America's Gun Violence

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.

The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.

Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?

I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.

I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one.
I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people.
What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.

So all of this hubbub and we only slightly disagree on the issue, lol. Well, it was entertaining I guess

We disagree on high capacity magazines as well.

I would say that I more so disagree on "how" some states have tried to ban magazines. Clinton banned "high capacity" magazines and it just resulted in new small, virtually undetectable "pocket pistols" being created as a consequence. I just read that a "speed loader" was created to align with California's laws regarding undetachable magazines, allowing someone to quickly spring-load a full permanently attached magazine.
My issue is with knee jerk policies that do little to actually add to public safety and often result in undesirable consequences, such as law abiding citizens suddenly being prosecuted for something they previously purchased legally. I draw the line at mass confiscation of property or anything that leads in that direction. Not to mention that there are tons and tons of "large capacity magazines" already in the hands of the public and I do not see any way of actually policing such a statute.

rssesq said:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/index.html

Carry on.

I love how when used in self defense it's a "semi-automatic weapon" but if it's used to commit murder it's an "assault rifle".

PJPOWER said:

rssesq said:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/index.html

Carry on.

Again, no mention of "assault rifle"??? Anyone else surprised by CNN's usage of "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" and not "assault rifle". I can only assume it is because this incident does not meet their "ban assault rifle" standards.

You could also consider that they're using language as it's presented to them, both in this situation and in gun control stories. It's a pretty common thing with journalists.

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

rssesq said:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/index.html

Carry on.

Again, no mention of "assault rifle"??? Anyone else surprised by CNN's usage of "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" and not "assault rifle". I can only assume it is because this incident does not meet their "ban assault rifle" standards.

You could also consider that they're using language as it's presented to them, both in this situation and in gun control stories. It's a pretty common thing with journalists.

I still find it telling that the term "assault rifle" is used whenever someone uses an AR-15 for ill intent, yet when someone uses it for self-defense, it's all the sudden an "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle".

A lot of that probably has to do with the fact that the people who want this gun gone, besides the fact that they only use that term to fit their narrative, know nothing about it. Like the fact they think that AR stands for "assault rifle". Or when Congressman Alan Grayson went on CNN after the Orlando nightclub shooting and said "the AR-15 can fire off 700 rounds per minute..". And a lot of people just hear that and take it as fact without actually learning that neither of those statements are true.

Government is the biggest abuser of everything.

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Government is the biggest abuser of everything.

Getting a jump start on the weekend?

I would list examples but I would wear out the phone screen before I could finish.

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Government is the biggest abuser of everything.

Getting a jump start on the weekend?

I would list examples but I would wear out the phone screen before I could finish.

Are you able to come with any examples where gov't may have done something right?
Perhaps the interstate system, or the space race?
Anything?

And based on some comments, maybe his job involves direct contact with government? Could be on the teat himself?