Justices agree on right to own guns

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So again, after not supporting your own contentions, your project your own failings on to others. I am beginning to not be surprised. But, being ever patient I will ask again.

Oh look, how cute. Perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all comes a waltzin in, and impies that my answers are vague, or unsatisfactory in some way, and then proceeds to demand answers of her own. And being patient about it all the while.


Well, you talk a mean circle, friend.


However, just as an exercise, I think I''ll just leave those questions unanswered so you know how it feels.


Of course, the thread would have to go on for four more years of these questions being unanswered for you you to understand my frustration of trying to get information out of you.


Enjoy the wait, hypocrite.


Well, I can't resist, so here, I'll give you nice "on topic" answers like you provide to me when questioned.

Quote by: lsbskins1 ) If you are going to insist that I am misunderstanding

I am.

Quote by: lsbskins1 2) If you are going to insist that having access to these weapons

I am.

Quote by: lsbskins1 If you insist that I believe that the Constitution is frozen in time and the Founders believed that it covered all questions and/or legal issues possible, you are just flat wrong. If you insist that the only way to legally legislate on an issue that was touched on directly by the Constitution is to directly amend the Constitution, you are flat wrong. The truth of the matter is that the Founders expected the Constitution to be a guiding document and expected Congress to specifically legislate on defining issues. The Judicial branch was established with the goal of making sure the Legislative branch did not create self contradictory statutes.Here is a pretty simple legal truth. If a law is passed that you feel impinges on a Constitutionally protected right, you must petition the SCOTUS and YOU must demonstrate how that right is harmed. The burden is yours. Get to it or shut up.

Whew, you had to labor to come out of any discussion you had with me, to think I believe that.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Get to it or shut up.

Oh my, how impatient we become when the shoe is on the other foot.


I may have to nominate you for a Volconvos Biggest Hypocrite, or Hypocrite of the Year Award.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 It is very difficult to debate with someone who will not be moved by facts.

Wait until you run up against somebody like yourself, who won't even address facts, or answer questions about their own philosophy.


Whew, that'll drive you absolutely mad.

[lsbskins1]

Milton -

So, ask the questions you claim I have not answered. I will answer them, as I have multiple times in the past. I do not ever refuse to answer direct questions, despite what you like to claim. I'm not askeered!

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Milton - So, ask the questions you claim I have not answered. I will answer them, as I have multiple times in the past. I do not ever refuse to answer direct questions, despite what you like to claim. I'm not askeered!

Right, that's how we arrived here.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Right, that's how we arrived here.

Really? Post number? I'll go back and read those already posted questions, if you just direct me to where they were actually asked. Short of directing me to what I doubt I missed, or actually asking me the questions, it would seem that your insistence that I refuse to answer things is just a way to avoid something. Umm, could that be...your own lack of a desire to meet the challenge of presenting some level of evidence for your contentions.

[Milton Bradley]

So all I have to do to get you to comply is to labor over nineteen pages, and select out the questions I really want you to answer.


This crap is getting old.


Perhaps I'll feel like humoring you tomorrow. I certainly don't now.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley So all I have to do to get you to comply is to labor over nineteen pages, and select out the questions I really want you to answer. This crap is getting old. Perhaps I'll feel like humoring you tomorrow. I certainly don't now.

Heh!

[Jack]

OK, now that we've gotten all that out of our system, can we stop the personal comments and return to debating the topic?

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Red Yes, guns are made to kill things. Thank you for re-establishing that. So in assuming that guns are only present in society to kill, does that mean a police officer is a murderer?

Ooo, there's a toughy. No, Red, the police and military are authorized by the consent of the governed to use whatever force that we, the governed, deem necessary for the maintenance of law and order.

Quote by: Red As a matter of fact, I do believe that we are weak ethically and morally. I believe that this is due to lack of punishment, which would be a fault in our judicial system.

Interesting. And yet, along with more guns and more murders, the United States also has more prisoners per capita than ANY nation on earth, thanks to all that 'Get Tough on Crime' legislation. America is the new Gulag.

And no, Red, it is NOT because of drug crimes. While indeed, 70% of Federal prisoners are in for drug crimes, there are about a 10th as many federal prisoners as state prisoners, and only about 20% of the nations state prison inmates are in for drug crimes. A sizable but not disproportionate amount.

Quote by: Red I base this belief in the fact that our 'Most Murders Per Capita' are committed largely by drug addicts, people on heavy medication, people with questioned sanity, convicted criminals, and homeless individuals... People who have the lowest ethics and morals.

For whom we have conveniently provided an almost unlimited supply of firearms... assuming you're guess is correct, since I have yet to see you post any data to support your guesses.

Quote by: Red Nope, it's not. TV's don't kill people, But they do show a lot of unrestricted killing, pornography, and lawlessness. I wonder if this has to with our moral and ethical deficiency.

I've stated quite unequivicably that I believe... and data supports ...that violence in our media is absolutely part and parcel with our gun culture and contributes to the American mythology that good guys are all handy with guns and problems are always resolved with gunfire.

And this includes a new twist, the proliferation of extremely violent, first person computer games, which amount to nothing less than training programs for gun violence. And our military agrees, since they've modified such programs for exactly that purpose.

Quote by: Red No, I am very much sticking to the issue, by answering paragraph after paragraph of on topic material. What I did was draw a contrast between two different kinds of killing to reconcile your intentions. Apparently you were upset with my comparison.

No you're not. Abortion is a medical treatment, limited strictly to certified medical practitioners and conducted with the consent of the governed under highly regulated conditions. It's apples and bullfrogs to this discussion.

Quote by: Red You seem so grieved when I bring up Abortion.

Simply bored by your lame attempt to introduce a strawman. See above.

Quote by: Red What you've posted were unsupported and dissatisfactory.

Yeah, I bet it's disatisfactory to you, since it's shredded your silly arguments. Unsupported? To the contrary, and VASTLY more supported than anything you've posted here. In fact I've yet to see you support ANYTHING you've claimed as fact.

Quote by: Red Ironic that I would now be told to go to another country by someone in opposition to a law that is on my side of the argument.

As I've already pointed out, the law is NOT on your side of the argument. For the last 70 years the standing case law precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court and the vast majority of the Federal Circuit Courts has been that you do NOT have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

TRANSLATION: The current law of the land.

Was there something unclear about that point, or do you simply say things you wish were true?

Quote by: Red Like said above, I meant these statements in the sense that we offer the most opportunity to the most diversity found on the planet.

That's not true either. Europeans have traditionally been vastly more racially tolerant. Only with our civil rights movement 50 years ago did U.S. make an effort to catch with European equality, and we're still playing catch up.

Quote by: Red True, the scales do not balance under those weights, but your statistics reflect an unfair contrast. Our nation is fantastically larger than most competing superpowers, rendering the numbers lackluster in vitality.

{{SIGH}} Red, do you understand the meaning of the phrase "per capita"? It means 'per person', or in the case of most of the statistics I've presented, per 100,000 persons.
Size has nothing to do with that.

Quote by: Red I am dissatisfied with the legitimacy of these sources,

Yes, of course you are.

Quote by: Red and your second link contradicts your argument that our crime rates are surging.

Where did I say our crime rates are surging? Putting words in my mouth now, along with creating red herrings and strawmen?

Oh, and by the way.... our crime rates ARE surging. Crime rates usually go up and down with economic conditions. If the economy is good, fewer people commit crimes. How's the economy doing at the moment? Oh yeah.

FBI reports violent crime inching higher in U.S. - June 2007

,

[Milton Bradley]

Red makes a good point about television sets not killing people.


If your Liberal Ideologues can't make the case that the tool that "gets inside the childs mind", the TV set, is responsible for their "intent to kill", what makes you think you can make the case that access to the gun is responsible?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Red makes a good point about television sets not killing people. If your Liberal Ideologues can't make the case that the tool that "gets inside the childs mind", the TV set, is responsible for their "intent to kill", what makes you think you can make the case that access to the gun is responsible?

Go to psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.html and see where the AMA believes that research has established that the tool that "gets inside the child's mind" does have an impact on their tendency towards violence. So, since we can make the case you say we can't make, does that mean the second part of your question becomes moot or...well, I'll just go ahead and answer that too. We don't claim that access to a gun forms the intent, we argue that access to the gun makes it sooooooo much easier to effect the intent that access needs to be considerably more limited. Now, if you say I did not answer your question, that means that you do not really want honest answers, you only want answers that allow you to box us into to artificial corners. I do understand that in answering your question, I did refuse to accept your contention that I believe guns "form the intent to kill", which was never my point. So, if what you mean is that I never accept your artificial, incorrect contentions as factual representations of my position as the basis for answering your questions, then you are right. But I do answer your questions.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton If your Liberal Ideologues can't make the case that the tool that "gets inside the childs mind", the TV set, is responsible for their "intent to kill", what makes you think you can make the case that access to the gun is responsible?

As Isbskins has pointed out, Milton, that case has been made. Here's the American Psychological Association...

CHILDHOOD EXPOSURE TO MEDIA VIOLENCE PREDICTS YOUNG ADULT AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, ACCORDING TO A NEW 15-YEAR STUDY -- Mar. 2003

and there's more.

Six prominent medical groups (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association) warn of these effects of media violence on children:

* Children will increase anti-social and aggressive behavior.
* Children may become less sensitive to violence and those who suffer from violence.
* Children may view the world as violent and mean, becoming more fearful of being a victim of violence.
* Children will desire to see more violence in entertainment and real life.
* Children will view violence as an acceptable way to settle conflicts.
(Congressional Public Health Summit, 2000)

Whether or not your anarchic 'libertarian ideology' can't accept something doesn't mean a case hasn't been adequately made, Milton.

Quote by: Isbskins We don't claim that access to a gun forms the intent, we argue that access to the gun makes it sooooooo much easier to effect the intent that access needs to be considerably more limited.

There it is.


.

[Milton Bradley]

You both know I meant "make the case" in court.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, since we can make the case you say we can't make, does that mean the second part of your question becomes moot or...

No no no, I think you can make a strong case that guns should be restricted to responsible adults.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton You both know I meant "make the case" in court.

Unlike the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment has no qualifying condition, Milton. But the fact that the entertainment media can create whatever it likes doesn't mean it can't be harmful. I believe the case for the reality of that harm has been scientifically established, whether or not it can be held liable in court.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Unlike the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment has no qualifying condition, Milton.

I surely don't see that qualifier as being aimed at the constituents, but rather aimed at qualifying the requirements for the Militia, which was to be made of constituents, who were often required to arm themselves.


How could they arm themselves if "arms" restrictions apply?

Quote by: Sonart But the fact that the entertainment media can create whatever it likes doesn't mean it can't be harmful. I believe the case for the reality of that harm has been scientifically established, whether or not it can be held liable in court.

Again, there you are laboring over a point that is not in contention.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton How could they arm themselves if "arms" restrictions apply?

Obviously they couldn't, hence the 2nd Amendment. Alas, a citizen militia, as defined by the Constitution as necessary for the security of a free state, no longer exists, and therefore neither does the raison d'etre for the 2nd Amendment, hence, 70 undisputed years with Miller as the standing case law precedent.

Quote by: Milton Again, there you are laboring over a point that is not in contention.

Then I'm apparently misreading your posts. When you responded, "You both know I meant "make the case" in court.", to which post were you responding?


.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Then I'm apparently misreading your posts. When you responded, "You both know I meant "make the case" in court.", to which post were you responding?

That you could make the case to ban children from watching certain kinds of television.


The court just basically reitterated the the adults who are their legal gaurdians are responsible for their childrens entertainment.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley That you could make the case to ban children from watching certain kinds of television.

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:"

Nowhere did I ever state, or even insinuate, that children should be banned from watching certain kinds of television. To the contrary, I said that the 1st Amendment defends the medias right to say and show almost whatever they like.

What I DID say was that scientific research has found that violence in media can make children more agressive. "Making the case" scientifically is entirely different than making the case in court.

.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: HelioPrime Justices agree on right to own guns - Yahoo! News I'm guessing this only sets a precedent now? So the gun ban opponents still will have to take the issue to the court. Sad thou. If only the need for guns could be banned universally for all non uniformed citizens. Instead we allow the rights to own them and thus create the need to own them for protection as well.

No not at all. You are saying that if we had no guns whatsoever that we'd have no crime. That's foolishness. Crimes can be committed by folks using some other weapon. Like a shoe in the stomach, or a finger in the eye.

Without a gun the strong and mighty have all of the power over the weak and frail. The pistol, as Samuel Colt said, "was the equalizer". Therefore, a weak person with a Colt's pistol has power equal to or greater than the drug crazed monster at your doorway.

It's been shown time and time again that if more law abiding citizens are armed there is less crime. If you don't beleive me then read, "More Guns Less Crime". It pretty much spells it all out.