|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2003 : 04:34:55 [Permalink]
|
This has been a very contentious thread from the beginning, and I can understand why. The question of gun control has not yet been settled by the courts, and I don't expect it to be anytime soon. Plus, I have to agree with Garrette. I don't believe that U.S. v. Miller settled, or significantly addressed the real questions of individual gun ownership. If it had, I surely think that the decision would have been incorporated against the states.
Now, I realize that most could care less about my uneducated opinions on political matters and on law, but I'm going to lay it on y'all anyway.
I feel that the architects of the Bill of Rights made it quite clear as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment. With the suspicions, (some real, some imagined) of the Democrats about the real aspirations of the Federalists, a well armed populace was a sure fire remedy for Monarchial ambitions. The American Revolution had proven that a populace armed with the technologically superior hunting rifles was quite a vexation for the heavily regimented armies relying on the musket in the rural environment of the Colonies.
The problem, I think, is believing that these conditions may still exist. This is not the Eighteenth Century. Someone had mentioned that an effective campaign of resistance was being waged by Iraqi irregulars simply because they have guns. Perhaps so, but those guns that are killing US troops are not hunting rifles and handguns. They are rocket launchers and fully automatic assault rifles. The resistance surely would wither and die if they stood against the well trained and well armed US forces with hand guns, and bolt action rifles.
Technology has changed. My peers and I may well be able to disappear into the swamps with our pistols and our hunting rifles, but we are not ignorant enough to think that we wouldn't be utterly destroyed by a modern military unit just as soon as we took any aggressive action.
Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment is STILL the law. We are a nation under the rule of law—Not the rule of someone else's whim. If that law is wrong, then we change it, if enough people agree with us. That is called democracy. The rules for changing that law are written into the Constitution. The Constitution is not simply an archaic manuscript renowned for its artistry. It is the foundation from which our nation's government and laws are built.
Now comes the fun part…Many people point out that the ‘right to bear arms' is dependent on the formation of a militia. I have one question for those people—where is this stated or even hinted at in the Constitution? In each of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, each clause in each Amendment is interpreted in a way that that particular clause can stand on its own, except for the 2nd. For instance, the right to assemble is not dependent on the right to freedom of speech; a Grand Jury indictment is not dependent on the right to be free from self-incrimination; and the right to council is not dependent on the right to a speedy trial. Why, all of a sudden do we need to change those rules for only one-tenth of the Bill of Rights? This sounds like the interpretation of an ideologue.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
 |
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 05:34:20 [Permalink]
|
Posted by Julie Bris quote:
Why is it ok for America to show Iraqi POW's kneeling with bags placed over their heads yet when US POW's were shown on TV the US protested that it was against the convention?
The Geneva Convention did not call for no POW to be seen, ever. The Convention, if I'm not mistaken, seeks safeguards against purposefully revealing the identity of POWs for purposes of propaganda, or for the humiliation of that soldier.
Posted by Darwin Storm quote:
There is NO evidence that banning guns reduces gun crime, in fact, most statsical surveys actually show the opposite.
Can you point me to these surveys? I am especially interested in those that show "the opposite," or where gun control ir responsible for increasing gun violence.
I seem to recall someone, or a couple of folks that used comparative gun violence statistics from different cities and nations to argue their positions, (from either side of the issue). I would like to warn against this tactic unless you can adequately account for all of the other variables that may be present. For example, gun control in one city does little good if a person can travel about ten minutes across county lines to buy a weapon. Then, we need to consider socio-economic conditions and cultural norms. Simply citing statistics that seem to endorse your own particular ideology, while ignoring the full spectrum of variables is a bit unscientific, I think...But, I could be wrong.
Plus, I take BIG exception to the "Hitler did it" argument. Look, just because a bad guy did a bad thing, doesn't make everything he did bad. Tyrants did a whole lot of things besides taking away guns before they got going on killing innocent people. I would think that appeals to extreme nationalism, religious and racial intolerance, the gov't control of the press, the supression of the freedom of speech and of free congregation, plus a long list of other tactics did more for killing off innocents than any ban on handguns.
As a matter of fact, this is where we differ from Tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam even. To most Westerners the individual is the most important element of our society. The leader is appointed by us, and works for us. He is subserviant to the people. This is why we are so alarmed by the deaths of our troops in Iraq, even though most of us will never know any family member of those brave troops that lost their lives.
In nations like Iraq, the people are subserviant to the leader. The leader has all of the power, and makes all of the rules. I don't think Saddam really cared much if the people had guns. If he wanted them dead, they would be dead, despite how many weapons they had. Yes, that dissident may have taken a few of Saddam's men with him or her, but that is the cost of power. Human life means little.
As for my personal opinion on whether we should have gun control or not, I would just as soon leave it where it's at. Let state and local gov'ts decide what they want. I realize that this makes it difficult to enforce existing gun control laws, but unless we amend the Constitution, we have no choice. Furthermore, I think that using the 14th Amendment to incorporate the 2nd against the states may never get out of the Appeals Courts. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 06:41:11 [Permalink]
|
Darwin Storm wrote:quote:
I would be most interested to hear what you consider effectice gun control.
Oh, good grief! Do you really think that just because I can identify problems, that means I think I have an answer? All I can see is that what's been tried so far is not effective, and that includes bans (which aren't all that drastic, since they require the least amount of work by law-abiding citizens). For all I know, there is no answer, and people will always find and use deadly weapons inappropriately, even despite whatever training you'd like to give 'em.quote:
Even if we did have a magical gun destroying wand, it really wouldn't curb violent crime.
Yeah, apparently you missed the part where I pointed that out already. Violence by other means, though, often seems to be more survivable, and you're less prone to kill someone because "you didn't know the knife was loaded."quote:
For every murder by gun, there is one by other means of physical violence.
Cite?
Julie Bris wrote:quote:
Dave W. perhaps this was not the most appropriate topic for the links but nonetheless, they prove a point.
Oh, I understand that, I just still don't have a clue as to how the atrocities of the U.S. government connect in any causal way to Columbine.
jcmginn wrote:quote:
Exactly what known and popular logical fallacy do you have in mind?
(Smacks forehead) With that question, it is clear that any attempt to get critical thinking back into this discussion has become futile.
But now there's a new player:
Tim wrote:quote:
Now comes the fun part... Many people point out that the ‘right to bear arms' is dependent on the formation of a militia. I have one question for those people - where is this stated or even hinted at in the Constitution? In each of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, each clause in each Amendment is interpreted in a way that that particular clause can stand on its own, except for the 2nd. For instance, the right to assemble is not dependent on the right to freedom of speech...
This is interesting, though. What constitutes (haha!) a 'clause'? The 1st Amendment is full of conjunctions, for example, which makes the clauses quite distinct:quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
While the 2nd Amendment has only commas:quote:
A well regulated militia |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 07:48:36 [Permalink]
|
Dave W,
quote:
(Smacks forehead) With that question, it is clear that any attempt to get critical thinking back into this discussion has become futile.
A serious question based on your vague assertation and this is your reply? Ah yes I forgot vague assertations combined with ad hominems are always the basis of critical thought and a good argument.
If you are referring to the slippery slope fallacy, which I have to assume you are, then you will have to note that it implies it "will" happen (even as you have already noted), something I have never said. Note I have said "could" happen.
Also note that the slippery slope argument is not not always fallicious:
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/slipslop.html
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slipperymag.pdf
The second article (sorry PDF) gives a good detailed reason as to why a slippery slope might really exist even using gun control as an example.
From the first article:
quote:
This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.
Why in the hell does no one address my entire post? Almost invariably its a point here or there taken sometimes out of context. In a debate I attempt to address all points posted with the person I am having a discussion with, I ususally consider that a form of decency and consideration if anything. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 08:41:48 [Permalink]
|
jmcginn wrote:quote:
A serious question based on your vague assertation and this is your reply?
It was a vague assertation only if you fail to take my assertion in context, something you are now faulting others for doing anyway. Ah yes I forgot that hypocrisy is always the basis of critical thought and a good argument. (And I note that you're also fond of sarcasm, at least when you use it, but seem stumped by it when it comes from others.)quote:
Ah yes I forgot vague assertations combined with ad hominems are always the basis of critical thought and a good argument.
Apparently, another history lesson is required here: I made no ad hominems until you sarcastically stated, "Ah I forgot because there are countries where it hasn't happened (yet) then it can't happen here." Clearly this was an attempt to portray me as an imbecile, since I never said any such thing, nor even implied it. Therefore, I consider you to have "thrown the first punch," and all I've done is respond in kind. Your attempt to play the victim here is ludicrous and pathetic.quote:
Also note that the slippery slope argument is not not always fallicious...
You're right, NO logical fallacy always leads to false conclusions. The problem with them is that they don't always lead to correct conclusions, either.
History doesn't always repeat itself, and it is good to remember history, but the fact of the matter is that just like it's possible that gun control might lead to a horrific enslavement of the populace, so is it possible that a lack of gun control could lead to some underground group overthrowing the government, and sending some portion of our population to "the showers." No, the likelihoods aren't equal, but the possibilities still exist, and can work any way you want 'em to. And both are premised upon the idea that some change of government occurs which tosses the Constitution out the window. Based upon that, I think those are all crappy arguments, either for or against gun control.quote:
In a debate I attempt to address all points posted with the person I am having a discussion with, I ususally consider that a form of decency and consideration if anything.
What, you want me to quote almost every other sentence you write, and tell you I agree with you? I don't have time for that sort of coddling.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 09:16:56 [Permalink]
|
And before I forget again, I asked you, jmcginn, a direct question here:quote:
How is, for example, gun registration infringing on your right to own a weapon? Does registering to vote infringe upon your right to vote? Does the paperwork required to establish a church infringe upon one's right to pratice the religion of their choice?
which you completely failed to answer. So you can take your whining "Why in the hell does no one address my entire post?" and cram it.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 10:10:35 [Permalink]
|
I like history:
quote:
It's the first step in the long, fallacious slippery-slope argument proposed by Darwin Storm: gun control has often lead to gun banning which has often lead to the "massacre of civilians by their own government." It's a crappy argument since there are plenty of countries with strict gun-control laws which show no evidence of being likely to be overrun by Hilter-like figures.
Here you call the slippery slope argument as it applies to gun control crappy because there are countries where it has not happened despite the fact there are quite a few examples where it has.
Then:
quote:
Ah I forgot because there are countries where it hasn't happened (yet) then it can't happen here. Gee how stupid of me to think that very thing. I wonder if the Germans were thinking the same thing as they watched political dissidents, Jews, and other minorities drug to the gas chambers. The history of governments killing portions of its own people is against you on this. All it takes is a little stimulus, bad economics, despair, poverty, starvation, and then a scapegoat is invented.
The slippery slope argument is valid in many historical cases, simply giving examples of where it has not happened (yet) does not mean it is a real danger that should be guarded against.
Here I supposidly imply you are an imbecile, although my only intentions were to counter your original point. Maybe I should have added a smiley face or something, but you for some reason you got all emotional and irate over my statement.
Then:
quote:
Well, shoot. I thought you were the sane one in this thread until now. Apparently, if I call an argument a bad argument based upon a known and popular logical fallacy, even you are so emotional about this issue that you read all sorts of garbage into my posts which isn't there.
I disagree with the idea that gun control measures such as registration WILL UNDOUBTEDLY lead to an un-armed populace being slaughtered by its own government. I never said it couldn't happen here, and for you to imply that I did is simply insulting. I'm not so fucking idiotic.
Then I am called insane and emotional because I countered your argument with possibly a touch of sarcasm. Then you go and agree with my points in their entirety by saying it could happen here, but maybe you don't think we should guard against it? I really don't know at this point. What are your views on this? Should we guard against such a possibility or not? Is it just a boogie man based on an entirely fallacious argument or is there a possible threat there?
quote:
Ah, I forgot that 'can' equals 'will'. Gee how stupid of me to think that possibility doesn't mean inevitibility.
And here you read something into my arguments which I have never said.
quote:
Exactly what known and popular logical fallacy do you have in mind?
Here I ask the question that I guess I should have connected the dots for, but alas I did not. I apologize, but again I was uncertain and wanted to make sure.
I then go on to describe my points in detail and elaborate on them and attempt to clarify them and finally:
quote:
I apologize if I misunderstood your point in the following:
which replies to the very first quote in this post.
Then in reply to my question on which fallacy:
quote:
(Smacks forehead) With that question, it is clear that any attempt to get critical thinking back into this discussion has become futile.
This all leading to our current "discussion" if it can be termed that.
quote:
(And I note that you're also fond of sarcasm, at least when you use it, but seem stumped by it when it comes from others.)
I don't mind sarcasm at all, in fact I find it quite humorous as long as its contained with other meaningful content that addresses the points. However I find a sarcastic statement by itself quite a laim argument.
quote:
Clearly this was an attempt to portray me as an imbecile, since I never said any such thing, nor even implied it.
Clearly you read more into my statement then was written. I have apologized if I misinterpreted your statement.
quote:
Your attempt to play the victim here is ludicrous and pathetic.
Play the victim? Nope just pointing out the fact that an ad hom combined with a vague assertation does not an argument make. You accusing me of such is what is ludicrous and pathetic.
quote:
You're right, NO logical fallacy always leads to false conclusions. The problem with them is that they don't always lead to correct conclusions, either.
I agree, of course I have never made the conclusion: "if we impose gun control then we will end up under tyranny." I have simply made the conclusion that it has been done enough history it is something we should guard against.
quote:
History doesn't always repeat itself, and it is good to remember history, but the fact of the matter is that just like it's possible that gun control might lead to a horrific enslavement of the populace, so is it possible that a lack of gun control could lead to some underground group overthrowing the government, and sending some portion of our population to "the showers."
I agree, but if the people have arms then the people can resist said underground group. They can form militias to fight for their liberty and restore their government. If guns were controlled then only the underground group would have arms and law abiding citizens would be helpless to them. This is the main point to the argument. Guns empower people to protect themselves and the |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 10:59:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Here's the thing. It's my opinion that the 2nd Amendment is granting "the right of the people to bear arms" as "necessary to the security of a free state" by maintaining "a well regulated militia."
We can go around and around on this. I just can't get passed the "well regulated militia" part. I don't think I'm being irrational, as has been suggested, to ask what constitutes a well regulated militia? The reply to my question, over and over again is that we are granted the right to bear arms just in case we need to form a militia. But the 2nd Amendment says that a well regulated militia is necessary. It can't be well regulated if it doesn't exist. I have seen justifications and rationalizations for why we don't have to actually maintain a well regulated militia. As I see it, if you are going to claim that the second part of the amendment means exactly what it says, than to be consistent, the first part has to mean exactly what it says. It does not say, just in case the need arises, we will get together and form a militia. It says that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The implication here is that it must exist and be ongoing.
If you reject the notion that the national guard fills that roll, how can you expect to get a well regulated militia going on the fly? I doubt that you can. Doing that assumes that you and your fellow country men and woman will be of like mind when a perceived threat requiring armed resistance arises. I don't even want to guess at what the odds of that happening are except to say that some of those armed people, yes, the people, just may see things differently than you and might well take up arms against your resistance. And they will be able to site the same 2nd amendment as justification for shooting at you.
I read "being necessary for the security of a free state" to mean that this militia must be for the defense of the State. That, as a matter of state rights, a state has the right to defend itself and rise up against the federal government if the feds attempt to impose a new tyranny. If a State rises up against its people, the feds will take care of that because state imposed tyranny against its citizens would be seen as unconstitutional. Sending troops in to insure desegregation in the South could be seen as an example of that. If the Govenor or your state decides that the U.S constitution doesn't apply to him, and declares himself king, my guess is that the feds will change his mind in a hurry.
That there is disagreement over the language of the 2nd amendment is no surprise. What I find galling is the constant accusation that my reading of the amendment shows a lack of critical thinking. Worse, it has been suggested that since I agree with Jefferson on many things, I must necessarily agree with him on everything. Would that be an example of critical thinking? Perhaps I should knock up a slave if I ever happen to own one...
I do not view the constitution as a holy document. I see it as an evolving document. That it has worked so well is a testament to its brilliance. And yet, there are flaws. There is ambiguity in some of the language. The language of the 2nd Amendment is example of that. Perhaps that is a part of the constitutions brilliance. What has been called the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment may be the reason for the ambiguity. Perhaps the framers understood that if the document was not the least bit fluid, it would not last much beyond the century it was written in.
Right now, as the courts see it, Gun control does not violate the 2nd Amendment. I suppose that could change, but for now, that is the way it is. Sorry....
Does gun control work? As Dave W pointed out, it hasn't even been tried. Little laws here and there are not going to do the job. That is why I chose Canada rather than some city or state to demonstrate that gun control can work. I understand the problem here. Your objections to this comparison are reasonable. However, that does not mean gun control can't work. It means that your objections are reasonable and need to be considerd. I understand that there are many factors when looking at gun violence, and that they must to be addressed too.
You all know where I stand on this. I will continue to push for tougher regulations and controls. Sorry if that offends some of you. Live with it. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
And now, I am (probably) out of this thread....
Edited... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 11:29:49 [Permalink]
|
jcmginn wrote:quote:
Here you call the slippery slope argument as it applies to gun control crappy because there are countries where it has not happened despite the fact there are quite a few examples where it has.
No, I called the argument that gun control leads (or even "may lead") to demonic nutcases taking over crappy because it is a slippery-slope argument. It is not a good argument, since demonic nutcases could be elected (and only after that will weapons be stripped from their owners). There are many ways in which we can find ourselves in a mess, and crappy arguments can be used to 'prove' any of them.quote:
Here I supposidly imply you are an imbecile, although my only intentions were to counter your original point. Maybe I should have added a smiley face or something, but you for some reason you got all emotional and irate over my statement.
Yes, I did. And the shoe's on the other foot, now, since you're 'correcting' me for much the same thing with this: "And here you read something into my arguments which I have never said."
Read carefully: the original point you were "countering" was one I never suggested. I never said "can't happen here," or even implied any such thing. My switching of 'cans' to 'wills' in my response to you was simply mockery (especially since I used your sentences), due to my annoyance, but you missed that.quote:
Here I ask the question that I guess I should have connected the dots for, but alas I did not. I apologize, but again I was uncertain and wanted to make sure.
You seemed quite sure with your prior sarcastic response.quote:
I don't mind sarcasm at all, in fact I find it quite humorous as long as its contained with other meaningful content that addresses the points. However I find a sarcastic statement by itself quite a laim argument.
Actually, I wasn't making an argument with much of my sarcasm, but as I said, that appears to have been lost on you.quote:
Clearly you read more into my statement then was written. I have apologized if I misinterpreted your statement.
Oh, good grief.quote:
Play the victim? Nope just pointing out the fact that an ad hom combined with a vague assertation does not an argument make. You accusing me of such is what is ludicrous and pathetic.
And when did I ever assert that an ad hominem with a vague assertion do make an argument? So you've turned "playing the victim" into "posting complete irrelevancies."quote:
I agree, of course I have never made the conclusion: "if we impose gun control then we will end up under tyranny." I have simply made the conclusion that it has been done enough history it is something we should guard against.
And I never said you did conclude the former, or denied you'd concluded the latter. I'm not arguing against guarding against the nut-jobs, I'm arguing against using a crappy argument to do it.quote:
I agree, but if the people have arms then the people can resist said underground group. They can form militias to fight for their liberty and restore their government. If guns were controlled then only the underground group would have arms and law abiding citizens would be helpless to them. This is the main point to the argument. Guns empower people to protect themselves and their liberty. Taking away the guns takes away the power.
I'm not so sure that "might makes right" is a good argument, either. It may be a fact, but it's not a particularly compelling premise, especially when those underground groups, with full freedom to own weapons, could possibly take over despite fighting an armed populace - it all depends on how large the movement is.quote:
And I do not, and the fact that Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Paine, and many others agree with me on this, and all presented good arguments as to why, says something about this topic. Sorry if I am appealing to authority here, but I have presented enough quotes in previous posts from them expressing "why" we should have guns to make the reasonable point. I do not feel like repeating it again.
Actually, I don't see the slippery slope in those quotes. And, keeping history in mind, the American Revolution couldn't have happened without arms to be used against the King's soldiers. The threat was right in their faces. Contrast that situation to what we've got now, where someone mentions "gun control" and is more-or-less immediately reminded of Hilter, as if there existed a Hilter-like figure running the U.S. against whom we must protect ourselves, right now. I don't think Bush is competent enough to be a Hilter. I don't see one in the U.K., either, where gun control is already much more strict than here. Future possible despots may exist, sure, but that's simply extending the slippery slope, which as you have already pointed out with a quote, makes such an argument even weaker.quote:
Nope, but something to let me know what you agree with or do not would help. Maybe something like, "I agree with you except..." Otherwise it appears that you are just addressing only that which you wish to reply to. Am I to assume if you do not reply to something you agree with it?
No, there were two general indicators of my agreement: my silence and the fact that I said that I once thought of you as the voice of reason in this thread.quote:
So you can take your false accusation and cram it.
Let me get this straight: I asked you how, in the present tense, gun registration infringes upon your right to bear arms (as opposed to voter registration infringing upon the right to vote, for example), and you replied with a 27-year-old quote from a guy whose ten-year plan to eliminate firearms failed to come to fruiti |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 20:01:24 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the links, Darwin Storm!
Apparently in the year 2000 (the most recent for which there are data posted) the number of homicides committed by firearms is almost 2x the number committed by all other weapons.
This seems to support my claim that, though guns don't kill people, they sure make it easier. |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 20:28:14 [Permalink]
|
| No doubt, guns are throughly immersed into American's psyche, achieving stellar status as the machine of choice for dispatching. Good or bad, that's where they're at. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 21:07:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm
For example, gun deaths account for 90 % of gang murders.
GOOD. I wish it was 100% by any means. Kill all the little bastards. |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2003 : 21:46:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm
For example, gun deaths account for 90 % of gang murders.
GOOD. I wish it was 100% by any means. Kill all the little bastards.
Harsh, but fair..... |
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2003 : 03:04:06 [Permalink]
|
Posted by Dave W quote:
What constitutes (haha!) a 'clause'?
Please, Dave...You know what I mean. There is no need for lessons in grammar, and strict word definitions. However, you may want to Amend your argument a bit. In the example you gave using the religion clauses, (plural, and not my invention, but common usage), the 'Establishment Clause' and the 'Exercise Clause' are separated by only commas, too. 
These are, afterall, only my opinions, and probably lacking in any rational discourse. I have never claimed to be a skeptic, logical or even reasonable. I'm just another big old country boy trying to grasp the complex ways of the world. And, that ain't sarcasm! (I'd put another one of those silly smiley faces here, but I couldn't figure out which one best fit without making me look like a total idiot. Then again, that may be a fore gone conclusion.)
Posted by Kil quote:
I just can't get passed the "well regulated militia" part. I don't think I'm being irrational, as has been suggested, to ask what constitutes a well regulated militia?
I guess the best your going to get for an answer on this question can be found in the Costitution in Article 1, Section 8, and Article 2, Section 2. Unfortunately, I still don't think this comes anywhere near a comprehensive answer as to what a "well regulated militia" really is. Maybe, the intent was to leave this question to the individual states, and all we're left with is opinion.
I would like to add, however, that I do understand your opinion and value it. Personally, I am only a small step away from holding the same opinion. I agree with your assertion that "if you are going to claim that the second part of the amendment means exactly what it says, than to be consistent, the first part has to mean exactly what it says." My opinion differs in that the first part assumes the existence of a militia as expressed in the body of the Constitution. In the 2nd Amendment, these words, "[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," attempt to convey intent in regards to the 2nd part. This was, afterall, an extremely controversial topic even then.
Either way, the courts will eventually have to settle these questions, I think. For right, or for wrong, my guess is that the NRA will lose in the long run.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
