I'm gonna reflect on this post for it's truth, and bow out of this conversation. Pretty obvious to see which direction this thread is going to end up.......
OT Steve Kerr Golden St. head coach says it best about gun violence as a public health issue
- Thread starter bullmarket
- Start date
The unfortunate part of this is that it simply doesn't work. If your home or place of work is invaded by someone with an assault weapon, you never see someone who just reaches in his pocket and pulls out a six-shooter to stop him. It catches everyone by surprise, and your weapons aren't usually accessible, or sufficiently so. The net result is that we might see ten times in a year that someone stops a murder with a weapon (other than a professional). Yet, we see several thousand killed by accident because their four-year-old shot their younger brother, or someone got angry in an argument and killed a wife or girlfriend. One of the leading causes of death for women is an angry boyfriend or husband with a gun.
It may work occasionally, as I said. But, the church deal was a bit late. The killer was leaving the church after having killed how many. He was no longer in the church and was intent on leaving. At that time, he was confronted. No lives saved unless he was to repeat it at another facility.
If progressives weren't correct, we would still be living in caves. Of course, there are those who seem to do that now.At least you are correct once today...
Flat out false. You are completely clueless about constitutional interpretation.
If progressives were correct, we'd all be slaves in a marxist collective.
Syb look at it this way: Say you were at home with one family member. Two bad guys break in, each carrying a 9 shot handgun. The PD or a trained NRA pro happen to be aware of the situation and wish to try and save you. Is it better for you if one or the other (a) try and intervene with equivalent hand guns or (b) come in with superior arms as in an AK or a multi-shot 12 gauge ?
(anyone can feel free to make up a better analogy)
(anyone can feel free to make up a better analogy)
Ah. So Madison and Jefferson didn't know what they were writing.
Get off your prepared statements and examine something about history.
How about we don't let him have the rapid fire weapon. Then, our normal weapons have more of an opportunity. It might help him decide against it if he doesn't have the advantage of possession of a weapon that gives him a huge advantage. Does the guy walk into a church and kill twenty-seven and injure thirty with a simple rifle or shotgun? Does a Vegas shooter take the chance of firing from a window with a simple rifle? He might hit two before he is stopped. With an assault rifle, he can spray an area. Doesn't even have to be a good shot. Restrict his choice of weapons to something less ominous.
OK. So, I'll accuse you of fascism, and we'll be even. How many marxist collectives have there ever been?
OK lets simplify; one bad guy breaks in with 4 bullets in his illegally obtained 6 shot revolver. One cop with equal or a full clip in his legal service glock ?
One guy, four bullets. Got a decent chance of stopping him. Exactly what is the point you are trying to make?
That you (unarmed) cannot stop a bad guy illegally armed and that its best to be somewhat protected by someone with superior legal firepower. Like I said, there are professionals among us that can provide more appropriate analogies
I see what you are trying to say. Reality is that an armed professional is not likely to be around to stop it whether or not he/she has superior arms. Nearly always, we search for the perpetrator of a crime after the fact, rarely to prevent it. I find it interesting that the "superior professional," presumed to be a cop (?) would be so highly armed. Most aren't. Yet, they are effective. Most police officers have expressed the opinion that they want assault weapons banned. It makes their job more difficult.
I don't see the issue in stopping crime. We simply don't do that. Our best option is to reduce the killing ability of a would-be killer. At least, make it difficult for him. Several of these would never have had a weapon that they used if we had simply made it difficult to get an assault weapon. You dial it down by an order of magnitude.
You aren't likely to have a perfect solution. You put forth the best that you can do. All laws and regulations are an attempt to shift the odds.
You will always have the fever of the OKC bomber who knew how to take simply available materials and make a deadly bomb. Not everyone would know. Not everyone would be so determined to make it work.
No, you don't know what Madison and Jefferson were talking about.
Despite what you learned in 9th grade civics, the constitution does not grant rights. The rights are already ours. If your rights were granted by the constitution, then they would be alienable (like the statutory rights granted by congress) instead of inalienable (as Jefferson set forth in the Declaration of Independence) .
Saying that rights are granted to us by the constitution is like saying tax cuts are "giveaways" by letting people keep money that is already theirs.
Somehow, the word didn't get out to women that they had rights, like the right to vote for another 150 years. Slaves didn't get the message for another eighty years that they had the right to be free.
The level of water in a lake may represent a potential energy that is useful. But, only by flowing over turbines does it become useful in lighting a city. Rights may well exist as potential, but, unlike the claims that government is the source of all evil, man has used government to assure the protection of those rights, whether it be through tribal elders or a government elected by the people.
The Constitution is a protection of those rights. Yet, even when it was written, it offered no protection to women or slaves. The rights may have existed in some ethereal world, but they were ineffectual until we as a government agreed to secure those rights.
Curiously, our constitution is probably more respected throughout the world than in its own country, and they have copied it and extended it.
Syb I gave you a like because I respect you as I can agree to disagree.
Unless you have passed the bar, it's not wise to discount totally out of hand the thoughts of others who have in this case, in regards to the Federalists
Unless you have passed the bar, it's not wise to discount totally out of hand the thoughts of others who have in this case, in regards to the Federalists
I'm just gonna leave this right here, and let it speak for itself.......
Well, I do have a daughter who passed the bar in NY. But, as my many learned friends who are attorneys, many among the most highly respected in their field, the theory of the constitution is not really a specialty of what they are taught in law school. It is more of a legal approach, a case study, so-to-speak of historical cases. I have questioned them on the idea of having a professor of history appointed to the Supreme Court as opposed to a lawyer since it is more concerned with the theory. Some are guided exclusively by previous decisions. Some seek to establish new directions. Whether you approve or not depends largely upon their direction vs your own opinion.. Some lawyers find the idea interesting. My daughter is horrified by the thought of a non-lawyer on the bench.
But, it is basically a discussion of philosophy. I have had some observe that even Jefferson was a "lawyer." Well, he was if you count sitting in on a friend's practice for a few months in order to get an idea of how the law works prior to his activities in Philadelphia. He was a lot more influenced by the philosophers of the era than by the legal minds. Requirements to be a lawyer have not always been that rigid.
We live in a world in which we think everyone who is a --- let's say a physician---went to medical school for four years and at least did an internship or residency. If you go back only about one hundred forty years, there was no such thing as a doctor of medicine. Some had no formal training. Once they did, the first to be recognized as effectively trained were masters of medicine. The term, doctor, came a few years later. The point is that not always was someone trained as you might consider today.
Latest posts
-
4-Piece Nuggets: 2025 DL and OL updates, plus coaches’ travels- Latest: JeffSaintPatrick
-
Hoops: Transfer portal thread (Jadon jones committed)- Latest: RogueSooner3
-
-
Sooners ranked No. 22 in latest D1Baseball Top 25- Latest: Blake Mullen