Mitchell Holman wrote: > Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in news:cabd8bd8-45a4-4d51-a0fc- > c3f48a5ca...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>> On Oct 27, 9:49 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote in news:efa4d1ae-cd8d-48a4-a583- >>>> Firearms are inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own. >>> So are hand grenades. Does that mean they should be >>> freely sold to and carried by anyone who wants to? >> That depends if you are at all interested in obeying the law and >> constitution. Since you are obviously a lefty Lib whose major concern >> is arming the Gestapo and making the trains (light rail, natch) run on >> time, obviously you have not noticed that hand grenades are a >> soldier's standard equipment which under Miller fall under the Second >> Amendment.
> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold > to anyone who wants one?
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote: >>>>>>> And yet the top ten states for shooting deaths are:
>>>>>>> 1....Alaska >>>>>>> 2....Louisiana >>>>>>> 3....Wyoming >>>>>>> 4....Arizona >>>>>>> 5....Nevada >>>>>>> 6....Mississippi >>>>>>> 7....New Mexico >>>>>>> 8....Arkansas >>>>>>> 9....Alabama >>>>>>> 10...Tennessee >>>>>> You give the impression that you think 'shooting deaths' are a Bad >>>>>> Thing (tm).
>>>>>> In the above list, only New Mexico does not have some sort of >>>>>> "Castle Doctrine" law on the books. It may be that the "shooting >>>>>> deaths" are attributable to home invaders getting popped by >>>>>> righteous homeowners who are just not going to put up with that >>>>>> shit.
>>>>> So, for every "justifiable" shooting death by citizens >>>>> 48 innocent people were murdered with guns.
>>>>> Seems like a whole lot more good guys are being gunned >>>>> down than bad, no? >>>> BZZZT. You have a couple errors in logic. The first and most glaring >>>> hole is that you have limited the bad guys being shot to citizens. > The >>>> FBI separates out the police and non-police shootings, so the >>>> justifiable shooting rate is not accurate.
>>> The "Castle Doctrine" being discussed is about >>> citizens and self defense, not cops shooting bank >>> robbers. >> But that was not supported by your statistical claim. Your claim of > good >> guys versus bad guys being shot did not mention the castle doctrine. If >> it did, you would have to exclude all homicides that did not take place >> in a home, and then see how many were the homeowner and how many were >> the bad guy breaking in.
> OK, have it your way.
> Post for us the exact number of homeowners > shooting bad guys in self-defense.
I do not know how many homeowners have shot burglars in self defense. I don't know if it is common or rare (other than newspaper reports showing it fairly common in Texas). What I do know, and have shown is that your statistics were not proving your point.
If you want to limit the discussion to the Castle Doctrine laws, it is up to you to prove your point. After you try again, I will answer your "proof" again.
>> In other words, you got called on bad statistics and cannot justify > your >> point.
> Where is your proof?
I just showed it above. You posted numbers for all homicides claiming good guys were shot more than bad guys. I showed the flaw in the statistics when you claimed it was just in reference to the Castle Doctrine laws. By asking for numbers from me, you admit that your numbers are flawed and not showing what you wanted them to. Feel free to try to prove your point using real numbers that match the situation you wanted to restrict the debate to.
>>>> Second, and even more important is that you assume the murder victim >>>> is an innocent person or good guy. This is not true. Most murders >>>> involve two bad guys, one killing and one being killed.
>>> Proof?
> Where is your proof?
By not answering you the first time, I have dropped this point. I cannot prove this definitively, just by anecdotal evidence when I read the papers. I believe that there may be some statistics on this from some studies, but I do not have them available. If you really want me to, I can see if I can find the studies again and make you look even more foolish. I just did not feel this discussion was worth that much research effort at this time.
>>>> For example, a >>>> drug deal gone bad and the "buyer" shoots the "dealer". These are not >>>> innocent persons but would come under the homicide statistic you >>>> quoted.
>>> So person killed in a drive-by shooting is not >>> really murdered if he is a drug dealer or pimp?
>> No, he is still murdered, he is just not the innocent person you > claimed >> all murder victims were.
> What is your definition of murder?
A murder is a person who is killed in violation of the applicable law for that area. Do you define it otherwise?
Of course, you are now ducking the point that not all murder victims are "innocent people" as you had claimed and I illustrated by example.
Mitchell Holman wrote: > Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in news:cabd8bd8-45a4-4d51-a0fc- > c3f48a5ca...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>> On Oct 27, 9:49 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote in news:efa4d1ae-cd8d-48a4-a583- >>>> Firearms are inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own. >>> So are hand grenades. Does that mean they should be >>> freely sold to and carried by anyone who wants to? >> That depends if you are at all interested in obeying the law and >> constitution. Since you are obviously a lefty Lib whose major concern >> is arming the Gestapo and making the trains (light rail, natch) run on >> time, obviously you have not noticed that hand grenades are a >> soldier's standard equipment which under Miller fall under the Second >> Amendment.
> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold > to anyone who wants one?
> After all, they are just "inanimate objects", right?
I had answered it in my post by asking why not? The person you are asking answered it in his post, as you quote above, by referring you to the Second Amendment. I take his answer to be yes, they law requires them to be sold to any one covered by the Second Amendment, no matter how he feels about that law.
You must recognize that some of us might worry about who has what weapon and desire to restrict them, but we place the requirements of the law over our personal desires. The Constitution is the highest law in the USA, so where it makes a ruling, my personal feelings on the subject are no longer relevant.
Some of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution may allow me to have an opinion. For example, we can debate back and forth over whether or not the government searches before boarding an airplane are reasonable. The Fourth Amendment allows us to have opinions on the searches by using the vague term "reasonable". We can debate the death penalty back and forth. The Eighth Amendment allows these opinions by letting the people decide what is cruel and unusual.
But the Second Amendment allows for no interpretation. It specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no term to be interpreted in that phrase.
This is very similar to the First Amendment. It specifically states that Congress shall pass no law regarding freedom of speech (among other freedoms). Again, there is no interpretation there. Our opinions on the speech don't matter, only what the Constitution says matters in that area.
> This is very similar to the First Amendment. It specifically states > that Congress shall pass no law regarding freedom of speech (among > other freedoms). Again, there is no interpretation there. Our > opinions on the speech don't matter, only what the Constitution says > matters in that area.
But "rights" under the 1st Amendment ARE subject to restriction.
There's an interesting article over at Volokh Conspiracy on "The Second Amendment as Smut," which argues that since obscenity can be regulated or prohibited outside the home, firearms can be similarily suppressed. That if it is reasonable to regulate some types of public speech (calls for violence, "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.) or what can be disseminated to the public (obscenity), then guns can likewise be burdened.
The countervailing argument is that smut is but one type of press freedom whereas guns are not a subset of arms! Grenades are a subset, Claymores are a subset, but a basic firearm? Not so much.
>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote: >>>>>>>> And yet the top ten states for shooting deaths are:
>>>>>>>> 1....Alaska >>>>>>>> 2....Louisiana >>>>>>>> 3....Wyoming >>>>>>>> 4....Arizona >>>>>>>> 5....Nevada >>>>>>>> 6....Mississippi >>>>>>>> 7....New Mexico >>>>>>>> 8....Arkansas >>>>>>>> 9....Alabama >>>>>>>> 10...Tennessee >>>>>>> You give the impression that you think 'shooting deaths' are a >>>>>>> Bad Thing (tm).
>>>>>>> In the above list, only New Mexico does not have some sort of >>>>>>> "Castle Doctrine" law on the books. It may be that the "shooting >>>>>>> deaths" are attributable to home invaders getting popped by >>>>>>> righteous homeowners who are just not going to put up with that >>>>>>> shit.
>>>>>> So, for every "justifiable" shooting death by citizens >>>>>> 48 innocent people were murdered with guns.
>>>>>> Seems like a whole lot more good guys are being gunned >>>>>> down than bad, no? >>>>> BZZZT. You have a couple errors in logic. The first and most >>>>> glaring hole is that you have limited the bad guys being shot to >>>>> citizens. >> The >>>>> FBI separates out the police and non-police shootings, so the >>>>> justifiable shooting rate is not accurate.
>>>> The "Castle Doctrine" being discussed is about >>>> citizens and self defense, not cops shooting bank >>>> robbers. >>> But that was not supported by your statistical claim. Your claim of >> good >>> guys versus bad guys being shot did not mention the castle doctrine. >>> If it did, you would have to exclude all homicides that did not take >>> place in a home, and then see how many were the homeowner and how >>> many were the bad guy breaking in.
>> OK, have it your way.
>> Post for us the exact number of homeowners >> shooting bad guys in self-defense.
> I do not know how many homeowners have shot burglars in self defense.
So you don't know what you are talking about.
> I don't know if it is common or rare (other than newspaper reports > showing it fairly common in Texas). What I do know, and have shown is > that your statistics were not proving your point.
The posted statistics prove you wrong, deal with it.
>>> In other words, you got called on bad statistics and cannot justify >> your >>> point.
>> Where is your proof?
> I just showed it above.
What proof?
You haven't posted a single fact or source.
>>>>> Second, and even more important is that you assume the murder >>>>> victim is an innocent person or good guy. This is not true. Most >>>>> murders involve two bad guys, one killing and one being killed.
>>>> Proof?
>> Where is your proof?
> By not answering you the first time, I have dropped this point.
"Most murders involve two bad guys, one killing and one being killed." Stephan Rothstein, unproven claim, Oct 29, 2009
> I > cannot prove this definitively, just by anecdotal evidence when I read > the papers.
> I believe that there may be some statistics on this from > some studies, but I do not have them available. If you really want me > to, I can see if I can find the studies again and make you look even > more foolish. I just did not feel this discussion was worth that much > research effort at this time.
>>>>> For example, a >>>>> drug deal gone bad and the "buyer" shoots the "dealer". These are >>>>> not innocent persons but would come under the homicide statistic >>>>> you quoted.
>>>> So person killed in a drive-by shooting is not >>>> really murdered if he is a drug dealer or pimp?
>>> No, he is still murdered, he is just not the innocent person you >> claimed >>> all murder victims were.
>> What is your definition of murder?
> A murder is a person who is killed in violation of the applicable law > for that area. Do you define it otherwise?
> Of course, you are now ducking the point that not all murder victims > are "innocent people" as you had claimed and I illustrated by example.
I see. When is a murder victim not innocent? When has a criminal record, like Bush and Cheney?
On Oct 31, 7:44 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> > This is very similar to the First Amendment. It specifically states > > that Congress shall pass no law regarding freedom of speech (among > > other freedoms). Again, there is no interpretation there. Our > > opinions on the speech don't matter, only what the Constitution says > > matters in that area.
> But "rights" under the 1st Amendment ARE subject to restriction.
Hey Bub, what part of "make no law" [the actual wording] are you having trouble with? If there are restrictions, then CLEARLY they cannot be enforced by a law passed by Congress. PERIOD.
> There's an interesting article over at Volokh Conspiracy on "The Second > Amendment as Smut," which argues that since obscenity can be regulated or > prohibited outside the home, firearms can be similarily suppressed. That if > it is reasonable to regulate some types of public speech (calls for > violence, "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.) or what can be disseminated to > the public (obscenity), then guns can likewise be burdened.
It is a common argument (mostly by those who wish to subvert freedoms) that free speech, free press, and prohibition of established state religion actually can be "regulated". A common example is "fire" in a theater. Or pornography. But if this is true then it's pretty clear that Congress must pass laws that implement these restrictions. The Constitution specifically says NO LAWS! So how can abuse of freedoms then be dealt with? The answer is not to subvert rights by whittling away at them, but to recognize that with rights comes responsibility. If you shout "fire" in a crowded theater and that is reckless endangerment of the people there, then obviously you are responsible for the results of your actions no matter how legal they may be. Same goes for say the harming of children (society) through pornography published under "free press". It's not the press that needs to be restricted with laws, but that they need to take responsibility for any harm they do. The crime is not shouting "fire" or distributing smut, but rather doing so in away that causes harm to others.
This is a subtle difference that Libs have long tried to obscure. Their argument is always not that criminals be punished for actions (they don't like that, since they view criminal behavior as a result of faults in "society") but rather that crimes need to be PREVENTED before they are committed. You've seen it a thousand times. Censorship, bans, "background checks", gun control all argued on the basis of PREVENTING criminals from engaging in criminal behavior before they do. That whole concept is in opposition to the ideals and principles in our Constitution. (no surprise there!) Thus any speech is "legal", but if it somehow causes others harm (it doesn't matter how) then the speaker is responsible for that harm.
> The countervailing argument is that smut is but one type of press freedom > whereas guns are not a subset of arms! Grenades are a subset, Claymores are > a subset, but a basic firearm? Not so much.
This is a dangerous argument. For example, the Ohio Supreme Court in deciding the Cleveland "assault weapon" ban case first noted that the Second Amendment does not apply within the borders of Ohio, and then argued that even though the Ohio Constitution guarantees a right to keep and bear arms, in their view any subset of arms could be banned for reasons of public safety just so long as ALL arms were not banned. I think we can all see where these arguments are headed.
As for Claymores and grenades the Libs argue that these are "too dangerous" for the public to have as if leaving them in the hands of our rulers is somehow "safer". Of course history puts the lie to that one. Since they are arms and their ownership is not to be infringed the only question that remains is are they militia equipment? The test set in Miller is that they are a soldiers standard equipment. In the constitution there is a differentiation between large weapons (warships) and soldier's (militia) equipment. In modern terms one can easily see that aircraft, missiles, atomic bombs and probably crew- served weapons as well generally fall under the "warship" category that is controlled by Congress. A soldier's standard gear (starting with the M16) on the other hand is modern militia equipment and is clearly off-limits to infringement. Where the dividing line occurs between the two is still up for debate. But from the foregoing one can easily see that all "assault weapon" bans are a dagger blows right at the heart of the 2nd Amendment. They seek to ban the VERY arms that are guaranteed!
> It is a common argument (mostly by those who wish to subvert freedoms) > that free speech, free press, and prohibition of established state > religion actually can be "regulated". A common example is "fire" in a > theater. Or pornography. But if this is true then it's pretty clear > that Congress must pass laws that implement these restrictions. The > Constitution specifically says NO LAWS! So how can abuse of freedoms > then be dealt with? The answer is not to subvert rights by whittling > away at them, but to recognize that with rights comes responsibility.
You make a good point but overlook the situation when one "right" interferes with another "right." The "right" to freedom of religion does not allow human sacrifice. The "right" to freedom of the press does not imply the right to publish state secrets. Freedom of assembly does not necessarily allow megaphones, 10,000 people in a room for 100, signs, banners, funny hats, or nudity in order to make a political point.
It's said that "The right to swing your fist stops at my nose." But if one has an unfettered right, as you suppose, to swing a fist, then the nose must just take it on the nose, so to speak.
Your argument that the right must be unrestricted, but the consequences can be sanctioned obviously has the effect of curtailing that right. If my religion mandates polygamy but the law says marrying more than one wife is bigamy, the law, obviously, has interfered with my faith.
Well, them's the breaks.
Thousands of legal scholars, steeped in the theory of law have, for thousands of years, endeavored mightily to sort all this out. There's even a required course in law school called "Conflict of Laws" to help one understand the mechanics and theory. But it ain't easy. Here's one example from Jewish law.
* The Bible is full of "Thou shalt..." and "Thou shalt nots" which seem pretty clear on their face, BUT: * The passage "You shall follow these commandments so that ye may live..." is interpreted to mean that when human life is at stake, not only may an emphatic commandment be violated, it is meritorious to do so, BUT: * There are three commandments that must not be violated even if your OWN life is in the balance. They are the prohibitions against idolatry, murder, and adultry.
So you can see that even the most basic law ("You shall not build a fire on the Sabbath") can be ignored under certain circumstances ("The baby's coming! We need hot water") unless doing so is forbidden by a higher law ("Make a fire to sacrifice to Moloch or I'll kill the baby!").
If it were easy, there would have evolved instructions as simple as how to program a VCR and everybody would live in harmony.
Our legal system - the Constitution - follows the Jewish model on interpretation ("If a matter comes before you that is too difficult to resolve, take the matter to the sages of the generations and be bound by their decision"). That is, the Constitution has within it the method for resolving disputes and contradictions. That method is the Supreme Court and the inferior courts. If the Supreme Court says abortion is a "right" or that no one can own a gun, that's the end of the conflict (for now).
As much as this technique can sometimes resemble the wreck of train carrying the Barnum & Bailey circus resulting in monkeys in the steeple, monkeys in the barn, monkeys driving Cadillacs to Washington, D.C., no better system has been devised in five thousand years.
HeyBub wrote: > Our legal system - the Constitution - follows the Jewish model on > interpretation ("If a matter comes before you that is too difficult to > resolve, take the matter to the sages of the generations and be bound by > their decision"). That is, the Constitution has within it the method for > resolving disputes and contradictions. That method is the Supreme Court and > the inferior courts.
Just as a technical note, but this is not really in the Constitution. It was one of the very first power grabs in our history. In Marbury v. Madison, the SCOTUS says this is their interpretation of the Constitution but it is not written that way on its face.
If you accept that, as you have said in the past, what the Constitution says is not as important as what it means, then you may be correct about this. I am not nearly as sure of it as you are, though I will freely concede that this is the current state of US law.
> Mitchell Holman wrote: >> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold to anyone who >> wants one? After all, they are just "inanimate objects", right?
> I had answered it in my post by asking why not? The person you are asking > answered it in his post, as you quote above, by referring you to the > Second Amendment.
I don't blame you for not wanting to answer out loud and in words. Being a criminal yourself, you DO believe that we should let criminals have weapons to use against us. But you're no more likely to admit THAT than to say when you will commit one of your crimes.
So, instead of answering the question - you just express outrage at being asked. This is a common problem among criminals in the US.
Like anyone, you want to take pride in who you are and what you do. But, our culture is disgusted people who behave the way you do. So, you know that if you answer the question, instead of getting the praise you think you deserve, you'll be attacked for it.
That's why you feel the need to throw tantrums and expressing outrage, instead of answering simple questions like, "Should we arm our enemies against us". For most people, it's a simple question - easily answered. But for you - it's a conversation that would only bring you more shame.
>>> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold to anyone >>> who wants one? After all, they are just "inanimate objects", right?
>> I had answered it in my post by asking why not? The person you are >> asking answered it in his post, as you quote above, by referring you >> to the Second Amendment.
> I don't blame you for not wanting to answer out loud and in words. > Being a criminal yourself,
>>>> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold to anyone >>>> who wants one? After all, they are just "inanimate objects", right?
>>> I had answered it in my post by asking why not? The person you are >>> asking answered it in his post, as you quote above, by referring you >>> to the Second Amendment.
>> I don't blame you for not wanting to answer out loud and in words. >> Being a criminal yourself,
> CITE!!!!
You mean you expect Sanders to prove anything? He just sits there and makes things up as he goes along. He has never proven that he even exists, let alone any thing else he has claimed.
>>>>> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold to anyone >>>>> who wants one? After all, they are just "inanimate objects", right?
>>>> I had answered it in my post by asking why not? The person you are >>>> asking answered it in his post, as you quote above, by referring you >>>> to the Second Amendment.
>>> I don't blame you for not wanting to answer out loud and in words. >>> Being a criminal yourself,
>> CITE!!!!
> You mean you expect Sanders to prove anything? He just sits there and > makes things up as he goes along.
That's rich, considering the source.
"Most murders involve two bad guys, one killing and one being killed." Stephan Rothstein, unproven claim, Oct 29, 2009
>> Our legal system - the Constitution - follows the Jewish model on >> interpretation ("If a matter comes before you that is too difficult >> to resolve, take the matter to the sages of the generations and be >> bound by their decision"). That is, the Constitution has within it >> the method for resolving disputes and contradictions. That method is >> the Supreme Court and the inferior courts.
> Just as a technical note, but this is not really in the Constitution. > It was one of the very first power grabs in our history. In Marbury v. > Madison, the SCOTUS says this is their interpretation of the > Constitution but it is not written that way on its face.
It's not as revolutionary as you might suspect. We have a constitution, true, but the basics are derived from the English Common Law. Under Common Law, the judges "interpret" the king's regulations and the laws passed by Parliament. It was only natural, therefore, for our Supreme Court to formally establish the notion that the court is the sole arbiter of law and have subsequent courts rely on that assertion as precedent.*
Other matters are intrinsically non-reviewable by the courts. In general, rulings of administrative bodies are not grist for the mill of the court system, nor are those that do not present a question the courts can answer (such as matters of fact determined by a jury), nor do the courts entertain disputes beyond their jurisdiction, below a triggering amount ($15,000 for federal courts), or where one of the parties is not under the control of the court (standing).
__________________ * As in most things legal, there are exceptions. The congress CAN pass a law that states within it that the law is not reviewable by the courts. This is almost always done in appropriations bills.
>> Alex DeLarge wrote: >>> Sanders Kaufman wrote: >>>> "Stephan Rothstein" <srothst...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> news:Ps2dnYNdb4KsVHbXnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4p2d@earthlink.com... >>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote: >>>>>> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold to anyone >>>>>> who wants one? After all, they are just "inanimate objects", right? >>>>> I had answered it in my post by asking why not? The person you are >>>>> asking answered it in his post, as you quote above, by referring you >>>>> to the Second Amendment. >>>> I don't blame you for not wanting to answer out loud and in words. >>>> Being a criminal yourself, >>> CITE!!!! >> You mean you expect Sanders to prove anything? He just sits there and >> makes things up as he goes along.
> That's rich, considering the source.
> "Most murders involve two bad guys, one killing and one being killed." > Stephan Rothstein, unproven claim, Oct 29, 2009
Well, since you insist on acting like an asshole about things, we will start by looking at the FBI statistics. From the Bureau of Crime Statistics page:
"For murder victims, 43% were related to or acquainted with their assailants; 14% of victims were murdered by strangers, while 43% of victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer in 2002. "
Clearly, a majority of the victims are not the victims you want them to be. Only 14% are killed by strangers (those are probably the good guy getting killed by the bad guy that you wanted all murders to be). 43% were killed by family OR acquaintances. Some of these are definitely good guys killed by bad guys but not all. Some are acquaintances from knowing each other in gangs or what not. Some are acquaintances from being seller and buyer of drugs. Even some of the family are not good guy and bad guy killings, as we all know both sides of a family can be assholes like you.
So, let's take a generous estimate and say that two-thirds of these killings are good guy/bad guy. You can choose differently if you want, but I may question it if you really go way off. That gives us only 44% of the killings are good guy and bad guy.
The last group is an unknown relationship between the victim and suspect. It is easy to assume that 90% of these are bad guy killing bad guy. If there was a good guy in there, the relationship would be established. Given this, we can say that a MAXIMUM of 48.3% of the victims are good guys and that leaves 51.7 (also known as MOST since it is more than half) of the killings as bad guy on bad guy.
Now, while you are doing any research at all to disprove this, you can also try to prove your first claim. That more good guys are being shot in castle doctrine cases than bad guys. You still have not proven that, instead choosing to attack me, just because I showed that your statistics did not prove your point at all.
>> Alex DeLarge wrote: >>> Sanders Kaufman wrote: >>>> "Stephan Rothstein" <srothst...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> news:Ps2dnYNdb4KsVHbXnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4p2d@earthlink.com... >>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote: >>>>>> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold to anyone >>>>>> who wants one? After all, they are just "inanimate objects", right? >>>>> I had answered it in my post by asking why not? The person you are >>>>> asking answered it in his post, as you quote above, by referring you >>>>> to the Second Amendment. >>>> I don't blame you for not wanting to answer out loud and in words. >>>> Being a criminal yourself, >>> CITE!!!! >> You mean you expect Sanders to prove anything? He just sits there and >> makes things up as he goes along.
On Oct 31, 2:32 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Benj wrote: > You make a good point but overlook the situation when one "right" interferes > with another "right." The "right" to freedom of religion does not allow > human sacrifice. The "right" to freedom of the press does not imply the > right to publish state secrets. Freedom of assembly does not necessarily > allow megaphones, 10,000 people in a room for 100, signs, banners, funny > hats, or nudity in order to make a political point. > Your argument that the right must be unrestricted, but the consequences can > be sanctioned obviously has the effect of curtailing that right. If my > religion mandates polygamy but the law says marrying more than one wife is > bigamy, the law, obviously, has interfered with my faith.
> Well, them's the breaks.
It's not that rights can't be curtailed. You can sign them away (those given to Congress, for example) as often is the case, they can be taken away if you harm society (felons). So state secrets presumably (although I think this has been taken MUCH farther than is allowed) is not a right possessed by the people as it was granted to the government along with some other ENUMERATED rights. Note that the American plan is that the people spell out exactly what rights government is given permission to take and ALL OTHERS are retained.
Now where we differ is in that I say you are responsible for the effects of exercising your rights which includes harm to others which includes infringing their rights. You say this means the RIGHT is restricted. I say NO, the ACTIONS are restricted. For example you have the right to own a firearm, but if you shoot someone with it you are responsible for that. However you still have the right to own a firearm (until you become a convicted felon of the crime). Your way turns that upside down. It says people might shoot each other and that is bad so therefore the RIGHT to own a firearm must be restricted. Not the action of shooting someone, mind you, which is also restricted, but the right itself. In other words as is plainly expressed by some in this thread, the idea is that the right to own firearms must be restricted a priori to PREVENT a crime from happening. This is equivalent to saying that to prevent rapes all men must be castrated. And this makes sense because, hey, we all know that rights are not absolute, and when there is public interest in preventing crime your right to walk around with your own Johnson in your pants needs to be curtailed! The supreme court has decided in many cases (mostly voting rights) that a priori restrictions (such as literacy tests or poll taxes) on rights are not legal. Thus this means all cases of rights abuse are decided after the abuse takes place, not before.
> Our legal system - the Constitution - follows the Jewish model on > interpretation ("If a matter comes before you that is too difficult to > resolve, take the matter to the sages of the generations and be bound by > their decision"). That is, the Constitution has within it the method for > resolving disputes and contradictions. That method is the Supreme Court and > the inferior courts. If the Supreme Court says abortion is a "right" or that > no one can own a gun, that's the end of the conflict (for now).
> As much as this technique can sometimes resemble the wreck of train carrying > the Barnum & Bailey circus resulting in monkeys in the steeple, monkeys in > the barn, monkeys driving Cadillacs to Washington, D.C., no better system > has been devised in five thousand years.
You are right about the supreme court and yes legal issues easily can get complex. But hopefully men (and women) of good faith make reasonable efforts to sort them out. One problem we have these days is that there are people not of good faith who have a political agenda and try to use words to twist meaning to further that agenda. And that is one more thing to be sorted out.
> On Oct 31, 4:39 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote: >> > The Constitution specifically says NO LAWS!
>> In TRUTH, the constitution says a lot more than that. >> That's just the only part you pay attention to.
> Dude! It the part we are talking about, OK?
Well, that's the only part YOU are talking about. But if you want to use the Constitution to advocate gun rights, you'll not do it by reducing it down to just those two words "no laws". That kind of half-witted argument might work with inbred hillbillies and Jesus freaks - but not by decent folks.
Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in news:bd7fa3a4-e2bf-413c-aa92- 536fe68cf...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 30, 9:51 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold >> to anyone who wants one?
>> After all, they are just "inanimate objects", right?
> And they are a soldier's standard militia equipment, right? Do you > believe in the law? OR do you believe that our rulers know far better > than any other person what citizens should be allowed to do and what > should be banned?
Evasion noted.
Should hand grenades be sold to anyone who wants them?
__Yes
__No
> And given that you Libs are always into wide sweeping unthinking > statements for emotional effect, allow me to point out that your term > "anyone" is far too broad. Just "anyone" does not possess rights.
The Second Amendment says "people", no?
> Underage children don't.
Children are not people?
> They can neither vote nor own certain arms > and that does not infringe the Bill of Rights. Those adjudicated > mentally incompetent lose rights until declared cured.
People suffering mental illnesses are not people?
> Convicted > felons likewise give up their rights including the right to freely > move about (jail) and to vote or to keep and bear arms unless such > rights are restored by a court.
Convicted felons (Scooter Libby, Gordon Liddy) are not people?
> Illegal aliens only have been given > certain rights to serve as an example of the American way. There is no > requirement that non-citizens, especially those entering the country > illegally be given the same rights as actual "documented" citizens.
The Second Amendment says people, not citizens.
> So the answer to your obviously ignorant question is that No, hand > grenades should not be sold to"anyone" who wants one. They should > only be sold to those who legally fall under the Second Amendment. And > in particular to the "unorganized militia" which consists of nearly > all adult citizens.
The Second Amendment does not restict itself to citizens, adults, the sane, or the law-abiding, so why do you?
>>> Alex DeLarge wrote: >>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote: >>>>> "Stephan Rothstein" <srothst...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:Ps2dnYNdb4KsVHbXnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4p2d@earthlink.com... >>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote: >>>>>>> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold to >>>>>>> anyone >>>>>>> who wants one? After all, they are just "inanimate objects", >>>>>>> right? >>>>>> I had answered it in my post by asking why not? The person you >>>>>> are asking answered it in his post, as you quote above, by >>>>>> referring you to the Second Amendment. >>>>> I don't blame you for not wanting to answer out loud and in words. >>>>> Being a criminal yourself, >>>> CITE!!!! >>> You mean you expect Sanders to prove anything? He just sits there >>> and makes things up as he goes along.
>> That's rich, considering the source.
>> "Most murders involve two bad guys, one killing and one being >> killed." Stephan Rothstein, unproven claim, Oct 29, 2009
> Well, since you insist on acting like an asshole about things, we will > start by looking at the FBI statistics. From the Bureau of Crime > Statistics page:
> "For murder victims, 43% were related to or acquainted with their > assailants; 14% of victims were murdered by strangers, while 43% of > victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer in 2002. "
What does that have to do with your claim that the majority of murder victims are "bad guys"?
> Clearly, a majority of the victims are not the victims you want them > to be. Only 14% are killed by strangers (those are probably the good > guy getting killed by the bad guy that you wanted all murders to be). > 43% were killed by family OR acquaintances. Some of these are > definitely good guys killed by bad guys but not all. Some are > acquaintances from knowing each other in gangs or what not. Some are > acquaintances from being seller and buyer of drugs. Even some of the > family are not good guy and bad guy killings, as we all know both > sides of a family can be assholes like you.
So if you are related to or acquainted with the person who kills you are a "bad guy"?
> So, let's take a generous estimate and say that two-thirds of these > killings are good guy/bad guy. You can choose differently if you want, > but I may question it if you really go way off. That gives us only 44% > of the killings are good guy and bad guy.
> The last group is an unknown relationship between the victim and > suspect. It is easy to assume that 90% of these are bad guy killing > bad guy.
Really? What makes you think murder victims are "bad guys"?
> If there was a good guy in there, the relationship would be > established. Given this, we can say that a MAXIMUM of 48.3% of the > victims are good guys and that leaves 51.7 (also known as MOST since > it is more than half) of the killings as bad guy on bad guy.
I see. If a child is killed by a stray bullet from a gang shootout he is "bad guy" because his relationship to his killer is unknown.
>>>> Alex DeLarge wrote: >>>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote: >>>>>> "Stephan Rothstein" <srothst...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Ps2dnYNdb4KsVHbXnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4p2d@earthlink.com... >>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote: >>>>>>>> So answer the question. Should hand grenades be sold to >>>>>>>> anyone >>>>>>>> who wants one? After all, they are just "inanimate objects", >>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>> I had answered it in my post by asking why not? The person you >>>>>>> are asking answered it in his post, as you quote above, by >>>>>>> referring you to the Second Amendment. >>>>>> I don't blame you for not wanting to answer out loud and in words. >>>>>> Being a criminal yourself, >>>>> CITE!!!! >>>> You mean you expect Sanders to prove anything? He just sits there >>>> and makes things up as he goes along.
>>> That's rich, considering the source.
>>> "Most murders involve two bad guys, one killing and one being >>> killed." Stephan Rothstein, unproven claim, Oct 29, 2009
>> Well, since you insist on acting like an asshole about things, we will >> start by looking at the FBI statistics. From the Bureau of Crime >> Statistics page:
>> "For murder victims, 43% were related to or acquainted with their >> assailants; 14% of victims were murdered by strangers, while 43% of >> victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer in 2002. "
> What does that have to do with your claim that > the majority of murder victims are "bad guys"?
>> Clearly, a majority of the victims are not the victims you want them >> to be. Only 14% are killed by strangers (those are probably the good >> guy getting killed by the bad guy that you wanted all murders to be). >> 43% were killed by family OR acquaintances. Some of these are >> definitely good guys killed by bad guys but not all. Some are >> acquaintances from knowing each other in gangs or what not. Some are >> acquaintances from being seller and buyer of drugs. Even some of the >> family are not good guy and bad guy killings, as we all know both >> sides of a family can be assholes like you.
> So if you are related to or acquainted with the person > who kills you are a "bad guy"?
>> So, let's take a generous estimate and say that two-thirds of these >> killings are good guy/bad guy. You can choose differently if you want, >> but I may question it if you really go way off. That gives us only 44% >> of the killings are good guy and bad guy.
>> The last group is an unknown relationship between the victim and >> suspect. It is easy to assume that 90% of these are bad guy killing >> bad guy.
> Really? What makes you think murder victims are "bad guys"?
<crickets>
>> If there was a good guy in there, the relationship would be >> established. Given this, we can say that a MAXIMUM of 48.3% of the >> victims are good guys and that leaves 51.7 (also known as MOST since >> it is more than half) of the killings as bad guy on bad guy.
> I see. If a child is killed by a stray bullet from > a gang shootout he is "bad guy" because his relationship > to his killer is unknown.
|
