Path: csiph.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tu-darmstadt.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Snit Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,sci.physics,alt.checkmate,talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Date: 5 Jun 2018 04:31:09 GMT Lines: 145 Message-ID: References: <5ki7hd9qi6e8enuta128vd0ecak1eun58a@4ax.com> <7tb8hddejo1m6gcjd1h9ba7868hpgu9t01@4ax.com> <54v8hdh5crs136gsqkertpurb0cmc60o19@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net zj2LF1tZBcQJdjiLN5vi2Qud8IfQdB1iAqMs+CC7Xn3xzg4brS Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rvzc/fRKHo4UDJxVu1ms6DSQ7X4= sha1:lZR91OMHGEmdkzdl1vwkBydxMvA= User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:453970 sci.physics:688820 alt.checkmate:171321 talk.politics.guns:1090834 max headroom wrote: > In news:fnkagsF667U1@mid.individual.net, > Snit typed: > >> On 6/4/18 12:47 AM, max headroom wrote: >> ... >>>> I have no idea what game you are playing... nor the rules of how one >>>> wins or loses. Cannot say I really care. Here is, on the topic, much >>>> of what I do care about: > >>>> * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much >>>> exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed >>>> action". > >>> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms." Are you honest enough to >>> acknowledge this? > >> Not sure your point. Of course that is in the second amendment... but >> that does not negate the meaning of "bear arms". > > Meanings of "bear arms" are irrelevant in regards to the 2nd amendment, > where the correct phrase is > "keep and bear arms." > >>>> * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of >>>> the country which were never, as far as I can find, >>>> challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it >>>> a hard sale to say they were against the second >>>> amendment. > >>> There were laws requiring an oath affirming the existence of God >>> from candidates for public office, too. Do you believe such laws >>> were in compliance with the Constitution? > >> There were challenges to such laws... and for good reason! Still, it is >> true that eight states STILL have language in their constitutions that >> speak of holding specific religious beliefs. I would like to see more >> challenges against those laws. > > Is that your final answer? IS it an answer? > >>> Before the passage of the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights had >>> limited effect on state laws. > >>>> * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported >>>> the states rights view. > >>> Baloney. > >> I welcome a counter. I just posted a LONG post where I went into this. > > You should have kept reading: I did, too. > >>> Scholars don't write legislation; their interpretations have no >>> judicial clout. In other words, who cares? > >> You start with a denial and then move to you think what experts say on >> the meaning does not matter. > >> If the views of experts on the topic do not matter to you then surely >> your view must matter even less, right? > >> Or are you saying your view matters more? > > No, we're playing Dueling Experts now. You cite unnamed academics, I cite > the Subcommittee on the > Constitution of the United States Senate's Judiciary Committee 1982 > report on the right to keep and > bear arms. > >> ... >>> If gun laws in fact worked,... the sponsors of this type of legislation >>> should have no difficulty > drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such > legislation. That they cannot do > so after a century and a half of trying - that they must sweep under the > rug the southern attempts > at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the > 1920-1939 period, the > attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 - establishes the > repeated, complete and > inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. > > You can address your comments to the author of those words here-- > > https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-orrin > >> ... >>> The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American >>> society. > >> What do you mean by "bear arms"? > > You can address your questions to the author of those words here-- > > http://www.deconcinimcdonald.com/contact/ > >> ... >>>> * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from >>>> mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun >>>> laws. > >>> The NRA could only benefit if the media and its running-dog >>> politicians howl for more restrictions on guns. (Were Nancy Pelosi >>> to call a press conference to urge Americans to buy more guns, sales >>> would plummet.) > >> Covered extensively in another post. You can make excuses all you want, >> but what I note is clearly a fact. > > If it benefits, it's due to the hysteria of the hoplophobes. > >>>> * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on >>>> arms... what one could call "infringements". > >>> Within reason. > >> Sure: and to find what is reasonable we should do more research and >> have evidence-based polices. > > Right. Then we can reduce the number of those limitations. > >>>> * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as >>>> we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything >>>> else that is tied to death and injuries. > >>> Then let the Department of Justice research ways to reduce violent >>> crime. > >> Let multiple groups. Does the DOJ do research on any other health >> issues though? > > It's a crime issue. > > > It is more than just a crime issue. Clearly. And I say go with the meaning of the words and have evidence based policies. To many here that makes me a “gun grabber”. Quite telling what THEY think the evidence supports.