At least 10 killed after shooting during 'Dark Knight' screening in Colorado

[Cabbagesandking]

It is the one that is fed to the ignorant by the gun worshippers. IT does not in any way contradict what I wrote. It speaks of a populace in 'extremis.
' and its right to replace its government. It does not give any sanction to the carrying of Arms. Replace by force if necessary but only if there is no other way. Well, in what country does the people not have that Right? Where does that translate into any 'Right' to have a pistol in ones purse?

A telling new revelation is that Holmes was rejected for membership in a Gun club because of his bizarre telephone answering message and his behaviour.

 

[lone wolf]

Personally, I don't think you'd see anything that could ever contradict with what you believe to be true - which puts you in league with preachers of every ilk in my book.

...It does not give any sanction to the carrying of Arms....

You would be correct. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is the second amendment to the Constitution

 

[Goober]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.[/I]

--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Maybe you'll want to read the highlighted in 1776 context, then in terms of today. Hint: It's the one republican militias use to justify themselves

He does not understand the context of the times or why this was specifically written- The right to rise up as the colonies did when oppressed by the Govt

 

[Cabbagesandking]

What desperate stretching. Where is there any permission in the Constitution for the 'Right' to carry Arms. Or in the Bill of Rights (which is part of the Constitution). It is sad that some of you cannot get beyond the "ad hominens."

But then, there is nothing else.

There is no "Right" to carry or use in any way other than the thousand year old tradition of providing national defense. The other part of 'overthrowing tyrants goes back to Magna Carta and still confers no Right to more than possess and be prepared for national emergency.

.

I do not understand the context of the times. Surely you jest. I have put it into the context of the times. Context that is no different than for many centuries previous.

 

[Colpy]

What desperate stretching. Where is there any permission in the Constitution for the 'Right' to carry Arms. Or in the Bill of Rights (which is part of the Constitution). It is sad that some of you cannot get beyond the "ad hominens."

But then, there is nothing else.

There is no "Right" to carry or use in any way other than the thousand year old tradition of providing national defense. The other part of 'overthrowing tyrants goes back to Magna Carta and still confers no Right to more than possess and be prepared for national emergency.

.

The Bill of Rights exists as a tool to guarantee the rights of the citizen, or "the people". It is a shield against the power of the state. Yet you claim that the Bill of Rights exists only to enhance the power of the state, by defining "the people" as the institutions of power controlled by the state.

Do you have ANY idea how idiotic that is????

And the right to carry arms is in the Amendment:

Once again, what part of "...the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED" don't you understand??

Get that English tutor.

I am, however, becoming increasingly doubtful of any teacher's ability to help.....after all, one needs SOMETHING to work with.

 

[lone wolf]

Somehow, I think these people who like so much to twist words to their own interest would have all Americans wearing long-sleeved shirts

 

[Cabbagesandking]

The Bill of Rights exists as a tool to guarantee the rights of the citizen, or "the people". It is a shield against the power of the state. Yet you claim that the Bill of Rights exists only to enhance the power of the state, by defining "the people" as the institutions of power controlled by the state.

Do you have ANY idea how idiotic that is????

And the right to carry arms is in the Amendment:

Once again, what part of "...the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED" don't you understand??

Get that English tutor.

I am, however, becoming increasingly doubtful of any teacher's ability to help.....after all, one needs SOMETHING to work with.

Your first paragraph is something of a fraudulent argument since I made no such statement or implication. I know what a Bill of Rights is. You merely paste bits of one.

Repeating the same words does not enhance your case. It is still as foolish as the first time.

Incidentally, almost all the argument in favour of gun carry and the so-called evidence comes from the fraudster, John Lott's work. That work has been show by academic research to be shoddy, the work of a statistical illiterate, and, in parts, derived from statistics that he made up. He was once a fellow of the American Thinkers Institute but even that rabid Right Wing body has parted company with him.

Some of the favourable reviews of his work were written by Lott, himself, writing under an assumed name.

Proper analysis does not support carrying of guns as a lowerer of crime.

 

[Colpy]

Your first paragraph is something of a fraudulent argument since I made no such statement or implication. I know what a Bill of Rights is. You merely paste bits of one.

Repeating the same words does not enhance your case. It is still as foolish as the first time.

Incidentally, almost all the argument in favour of gun carry and the so-called evidence comes from the fraudster, John Lott's work. That work has been show by academic research to be shoddy, the work of a statistical illiterate, and, in parts, derived from statistics that he made up. He was once a fellow of the American Thinkers Institute but even that rabid Right Wing body has parted company with him.

Some of the favourable reviews of his work were written by Lott, himself, writing under an assumed name.

Proper analysis does not support carrying of guns as a lowerer of crime.

Yes, Lott did answer attacks on his work under an assumed name, and wrote a positive review of his book on Amazon under the same name.

However, his work has never been successfully challenged.

Please provide credible references.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

No! you research it. You make these claims that murderous behaviour and the weapons to carry it out prevent crime. Show your support.

 

[gopher]

Colpy,
Why do you think these guys hit schools, universities, and gun free theatres?

These institutions should be required to have armed security personnel. That will discourage many such horrible actions.

 

[petros]

Too bad all of the states weren't like Montana.

 

[Colpy]

No! you research it. You make these claims that murderous behaviour and the weapons to carry it out prevent crime. Show your support.

Well, my Bull Shyte Tolerance Level has been reached.

You Sir, are a dullard and a liar.

YOU made the claim that Lott's research was fraudulent, now back it up......... or STFU and be known as the moron you so obviously are.

 

[Walter]

Please provide credible references.

SJP is his own reference.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Well, my Bull Shyte Tolerance Level has been reached.

You Sir, are a dullard and a liar.

YOU made the claim that Lott's research was fraudulent, now back it up......... or STFU and be known as the moron you so obviously are.

Is that a concession speech? You confirmed Lott's duplicity only that fact cannot get through your prejudice.

 

[lone wolf]

Is that a concession speech? You confirmed Lott's duplicity only that fact cannot get through your prejudice.

Actually, I think you just got the bug treatment....

 

[JLM]

These institutions should be required to have armed security personnel. That will discourage many such horrible actions.

And then it will be gymnasiums, swimming pools, skating rinks, skate board parks, bingo halls, casinos, strip joints, restaurants etc. etc.

 

[lone wolf]

No amount of weapons control or security is going to stop a determined nutbar. He/she really believes he/she is smarter than most people and will probably welcome the challenge.

 

[Praxius]

*Yawn*.... yup.. the same circles of argument all over again as the last several threads about mass shootings in the US.

Just to stir this all up some more so it can go on for another two or so pages, The right to bear arms was in relation to sustaining a militia. (Just check the above supplied quote/image with all words not taken out of context)

#1 - All those who want to own a firearm should sign a written contract to join their local militia when called upon.

#2 - "Arms" is not specific to firearms, otherwise they would have said firearms. "Arms" is any means of weapon, including Firearms:
"A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings—physical or mental—artificial structures, or systems. In human society, weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, and warfare.
Weapons are employed individually or collectively. A weapon can be either expressly designed as such or be an item re-purposed through use (for example, hitting someone with a hammer). Their form can range from simple implements such as clubs to complicated modern implementations such as intercontinental ballistic missiles and biological weapons. Weapon development has progressed from early wood or stone clubs through revolutions in metalworking (swords, maces, etc.) and gunpowder (guns, cannon), electronics and nuclear technology.
In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary on land, sea, air, or even outer space or virtual space."
Weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You guys can try and argue against the above, but it will be a futile attempt unless you wish to try and re-write the dictionary and encyclopedias of the world.

That is all..... See you all in the next US mass shooting thread.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Actually, I think you just got the bug treatment....

I have no idea what that means. I know that there has been nothing but bluster posing as argument against the position I took. A position that the whole world outside the NRA and its backers holds.

As for Lott, if that is part of your reference, Why would I provide anything about him? He has been academically ripped apart and only the gun nuts say otherwise. Lott even tried to sue the authors of "Freakonomics" because some part of their very well researched book proved him wrong.The two most vocal here cannot distinguish between "Bear Arms" and "carry Arms."

There is a huge difference and "Bear Arms" has a meaning that goes back more than a thousand years. Pasting bits of the Constitution is a silly attempt at argument. The whole question is the meaning of those parts.

 

[lone wolf]

Brush off is the preferred bug treatment among bug rights nuts, I prefer the sound smack.

Nice waste of a perfectly good assumption though....