning of the words to fit the contemporary situation.



    That something is disputed has no bearing on its meaning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Logic is not "scaremongering". At present, with citizens allowed to exercise the right to acquire arms to keep and bear, a criminal has no idea if the person he's planning to make a victim is armed. So he doesn't know if the person will be easy prey or not, so he's more cautious.

    But if the right is infringed by a ban on handguns, then the criminal knows there's not likely to be any effective opposition. That just gives the situation, as evidenced by all the mass shooters going to places where they know guns are banned: law-abiding citizens are required to be victims.

    A "safer society" is NOT a "greater good"! Anything a government might want to do, anything at all, can be justified in the name of "safety".

    And this isn't about me "feeling" safer, it's about being safer. As the CDC study showed, people with a firearm to deter criminals end up with fewer and less sever injuries than those without. That means that firearms do, in fact make individuals safer -- and since society is made up of individuals, it makes society safer.



    Every restriction condemns people to be victims, because it becomes harder for them to have a useful defense.

    Making guns at home is rare now, but so were thousands of back-room stills before Prohibition. The change in the law inevitably brings a change in the demand for a service.
    The tall and the short of your position, is that you're a fundamentalist.

    I'm not gonna respond to each and every point as we've been around this block many a time, but i'll note a few:-

    *You insist on arguing your point as if modernity means nothing. 'the founding father's meant', or 'that's how it's always been'. Past generations and governments do not have a right to bind current or future governments, so it is far less relevant to determine what those of the past may or may not have been thinking. Contemporary views are the progressive ones. Of course, can't really blame you for taking that angle, as you've only got the shield of the 2nd amendment to protect your own interests, as the reality of your position isn't strong enough to make your case in the debate otherwise (imagine trying to argue why you SHOULD have guns if you didn't have the 2nd). I lead you to:-

    *The statistics for gun crime outside of the US do not support your 'homemade gun-making' as a consequence of gun restriction. Nor are the death tolls of any of the other 31 developed nations (with the exception of Mexico) anything remotely as high per 100,000 population as they are in the states. Nor are the statistics for 'spree' killings remotely as high as in the States. Nor does the argument that criminals are more cautious about committing a crime in a gun-wielding society stack up, since such a notion is counter-balanced by guns in criminal hands, allowing them to be more brazen. Nor does the argument that you are personally safer stack up, as this is counter-balanced by the statistically higher propensity to be murdered, involved in an accident with a firearm, or take your own life with greater success (ease).

    *You can claim as much as you like, with all the support of past SCOTUS decisions, that the word people refers to individuals. This will remain disputed, and the most recent vote is the more telling. The word people is used not to refer to individuals, but to the collective of individuals (people of the State). You try to bolster your argument on the basis that it only takes a single person of those people to exercise a right, thus it must refer to individuals, which is simply distorting plain english. People means group of individuals. The dissenters recognize that. If individuals were meant, 'person(s)' would have been a more logical wording. When it comes to analyzing each right, you've opted for the individual view, in conflict with that which is recognized by the dissent, because if you took any other position, you'd lose your handguns. Just because it only takes one person to speak, or one person to pray, or one person to petition et al, does not automatically establish that the 2nd amendment's (or necessarily any other) also refers to an individual. You're looking at it perfectly logically, but the problem is that logic isn't always the right answer. Its like saying blue is a colour, red is a colour, green is a colour, so black must also be a colour. Which brings me onto my last point:-

    *It IS scaremongering to use logic, when that logic does not tally up with the evidence.

  44. #144
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You accept the results of an unpublished telephone survey from 20 years ago, in which there were as few as 196 responses to some of the questions. But you reject official national crime statistics.

    I have no idea which study you are referring to that I "love to reference." There are many dozens of them. Which one are you referring to?




    Sound data? That's laughable. You accept only a single telephone survey from 20 years ago that you agree with. One that has been laughed at by people who actually study this issue. Gary Kleck never published his telephone survey in a peer-reviewed journal, because he could not find one that considered his "data" acceptable to their standards. Yet he is your sole source of information, because he spouts the nonsense you want to hear.

    I bow out only because I cannot argue with someone who refuses to accept facts. Isaac Asimov once said that, if you let him pick and choose among the data available, he could prove a connection between sun spots and the pattern of burping of cows along the Nile.
    Yet again you fill a post with lies, and crap you've made up.

    I gave you facts. And I have no idea what "telephone survey from 20 years ago" you're talking about.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  45. #145
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    *You insist on arguing your point as if modernity means nothing. 'the founding father's meant', or 'that's how it's always been'. Past generations and governments do not have a right to bind current or future governments, so it is far less relevant to determine what those of the past may or may not have been thinking. Contemporary views are the progressive ones. Of course, can't really blame you for taking that angle, as you've only got the shield of the 2nd amendment to protect your own interests, as the reality of your position isn't strong enough to make your case in the debate otherwise (imagine trying to argue why you SHOULD have guns if you didn't have the 2nd). I lead you to:-
    Totally false, both philosophically and legally. Your position rests on denying that words have meaning, and that the US Constitution is some frivolous document you can make say what you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    *The statistics for gun crime outside of the US do not support your 'homemade gun-making' as a consequence of gun restriction. Nor are the death tolls of any of the other 31 developed nations (with the exception of Mexico) anything remotely as high per 100,000 population as they are in the states. Nor are the statistics for 'spree' killings remotely as high as in the States. Nor does the argument that criminals are more cautious about committing a crime in a gun-wielding society stack up, since such a notion is counter-balanced by guns in criminal hands, allowing them to be more brazen. Nor does the argument that you are personally safer stack up, as this is counter-balanced by the statistically higher propensity to be murdered, involved in an accident with a firearm, or take your own life with greater success (ease).
    Statistics from outside of the United States are not applicable to the United States. For starters -- and this is a disease that's infecting the US -- the rest of the world has a system based on "the elite know best", and at root rest on the unfounded notion that governments can give and take rights.

    And the CDC's results contradict your assertion about personal safety.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    *You can claim as much as you like, with all the support of past SCOTUS decisions, that the word people refers to individuals. This will remain disputed, and the most recent vote is the more telling. The word people is used not to refer to individuals, but to the collective of individuals (people of the State).
    SCOTUS has listed the Second Amendment as an individual right since the beginning. That is important in determining what it means.

    And the word means the same in the Second Amendment as it does in the rest of the Constitution: the rights designated as belonging to the people are always individual rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    You try to bolster your argument on the basis that it only takes a single person of those people to exercise a right, thus it must refer to individuals, which is simply distorting plain english. People means group of individuals. The dissenters recognize that. If individuals were meant, 'person(s)' would have been a more logical wording. When it comes to analyzing each right, you've opted for the individual view, in conflict with that which is recognized by the dissent, because if you took any other position, you'd lose your handguns. Just because it only takes one person to speak, or one person to pray, or one person to petition et al, does not automatically establish that the 2nd amendment's (or necessarily any other) also refers to an individual. You're looking at it perfectly logically, but the problem is that logic isn't always the right answer. Its like saying blue is a colour, red is a colour, green is a colour, so black must also be a colour. Which brings me onto my last point:-
    I haven't "opted" for any view but what the words mean -- and that is what their authors and those who put them in the Constitution intended for them to mean. One comment arguing for adoption of the Second Amendment is telling: that the goal of the Amendment was "that every man be armed".

    Congress and the country understood it as an individual right when they embarked on passing the Fourteenth Amendment, which was primarily propelled by the post-bellum South inventing the position that it only applied to official members of a state militia in order to take firearms away from blacks. The aim of the Fourteenth was to secure the rights of individuals.

    You argue as though the Framers of the Constitution were schizophrenic an sloppy, changing the meaning of words within the foundational document for the country. That's dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTeam View Post
    *It IS scaremongering to use logic, when that logic does not tally up with the evidence.
    You have no idea what human rights are, do you? They are not derived from evidence, but are inherent in individuals. The rights of groups are rights because they are derived from the rights of individuals. The authority of government is derived from delegation of the exercise of certain rights as authority -- but the delegation of exercising certain rights on one's behalf does not negate the retention of that right.

    No individual has the right to disarm another at will, unless the one being disarmed is threatening him. So there can be no government authority to disarm individuals.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  46. #146
    Lil' Demon Beggar MakeDigitalLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Voorhees
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,864

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Statistics from outside of the United States are not applicable to the United States. For starters -- and this is a disease that's infecting the US -- the rest of the world has a system based on "the elite know best", and at root rest on the unfounded notion that governments can give and take rights.
    They are applicable when making a comparison.

  47. #147
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by MakeDigitalLove View Post
    They are applicable when making a comparison.
    They're no more useful for comparison than looking at injury rates between full-contact sports and golf: the nature of the beast is entirely different.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  48. #148
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,669

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Yet again you fill a post with lies, and crap you've made up.

    I gave you facts. And I have no idea what "telephone survey from 20 years ago" you're talking about.
    The figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses that you cite repeatedly is from a single telephone survey conducted in 1994 by Gary Kleck of Florida State University. Kleck telephoned a number of people around America and asked them how frequently they had used their guns in self defense. He then extrapolated the 2.5 million figure from his tiny sample size, based on the the US population at the time.

    You cannot find Kleck's phone survey published in any peer-reviewed journal, because Kleck could not find one that felt his data or his methods measured up to their standards for publication. Kleck's sample size was too small, his questions too leading, and his conclusions did not follow from his data. There are also a number of contradictions in his data. Kleck finally "published" in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, a student publication at Northwestern University. (Yes, the sum total of all your evidence for defensive gun use in America comes from a single article from 20 years ago, printed in a campus newspaper!). The "paper" is hard to read, because it is not a scientific paper and does not follow the usual format of such papers (i.e., Abstract, Materials & Methods, etc.).


    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    I gave you facts. *And I have no idea what "telephone survey from 20 years ago" you're talking about.
    My apologies. Since you throw these numbers around frequently, and claim they are so much better than decades of national crime statistics, I assumed you understood where your "facts" were coming from.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; June 7th, 2014 at 07:15 PM.

  49. #149
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,990
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    The figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses that you cite repeatedly is from a single telephone survey conducted in 1994 by Gary Kleck of Florida State University. Kleck telephoned a number of people around America and asked them how frequently they had used their guns in self defense. He then extrapolated the 2.5 million figure from his tiny sample size, based on the the US population at the time.

    You cannot find Kleck's phone survey published in any peer-reviewed journal, because Kleck could not find one that felt his data or his methods measured up to their standards for publication. Kleck's sample size was too small, his questions too leading, and his conclusions did not follow from his data. There are also a number of contradictions in his data. Kleck finally "published" in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, a student publication at Northwestern University. (Yes, the sum total of all your evidence for defensive gun use in America comes from a single article from 20 years ago, printed in a campus newspaper!). The "paper" is hard to read, because it is not a scientific paper and does not follow the usual format of such papers (i.e., Abstract, Materials & Methods, etc.).




    My apologies. Since you throw these numbers around frequently, and claim they are so much better than decades of national crime statistics, I assumed you understood where your "facts" were coming from.
    My facts came from the CDC.

    Are you ever going to start being honest and respond to me instead of to your fantasies about me? It would be nice to know.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  50. #150
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,069
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: California Shooting: The spin begins

    It's fairly easy to find info supporting t-rexx's position.

    http://vacps.org/index.php/public-po...tions-of-kleck

    This "cdc study" really just summarised to get a figure of 500 000 to 3 000 000 defensive gun uses per year “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys."* They did not research this figure, they just published the results of other studies. Perhaps including Kleck's whackadoo gun nut study? Perhaps including a survey of NRA members "Oh yeah we shoot criminals all the time!"


    *quoted by William Saletan in Slate:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/health...gs_from_a.html
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.