"ALL IN" on the 2nd AMENDMENT???

[scoober78]

The point Flash...as we've discussed many, many times is that statistics don't make it so. Personally I have seen many "convincing" line graphs and pie charts on both sides of the issue. With complex social behaviors (like violent crime, elections etc...incedentally most things pollsters and statisticians measure) there are complex social causes...it is foolish to say that guns alone are responsible for an uptick, or a downturn in crime. Those statistics have to be seen in their broader societal context. Is there a recession or economic growth? Are people moving towards population centers or away from them? Are law enforcement agencies growing or contracting....etc, etc, etc.

The point is, and always will be, that whether or not "you" (meaning anyone) see value in my having a gun or not doesn't mean #$%^. I don't have to prove that I use my weapons for "personal protection", target shooting, hunting or any other "good purpose". I own them because I want to and until I infringe on the liberty of someone else, STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY LIFE.


By the way Flash...this is only directed at you in the first part... Just making the general argument. SNOPES????? ARE YOU KIDDING!?!?!?!?!

 

[Flash]

The point Flash...as we've discussed many, many times is that statistics don't make it so. Personally I have seen many "convincing" line graphs and pie charts on both sides of the issue. With complex social behaviors (like violent crime, elections etc...incedentally most things pollsters and statisticians measure) there are complex social causes...it is foolish to say that guns alone are responsible for an uptick, or a downturn in crime. Those statistics have to be seen in their broader societal context. Is there a recession or economic growth? Are people moving towards population centers or away from them? Are law enforcement agencies growing or contracting....etc, etc, etc.

The point is, and always will be, that whether or not "you" (meaning anyone) see value in my having a gun or not doesn't mean #$%^. I don't have to prove that I use my weapons for "personal protection", target shooting, hunting or any other "good purpose". I own them because I want to and until I infringe on the liberty of someone else, STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY LIFE.

By the way Flash...this is only directed at you in the first part... Just making the general argument. SNOPES????? ARE YOU KIDDING!?!?!?!?!

I agree that statistics don't make it so, but I was mainly refuting the point that Mumbles was making about the wildely inaccurate assertions made by his former professor. I honestly don't think the stats make much of an argument for or against gun control, there was little overall impact on crime after the laws passed in both countires. Just trying to make sure the facts presented here are accurate ones, instead of just hearsay.

As for Snopes, they cited their facts using original source material (sources are linked), just like I did for the rest of the links. It may not be pretty, just like me or Mumbles, but it works. Much like your new mount........

 

[A4sForever]

....As for Snopes, they cited their facts using original source material ...

You mean "original" as in several years ago when the CDC tried to propagandize gun violence as being a "disease"??? The musings of the CDC should qualify as "original source material" should they not??

Or would their assertion qualify as "wildly (sic) inaccurate assertions"...???

I'll tell you what IS a "disease". Your congenital liberal mind-set, that's what.

:sleep_125

 

[Flash]

You mean "original" as in several years ago when the CDC tried to propagandize gun violence as being a "disease"??? The musings of the CDC should qualify as "original source material" should they not??

Or would their assertion qualify as "wildly (sic) inaccurate assertions"...???

I'll tell you what IS a "disease". Your congenital liberal mind-set, that's what.

:sleep_125

Did you bother to look at the rest of my links, all of the latest facts and figures courtesy of the British and Australian governments? Or are you so dismissive of them because they don't settle well......maybe you should lay of the limes for a little , they could give you an upset stomach.

EDIT: Wait a second, the CDC was not even mentioned in the Snopes link, so why bring it up? Strawman? Are hard facts straight from a source not enough for you? The equivalent to these stats here in the US would be the ones published by the Department of Justice every year. They publish just the facts, from what I have seen they do not draw any conclusions from the stats other than long stuff like long term trends, they just let the stats speak for themselves. The CDC is not the producer of the stats, they merely use them in their research. How they use them could be debated, but that is a completely different point.

P.S. Like I said before, I don't think the crime statistics from Britain and Australia could be used to argue for or against gun control, there seems to be little affect on crime from the restrictions on guns in both countries on the overall trends in the crime rates. I am just pointing out the fallacy of the argument that crime shot up in both countries as a result of their recent gun control legislation.

 

[A4sForever]

Did you bother to look at the rest of my links....courtesy of the British and Australian governments?...maybe you should lay of the limes for a little , they could give you an upset stomach.

:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol: .. at least I'll never get scurvy.

You mean those same British and Australian governments who banned and/or severely restricted private access to firearms?? Those same governments that determined their citizens were not smart, competent, law-abiding , or "good" enough to possess personal firearms??? That firearms should only reside in the hands of the military and law enforcement??

Do you mean THOSE non-biased governments??? And those "facts & figures" provided by the same bureaucrats who put forth those wrong headed policies??? That's what we should believe?? Eh???

Please ... we're smarter than that .... where are my limes >> :sleep_125

 

[Lovebug201]

Boy, I love a good dog fight

 

[A4sForever]

....EDIT: Wait a second, the CDC was not even mentioned in the Snopes link, so why bring it up? Strawman? ...

Nopes. (rhymes w/ Snopes)

Just brought it up to point out the vacuousness of your arguments (might I say "all" your 2nd arguments??) on the 2nd Amendment. Again, you think if you can point to a link; an "original" source, or ..... *gasp* ... a GOVERNMENT missive ... written by incompetents and idiots whose very reason for existence IS the bureaucracy ... you think it's gospel.

It's a good thing you work for the government. And it's no wonder why you do.... you believe all the screed that comes forth from Big Brother.

But I still love you, G.I.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Here's my personal opinion on the issue:

The founding fathers had recently overthrown an oppressive regime.

Thomas Jefferson said something along the lines of "every generation needs a new revolution."

The founding fathers were very suspect of any over-arching federal government, and viewed individual & states rights as paramount.

That's where the 2nd Amendment came from. They wanted to ensure that we had the capability to overthrow the government in the future if it was deemed necessary.

 

[CWJones411]

I am the only person who can ensure my safety. When a government is trying to take away this protection, it only validates my need for a firearm.

 

[Flash]

Nopes. (rhymes w/ Snopes)

Just brought it up to point out the vacuousness of your arguments (might I say "all" your 2nd arguments??) on the 2nd Amendment. Again, you think if you can point to a link; an "original" source, or ..... *gasp* ... a GOVERNMENT missive ... written by incompetents and idiots whose very reason for existence IS the bureaucracy ... you think it's gospel.

It's a good thing you work for the government. And it's no wonder why you do.... you believe all the screed that comes forth from Big Brother.

But I still love you, G.I.

I might agree with your skepticism to a degree if it was a government missive, but they are largely just facts and figures, statistics. While I have a healthy mistrust for my employer, statistics are one area that democratic governments generally get right, especially something as publicly scrutinized as crime rates. All of the information that they compile is available to the public and would not be quite easy to verify, since they usually rely on local authorities to provide the figures for them. Any discrepancies would be quite obvious and would almost certainly be pounced on by a free press, and the Aussie's and Brit's have a boisterous and free press that would love to embarrass any government. So while a study using the figures could come to different conclusions, it is hard to argue with the raw data. Especially when it often shows crime getting worse, not better.

 

[Flash]

Here's my personal opinion on the issue:

The founding fathers had recently overthrown an oppressive regime.

Thomas Jefferson said something along the lines of "every generation needs a new revolution."

The founding fathers were very suspect of any over-arching federal government, and viewed individual & states rights as paramount.

That's where the 2nd Amendment came from. They wanted to ensure that we had the capability to overthrow the government in the future if it was deemed necessary.

Is that capability still necessary though? Part of my point was that the Australian and British citizenry are largely unarmed, but are arguably just as free as we are here in the United States with little danger of losing those rights. In a fully developed democracy a 'revolution' nowadays usually consists of 'throwing the bastards out' at the ballot box, not by gunpoint.

Ironically, the same revolutionary government that came up with the Bill of Rights was the same that suppressed several rebellions in its infancy. Didn't really work out for many in Shays or the Whiskey Rebellions.

 

[A4sForever]

I might agree with your skepticism to a degree....the rest is words from our resident Hozer-sympathizer

See why I still LOVE YOU, G.I.???

 

[nittany03]

Is that capability still necessary though? Part of my point was that the Australian and British citizenry are largely unarmed, but are arguably just as free as we are here in the United States with little danger of losing those rights. In a fully developed democracy a 'revolution' nowadays usually consists of 'throwing the bastards out' at the ballot box, not by gunpoint.

Counterpoint.

 

[Flash]

Counterpoint.

Point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

And I am sorry, but current day Britain and Australia does not even come close to Germany in the 20's and the 30's.

 

[nittany03]

Point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Smartass.

And I am sorry, but current day Britain and Australia does not even come close to Germany in the 20's and the 30's.

But in this case, the fall of the Weimar republic is germane. My point was that no one can know what fads or ideas may crop up in the marketplace of ideas. People may fall for a person or idea who sounds good, but is deeply flawed. The government may do what Britain and Australia have done and keep going as it should. Or it can slide into tyranny as Germany did.

When ethnic tensions, hatred, or irrationality grow, there needs to be a check on government to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority and protect the People from the power-hungry who seek to control them via the State. That's the purpose of the Bill of Rights. All of it. Protect the rights of the individual.

The point I am making was that the Enabling Act was a legal act of a Western liberal democracy. And it lead to tyranny, because all power was concentrated in the hands of the State.