America's Gun Violence

1154155157159160489

Comments

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 17,193

    Doctors ask about health issues all the time. Part of a doctor's role is to provide information and teaching around safety issues, particularly for parents.

    Doctors ask about things like car seat use. Maybe people think they should leave it up to Ford or Toyota?

    one doc I met with, and I never went back to, told me I had to promise to him that I'd wear a bike helmet and my seat belt every time I rode/drove or he would refuse to be my doctor.

    I do wear a helmet, and wear my seatbelt, but my doctor doesn't dictate my fucking life choices.
    Yeah, that's an odd and probably ineffective approach.

    Would you have objected if he asked you about helmet and seatbelt use and gave you some info about head injuries and cycling?
    not at all. it was his authoritarian approach that bothered me.
    "It's so nice when toxic people stop talking to you.
    It's like the trash took itself out"
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,102
    PJPOWER said:

    I do not have a degree in law...but this dude does
    https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/gun-ownership-right

    I'm not downloading anything, but what's the guys conclusion? My take is that the original intention of the 2nd amendment applied to militias, and militias as they were defined at the time.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,771
    edited March 2017

    PJPOWER said:

    I do not have a degree in law...but this dude does
    https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/gun-ownership-right

    I'm not downloading anything, but what's the guys conclusion? My take is that the original intention of the 2nd amendment applied to militias, and militias as they were defined at the time.
    And you would be wrong. Shouldn't have to download anything to watch the video...
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,102
    Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,811

    Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

    It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,771
    rgambs said:

    Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

    It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."
    The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,811
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

    It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."
    The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?
    My understanding is that the 2nd amendment does not begin with "..."

    It's a piece of crap amendment. It's written as an ablative absolute, which shows the causal relationship between the first clause and the second. The right to bear arms is given specifically in causal relationship with the well regulated militia. Ablative absolutes were popular at the time, which is confounding because they are shitty.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,771
    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

    It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."
    The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?
    My understanding is that the 2nd amendment does not begin with "..."

    It's a piece of crap amendment. It's written as an ablative absolute, which shows the causal relationship between the first clause and the second. The right to bear arms is given specifically in causal relationship with the well regulated militia. Ablative absolutes were popular at the time, which is confounding because they are shitty.
    Well, like, that's just your opinion and stuff! Once again, the highest courts and law professors and 2/3 of Americans disagree with you...but if you think your smarter then all of them, then who am I to stand in your way.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,811
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

    It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."
    The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?
    My understanding is that the 2nd amendment does not begin with "..."

    It's a piece of crap amendment. It's written as an ablative absolute, which shows the causal relationship between the first clause and the second. The right to bear arms is given specifically in causal relationship with the well regulated militia. Ablative absolutes were popular at the time, which is confounding because they are shitty.
    Well, like, that's just your opinion and stuff! Once again, the highest courts and law professors and 2/3 of Americans disagree with you...but if you think your smarter then all of them, then who am I to stand in your way.
    That is just a grammatical analysis and it isn't opinion, the courts, however, use their opinions to judge and weigh intent, not just content.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,811
    edited March 2017
    What the Founders said and what that means is objective, what they meant is subjective.
    Post edited by rgambs on
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,102
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

    It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."
    The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?
    And if it was 2007 my understanding was in alignment with the courts. You can feel validated all you want that your toy is now a right, but know that's a result of the NRA buying off congress starting in the late seventies so they could have their agenda reflected in supreme court nominees.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,771

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

    It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."
    The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?
    And if it was 2007 my understanding was in alignment with the courts. You can feel validated all you want that your toy is now a right, but know that's a result of the NRA buying off congress starting in the late seventies so they could have their agenda reflected in supreme court nominees.
    And.....it is not 2007. You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. So would it be okay for Bloomberg and Soros to buy off congress to have their agendas reflected in Supreme Court nominees?
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,337
    My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
    Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
    If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,102
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

    It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."
    The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?
    And if it was 2007 my understanding was in alignment with the courts. You can feel validated all you want that your toy is now a right, but know that's a result of the NRA buying off congress starting in the late seventies so they could have their agenda reflected in supreme court nominees.
    And.....it is not 2007. You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. So would it be okay for Bloomberg and Soros to buy off congress to have their agendas reflected in Supreme Court nominees?
    I'm pointing out where your validation with guns as a right comes from. It's not a conspiracy when it's all out there and documented. I don't think you'll be telling me the NRA doesn't lobby and they don't give money to politicians. Their public agenda aligns with their legal push over time. If you think the court suddenly became enlightened, go ahead.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,102
    mace1229 said:

    My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
    Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
    If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

    Again, what's clearly written is that it applies to the militia. This also makes sense in it's original context. It's a stretch to say the original intention applied to the individual, but if people think it does now doesn't change it for me. If you need to find a english professor that picks apart the poorly written amendment, that's fine, too. The majority of the population also wants stricter gun control, and most probably don't know what it actually says.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,337
    I just have to disagree. I hear far fewer with your argument that it was intended just for militia. I've always heard far more state what the guy in the video did, which is the militia statement is the justification for the right of an individual to own a gun. Most against it just argue that the amendment is archaic and does not apply to modern society, seeing as how we don't have militias anymore.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,102
    mace1229 said:

    I just have to disagree. I hear far fewer with your argument that it was intended just for militia. I've always heard far more state what the guy in the video did, which is the militia statement is the justification for the right of an individual to own a gun. Most against it just argue that the amendment is archaic and does not apply to modern society, seeing as how we don't have militias anymore.

    Anecdotal evidence is usually meaningless about a topic like this. People refer to it as archaic, probably because it's the only amendment that refers to an object related to technology. Of course they had no idea what arms would look like in 2017.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,811
    mace1229 said:

    My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
    Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
    If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

    It isn't clearly written the way you want it to be, it is only clear in that way when you use your precious dot dot dots in place of the first clause. With the first clause intact, it is clearly written that the right to bear arms is given in the context of a well regulated militia. That those rights shall not be infringed is contradictory to the initial portion of the amendment. That is why it is a piece of crap that is still argued over, because it was not clearly written.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,771
    edited March 2017
    rgambs said:

    mace1229 said:

    My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
    Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
    If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

    It isn't clearly written the way you want it to be, it is only clear in that way when you use your precious dot dot dots in place of the first clause. With the first clause intact, it is clearly written that the right to bear arms is given in the context of a well regulated militia. That those rights shall not be infringed is contradictory to the initial portion of the amendment. That is why it is a piece of crap that is still argued over, because it was not clearly written.
    This has been explained time after time and only a couple of you do not get it. On the flip side, why do you ignore the part about "the right of the people"? As far as militia's go...
    mi·li·tia n.

    1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

    2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

    3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

    [From the Latin term for warfare, military service, soldier.]

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

    This leads me to believe that their intent was directed at all able bodied males of the nation. Even today, all males over 18 have to sign up for a possible draft and all Americans could theoretically be called to arms if a threat warranted. It would make much more sense for them to already be armed in such a crisis instead of trying to arm the population at a moment's notice. Of course the threat was different then than today, but I believe the idea still holds true. The video I posted actually did cover this pretty well as apposed to what Go Beavers said (or blocked due to denial). Either way, militia in the context of the time does not fit today's definition. And the definition of "the people" has also expanded over time to include women, black people, etc. Of course the right to be armed can be limited (just like there are limits to free speech)...but infringed suggests extreme limitations...to what extent is the only thing I'm really interested in debating anymore.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,485
    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,771
    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,811
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    mace1229 said:

    My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
    Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
    If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

    It isn't clearly written the way you want it to be, it is only clear in that way when you use your precious dot dot dots in place of the first clause. With the first clause intact, it is clearly written that the right to bear arms is given in the context of a well regulated militia. That those rights shall not be infringed is contradictory to the initial portion of the amendment. That is why it is a piece of crap that is still argued over, because it was not clearly written.
    This has been explained time after time and only a couple of you do not get it. On the flip side, why do you ignore the part about "the right of the people"? As far as militia's go...
    mi·li·tia n.

    1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

    2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

    3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

    [From the Latin term for warfare, military service, soldier.]

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

    This leads me to believe that their intent was directed at all able bodied males of the nation. Even today, all males over 18 have to sign up for a possible draft and all Americans could theoretically be called to arms if a threat warranted. It would make much more sense for them to already be armed in such a crisis instead of trying to arm the population at a moment's notice. Of course the threat was different then than today, but I believe the idea still holds true. The video I posted actually did cover this pretty well as apposed to what Go Beavers said (or blocked due to denial). Either way, militia in the context of the time does not fit today's definition. And the definition of "the people" has also expanded over time to include women, black people, etc. Of course the right to be armed can be limited (just like there are limits to free speech)...but infringed suggests extreme limitations...to what extent is the only thing I'm really interested in debating anymore.
    I don't ignore it, and haven't in this discussion. My argument has been consistent in pointing out that it is YOU who are ignoring part of the amendment. The part about the well-rounded militia.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,811
    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,771
    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,811
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    That's weak, and no, I don't watch video links.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,771
    edited March 2017
    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    That's weak, and no, I don't watch video links.
    Then I have no further discussion with you. What I said is what the law professor at UCLA said...if you think your argument is stronger than his, then no one will be able to pull your leftist head out of the sand.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,337
    rgambs said:

    mace1229 said:

    My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
    Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
    If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

    It isn't clearly written the way you want it to be, it is only clear in that way when you use your precious dot dot dots in place of the first clause. With the first clause intact, it is clearly written that the right to bear arms is given in the context of a well regulated militia. That those rights shall not be infringed is contradictory to the initial portion of the amendment. That is why it is a piece of crap that is still argued over, because it was not clearly written.
    Someone will have to explain how beginning with "..." will suddenly clear things up for me.
    In the meantime, no where does it state that the militia has a right to bear arms. It states "The People" have that right. I am married to someone with a masters in English and my sister in law is an English professor, despite my poor grammar and spelling. We don't ignore the part about the militia either, we address it, and it is used to explain why the second amendment exists. The right is given to The People for the purposes of a militia. Not the other way around.
    As pointed out most people, including gun owners are for gun restrictions. I think there is a better argument that this amendment needs to be further amended to regulate gun control for effectively.
    Agreed it is poorly written, otherwise there would be zero debate.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,485
    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Once a day, sometimes twice.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,102
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    The video, where he doesn't comment on the well regulated part, but makes huge reaches and leaps to try and interpret the 2nd amendment to fit personal beliefs? Don't you ever wonder, if it was so important, why didn't they spend a little more time on making it more clear? And what will you guys do when you hit the upper age limit of the militia? (Thanks for your service, by the way!) Pro-gun folks refer to the original intent when it fits their argument, and then back off the original intent when it doesn't. So yesterday trump sneakily signs into law making easier for mentally ill people to get guns. Is this part of the original intent? And why no usual trump fanfare around it?
  • ponytdponytd NashvillePosts: 542
    edited March 2017

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    The video, where he doesn't comment on the well regulated part, but makes huge reaches and leaps to try and interpret the 2nd amendment to fit personal beliefs? Don't you ever wonder, if it was so important, why didn't they spend a little more time on making it more clear? And what will you guys do when you hit the upper age limit of the militia? (Thanks for your service, by the way!) Pro-gun folks refer to the original intent when it fits their argument, and then back off the original intent when it doesn't. So yesterday trump sneakily signs into law making easier for mentally ill people to get guns. Is this part of the original intent? And why no usual trump fanfare around it?
    In reference to the EO that Trump overturned, yes it's true that NRA wanted it gone, but you know who else wanted it gone? The ACLU. It was a poorly put together EO that restricted people who receive disability benefits because they suffer from "mental illness",which includes eating disorders, from the ability to purchase a firearm . Yes, that EO restricted people who shouldn't be buying a gun from being able to buy one, but it also restricted people who should be able to buy one from being able to.

    As a gun owner, I hope that they pass new legislature to enact stricter gun laws that is more defined to stop people that have no business from being able to buy one. I know lots of people who own guns, but I know no one who thinks that just any person should be able to buy a gun. Every single person I know who owns guns wants more but better restrictions.
    Post edited by ponytd on
Sign In or Register to comment.