quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

The Militia of the United States (which is what the second amendment refers to) is essentially these federalised forces (collectively known as the organised militia)...

The main Constitutional misinterpretation which has allowed the proliferation of handguns is the failure to realise that "the people" is a collective noun. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms" refers to the people of the United States as a collective entity. If unrestrained gun ownership had been intended the Constitution would have been written as, "the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yeah, no. Everywhere that the Constitution refers to a "right of the People" it intends an individual right.


K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

The Militia of the United States (which is what the second amendment refers to) is essentially these federalised forces (collectively known as the organised militia)...

The main Constitutional misinterpretation which has allowed the proliferation of handguns is the failure to realise that "the people" is a collective noun. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms" refers to the people of the United States as a collective entity. If unrestrained gun ownership had been intended the Constitution would have been written as, "the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yeah, no. Everywhere that the Constitution refers to a "right of the People" it intends an individual right.


K.

Wrong. It does no such thing. It uses the word "person" or "persons" when referring to individual rights and uses the word "people" when referring to collective rights. If you actually understood anything about how the Bill of Rights came into existence, you'd understand why, but you don't. You're just flapping your gums and showing off your ignorance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

quote:


II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

quote:

IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

quote:

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

quote:

And consonant with the quotes that you omitted to paste, the Supreme Court has held that "the people" refers to "persons".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"The people" - a collective noun. Individuals cannot assemble by themselves.

quote:


II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"The people" - a collective noun. Individuals do not constitute a militia by themselves.

quote:

IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"The people" - a collective noun. When referring to an individual this same amendment uses the word "persons". It's right there in front of you.

quote:

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

"The people" - a collective noun. The Bill of Rights was a response to those who felt the Constitution as written encapsulated too much power at a Federal level. It was designed to nudge the balance of power back towards the States. It was not to allow individuals to claim that "The Constitution doesn't prohibit biological weapons, therefore the 9th amendment means it's my constitutional right to weaponise smallpox".

quote:

And consonant with the quotes that you omitted to paste, the Supreme Court has held that "the people" refers to "persons".

The Supreme Court was wrong and Scalia is responsible for the needless deaths caused by the unrestrained proliferation of firearms. This interpretation of the second amendment is recent and in defiance of over 100 years of prior rulings. It is an abomination which needs to be corrected.

I strongly suspect Scalia knew he was full of shit, but just didn't care.

Your problem is that you're equally full of shit, you're just too stupid to understand why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Is Scalia also responsible for all of the lifes saved by the crimes stopped with firearms.
PS
Your assesment of the Constitution is BS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Your assesment of the Constitution is BS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Is Scalia also responsible for all of the lifes saved by the crimes stopped with firearms.
PS
Your assesment of the Constitution is BS.

The number of crimes stopped by firearms is so vanishingly small as to be non-existent. The NRA's claims around this are utter fucking poppycock.


Not to mention that societies without rampant firearm use don't need firearms to stop fire-arm related crimes - because there simply isn't all that many of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Your assesment of the Constitution is BS.

My assessment of the Constitution is correct and a damn sight more insightful than a corrupt judge and a near-illiterate hick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Is Scalia also responsible for all of the lifes saved by the crimes stopped with firearms.
PS
Your assesment of the Constitution is BS.

The number of crimes stopped by firearms is so vanishingly small as to be non-existent. The NRA's claims around this are utter fucking poppycock.


Not to mention that societies without rampant firearm use don't need firearms to stop fire-arm related crimes - because there simply isn't all that many of them.

The FBI's figures, verified by the CDC, say an absoulute minimum of .5 million defensive firearms uses per year and that the unreported uses will make it 2-4 times as many, not exactly vaishingly small.

quote:


BTW, I have posted this about a half a dozen time, and so have others.
The only excuse for not knowing it is a determination not to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Is Scalia also responsible for all of the lifes saved by the crimes stopped with firearms.
PS

Your assesment of the Constitution is BS.

The number of crimes stopped by firearms is so vanishingly small as to be non-existent. The NRA's claims around this are utter fucking poppycock.


Not to mention that societies without rampant firearm use don't need firearms to stop fire-arm related crimes - because there simply isn't all that many of them.

The FBI's figures, verified by the CDC, say an absoulute minimum of .5 million defensive firearms uses per year and that the unreported uses will make it 2-4 times as many, not exactly vaishingly small.

No. They do not. Those are estimates based upon extrapolations from extremely small surveys and are not in any way reliable. They are not "the FBI's figures".

A potentially more reliable figure is based on the National Victim of Crime Survey which estimates 108,000 defensive uses per year, however the same fucking CDC report whose figures you're misquoting also notes that the risk of injury due to possession of a firearm in all probability outweighs any perceived benefits from potential defensive use.

And again, it's germane to point out that if guns weren't so easy to possess then gun-related crimes would drop through the floor, making gun-related defensive use unnecessary. The imaginary security a gun provides is worse than no security at all.

quote:


BTW, I have posted this about a half a dozen time, and so have others.
The only excuse for not knowing it is a determination not to.

Then you've posted utter fucking nonsense about half a dozen times because you're fucking wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
She is not honest enough to say any such thing..

And Putin's bitch isn't honest enough to stand by anything he's said while he's been campaigning.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

103

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Is Scalia also responsible for all of the lifes saved by the crimes stopped with firearms.
PS

Your assesment of the Constitution is BS.

The number of crimes stopped by firearms is so vanishingly small as to be non-existent. The NRA's claims around this are utter fucking poppycock.


Not to mention that societies without rampant firearm use don't need firearms to stop fire-arm related crimes - because there simply isn't all that many of them.

The FBI's figures, verified by the CDC, say an absoulute minimum of .5 million defensive firearms uses per year and that the unreported uses will make it 2-4 times as many, not exactly vaishingly small.

No. They do not. Those are estimates based upon extrapolations from extremely small surveys and are not in any way reliable. They are not "the FBI's figures".

A potentially more reliable figure is based on the National Victim of Crime Survey which estimates 108,000 defensive uses per year, however the same fucking CDC report whose figures you're misquoting also notes that the risk of injury due to possession of a firearm in all probability outweighs any perceived benefits from potential defensive use.

And again, it's germane to point out that if guns weren't so easy to possess then gun-related crimes would drop through the floor, making gun-related defensive use unnecessary. The imaginary security a gun provides is worse than no security at all.

quote:


BTW, I have posted this about a half a dozen time, and so have others.
The only excuse for not knowing it is a determination not to.

Then you've posted utter fucking nonsense about half a dozen times because you're fucking wrong.

I have cited several studies several times.
I didn't quote the CDC study they verified the FBI studies methodoligy.
So yes the FBI, backed by CDC did say at least .5m, amd most likely 2-4 times that many. You clearly read the wrong report as the one I cited used crime reports which mentioned the crime being stopped by persons with firearms.
The CDC report from the 90's to which you seem to refer was as you say garbage.
It counted 25 year old gangbagers as children killed in by guns.
It counted people being harmed by guns in the home when the only gun in the home was brought there by the home invader.
That was nothing but a anti gun propaganda piece.
108,000 is not an insignificat number.
Yours is a survey, mine is a study.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
If that's so, why is termy all but shitting himself with fear over the thought of Clinton getting elected and started a war with Putin?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
If that's so, why is termy all but shitting himself with fear over the thought of Clinton getting elected and started a war with Putin?

It's probably more likely that she'll engage the US in a war with Russia, so the Illuminati (which probably includes her and Putin) come to the fore to rule the entire world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

103

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Is Scalia also responsible for all of the lifes saved by the crimes stopped with firearms.
PS

Your assesment of the Constitution is BS.

The number of crimes stopped by firearms is so vanishingly small as to be non-existent. The NRA's claims around this are utter fucking poppycock.


Not to mention that societies without rampant firearm use don't need firearms to stop fire-arm related crimes - because there simply isn't all that many of them.

The FBI's figures, verified by the CDC, say an absoulute minimum of .5 million defensive firearms uses per year and that the unreported uses will make it 2-4 times as many, not exactly vaishingly small.

No. They do not. Those are estimates based upon extrapolations from extremely small surveys and are not in any way reliable. They are not "the FBI's figures".

A potentially more reliable figure is based on the National Victim of Crime Survey which estimates 108,000 defensive uses per year, however the same fucking CDC report whose figures you're misquoting also notes that the risk of injury due to possession of a firearm in all probability outweighs any perceived benefits from potential defensive use.

And again, it's germane to point out that if guns weren't so easy to possess then gun-related crimes would drop through the floor, making gun-related defensive use unnecessary. The imaginary security a gun provides is worse than no security at all.

quote:


BTW, I have posted this about a half a dozen time, and so have others.
The only excuse for not knowing it is a determination not to.

Then you've posted utter fucking nonsense about half a dozen times because you're fucking wrong.

I have cited several studies several times.
I didn't quote the CDC study they verified the FBI studies methodoligy.
So yes the FBI, backed by CDC did say at least .5m, amd most likely 2-4 times that many. You clearly read the wrong report as the one I cited used crime reports which mentioned the crime being stopped by persons with firearms.
The CDC report from the 90's to which you seem to refer was as you say garbage.
It counted 25 year old gangbagers as children killed in by guns.
It counted people being harmed by guns in the home when the only gun in the home was brought there by the home invader.
That was nothing but a anti gun propaganda piece.
108,000 is not an insignificat number.
Yours is a survey, mine is a study.

The National Victim of Crime Survey is conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It is actual, real data, not a "study". Mine is actual evidence, yours - which you've failed to cite - is no doubt a bunch of mystical bullshit put together by a pro-gun obsessive.