Great Day for the NRA!
(07-25-2012, 09:43 AM)Larry Wrote:
(07-25-2012, 08:32 AM)Willie Krash Wrote:
(07-24-2012, 02:37 PM)Larry Wrote: Comprehension is not strong in this one.....

The accepted fact that the government must have an Army (a well regulated militia), was known to be a potential danger the the freedom of the people, therefore it is written into the Constitution that the individual has a right to defend itself AGAINST a tyrannical government.

I asked this question in another thread, if the quote above is correct and is the intent of the second admendment; in order for this to be so, the well regulated militia should have access to weaponry equal to what the gov't possesses. Machine guns, tanks, stinger missiles (a must) and perhaps some good biological weapons.

I ask also what are "arms" in the constitution? Any weapon you can get your hands on?

I have never known you to miss the point very often, but you seemed to this time. The "well regulated militia" IS the government. Please read the amendment and my explanation of the amendment again, with this thought in mind.
Thanks Larry, the well regulated militia is the gov't that will protect us from it's own tyranny? We have a standing army now and it therefore constitutes a well regulated militia?
Now if I understand what you wrote I find this troubling,

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 gov't is of course us, we the people. If our military constitutes a gov't force and is so established then we the people satisfy the statement "necessary to the security of a free state."

The home defense argument came about in 2010 from the SCOTUS.
Reply
(07-25-2012, 05:24 PM)Clone Wrote:
(07-25-2012, 03:12 PM)Chris Wrote: BeerMe, my apologies; that was my oversight. Clone was indeed responsible for the missing portion of the quote, which gave it meaning; but, I think she must have done it for brevity's sake.

You do raise a good point; I have no idea how Moore's number was derived; he fails to cite a source in his blog post. After doing a minor amount of checking, I was unable to come up with a direct correlation; the closest I cold find in a valid study was done in 1997; http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf
However, the chart given would require some manipulation to ascertain the actual numbers in comparing the US vs the next 23 richest countries, but at least the raw data is there, if someone wants to spend the time.

I don't Razz

I just sent a PM to Mr. Moore on Facebook. Perhaps the Facebook gods will smile on me and I'll get a personal response. Fingers crossed. Smiling
We would then have to send Mr Moore's data to Fact Check, unfortunately.
Reply
Michael Moore's interview,

Reply
How about,
Reply
Please check this.

Quote:Annual homicides from firearms

According to the U.N. figures, the U.S. had 9,146 homicides by firearm in 2009. That year, Colombia and Venezuela both exceeded the U.S. total, with 12,808 and 11,115 firearm deaths, respectively. Three other nations topped the U.S. amount in the most recent year for which data is available: Brazil (34,678 in 2008), Mexico (11,309 in 2010) and Thailand (20,032 in 2000).

So the U.S. ranks high in this category, but not first. Even using the higher U.S. homicide figure of 11,493 in 2010 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cited here), the U.S. still doesn’t rank first internationally.

Annual homicide rate for firearms

Because the U.S. is so big, it's better to compare the frequency of firearm homicides per capita, usually expressed as firearm homicides per 100,000 in national population.

According to the U.N., the U.S. had 3.0 firearm homicides per 100,000 in population in 2009. But there were 14 other nations that had higher rates in 2009, primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean: Honduras (57.6), Jamaica (47.2), St. Kitts and Nevis (44.4), Venezuela (39.0), Guatemala (38.5), Colombia (28.1), Trinidad & Tobago (27.3), Panama (19.3), Dominican Republic (16.9), Bahamas (15.4), Belize (15.4), Mexico (7.9), Paraguay (7.3) and Nicaragua (5.9). Three other nations had higher rates in 2008: El Salvador (39.9), Brazil (18.1) and Ecuador (12.7).

So the U.S. doesn’t rank no. 1 when firearm homicides are adjusted for population.
Reply
(07-25-2012, 08:32 AM)Willie Krash Wrote: I asked this question in another thread, if the quote above is correct and is the intent of the second admendment; in order for this to be so, the well regulated militia should have access to weaponry equal to what the gov't possesses. Machine guns, tanks, stinger missiles (a must) and perhaps some good biological weapons.

I ask also what are "arms" in the constitution? Any weapon you can get your hands on?

I knew a good activist rightwinger supreme would come to the rescue,
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday said that even "handheld rocket launchers" could be considered legal under his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.


"What about these technological limitations?" Wallace wondered. "Obviously, we're not now talking about a handgun or a musket, we're talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute."

"We'll see," Scalia replied. "Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be carried. It's to 'keep and bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons."

"But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to -- it's will have to be decided," he added.
Crooks & Liars
I asked about muskets and phasers too......Wouldn't a stinger missile be fun? Rolling Eyes
Reply
(07-21-2012, 01:31 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 01:23 PM)Tiamat Wrote: To me the obvious is that it isn't the weapons. Ingenious folks can come up with anything. Maybe we should be looking at the state of mental health care in this country?

That would make sense IF these mass murderers were all or most actually mental health patients.
I don't think they are.

Just pointing to one case:
Quote:n 1982, Larry Robison brutally killed five people. The crime was incredibly ugly. One victim was a 6-year-old boy; another was maimed and decapitated.

At the time, his mother, Lois Robison, was a school teacher; so was her husband, Ken. She remembers talking to her husband the night of her son's arrest — how clear it was to him that the life they'd built toegether was now gone.

"He said, 'We will no longer be Lois and Ken Robison, the school teachers,' " Lois Robison says her husband told her. " 'We will be Lois and Ken Robison, the parents of a mass murderer.' "

But this was not a title that Lois Robison felt her family deserved. If the question these families face is — Are you responsible for evil? — from the perspective of Lois Robison, the answer was clearly no.

"If there was anything you could do to keep it from happening, we did it," she says. "We were in church every time the doors were open. We took our kids to Sunday school from the time they were born. Larry was in Scouts, the girls were in Scouts. Ken was a Scout leader."

And when, as a young man, her son Larry started having mental health problems, Robison says, she did everything she could to help him.

She had him hospitalized several times for his problems, but the institutions, she says, would never hold him longer than 30 days.

"I fought the state of Texas, I fought the county, I fought everybody to get him help," Lois Robison says.

At trial the state of Texas rejected the insanity defense, and Larry Robison was eventually put to death. But from Lois Robison's perspective, it was the mental illness, and not her son, that was responsible for those crimes. And this belief both neutralized her guilt and shaped her feelings about what it was that she should do next.

"We can crawl into a cave and pull a rock in after us," she says, "and just, you know, hibernate and stay away from the world. ... Or we can be up front and tell the truth and hope that it helps somebody in the future."

And so after her son was arrested, Robison started advocating for mental health issues. She went all over the country talking about access to care. "If I hadn't done that," she says, "I would have laid down and died."


http://www.npr.org/2012/08/01/157737038/...nthinkable
Reply
(08-01-2012, 09:07 PM)Tiamat Wrote: She had him hospitalized several times for his problems, but the institutions, she says, would never hold him longer than 30 days.

I have an idea we could stop every bit of outsider crime there is if we would only incarcerate* every one of us for the duration of our lives.

*could be just for observation. Smiling
Reply
Where there is a will, there is a way.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/A...2-06-05-46
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)