The Denver killer is clearly a very very sick young Man.

[dingodan]

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

-Thomas Jefferson

 

[Bold Seagull]

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

-Thomas Jefferson

A quote from what 1800?

Have a read from an alternative view point.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/?pagination=false

 

[dingodan]

A quote from what 1800?

Have a read from an alternative view point.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/?pagination=false

Because up was not up, and down was not down, in 1800. There is nothing about that statement that is not true today. If there is, say that, instead of suggesting that because of when it was said it is automatically, and without examination, invalid.

Nice link to something long and wordy, and which I assume you trust nobody will read, just as you have not.

"As I said at the beginning, my argument does not deny any private right to own and use firearms. Perhaps that can be defended on other grounds—natural law, common law, tradition, statute. It is certainly true that most people assumed such a right in the 1780s—so naturally, in fact, that the question was not “up” and calling for specific guarantees. All I maintain is that Madison did not address that question when drafting his amendment."

Fail. Nice try though.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

Spoke to 3 US tourists over for the Olympics today and while talking about the killings one said 'your so lucky you dont have crazy people over here'. My response: 'Oh we're all as crazy as a box of frogs we just cant buy 6000 bullets and 4 guns'. They all agreed that actually that is the mad thing.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Because up was not up, and down was not down, in 1800. There is nothing about that statement that is not true today. If there is, say that, instead of suggesting that because of when it was said it is automatically, and without examination, invalid.

Nice link to something long and wordy, and which I assume you trust nobody will read, just as you have not.

Fail. Nice try though.

I actually thought it was a balanced argument that countered the steadfast propagandists like Joyce Lee Malcolm that you appear to place so much credit to. That you've read it believing it to be only a pro-gun control article does make me chuckle!

 

[beorhthelm]

Are you kidding, he twisted what I said so he could dismiss it. I said "gun laws do not REDUCE gun crime". So his response was "yes so gun laws do not INCREASE crime, so what?". Ignoring the fact that you are all defending gun laws on the basis that they reduce gun crime.

i didnt twist any thing, i merely shone a light on you own flawed logic. you claim rightly correlation doesnt mean causation, while persisting to make an arguement against gun control based on one tiny correlation in the UK 15 years ago, as if you are suggesting gun crime went up because of that legislation.

meanwhile you've overlooked the question i asked: just why are you so pro gun and hold other american right wing ideals, citing Jefferson and posting clips of Ron Paul when you aren't american or in the US. you or your forebear have never had the right bear arms, so why do you care if some want to restrict that right?

I missed those refuting facts, what were they?

cute, seeing as you replied to the post, with one if your diversionary arguments. so you're saying you never read the sources? here you go again:
London gun crime incidents are 0.4-0.6 per 100k population,
US average 2.3 gun murders per 100k and a staggering 44 gun assults per 100k.
100x more gun crime. you might like to cross reference the Guardian table with the states with reference to strong/weak gun control law.

 

[dingodan]

I actually thought it was a balanced argument that countered the steadfast propagandists like Joyce Lee Malcolm that you appear to place so much credit to. That you've read it believing it to be only a pro-gun control article does make me chuckle!

What makes me chuckle is that I have read it, and you clearly have not.

The article is entirely focused on examining what Madison intended when drafting the 2nd amendment. The whole point of the article is to argue that defending the right to own a firearm on constitutional grounds, may not be correct.

So when you say "I actually thought it was a balanced argument that countered...blah blah blah", you are talking out of your behind. You have not read it. I did not believe it was a pro-gun control article, but I did think it might have something to do with gun control.

This article has nothing to do with anything I have said. Nice job.

 

[dingodan]

i didnt twist any thing, i merely shone a light on you own flawed logic. you claim rightly correlation doesnt mean causation, while persisting to make an arguement against gun control based on one tiny correlation in the UK 15 years ago, as if you are suggesting gun crime went up because of that legislation.

meanwhile you've overlooked the question i asked: just why are you so pro gun and hold other american right wing ideals, citing Jefferson and posting clips of Ron Paul when you aren't american or in the US. you or your forebear have never had the right bear arms, so why do you care if some want to restrict that right?

ffs, I never said gun laws caused gun crime to go up. YOU said gun laws would cause gun crime to go down. Demonstrably false. And I am done with you.

Mate you are too stupid to have a discussion with, I have tried quite afew times, but there is no hope for you. Always comes back to calling me right wing etc.

Not interested in what you have to say anymore.

Good luck in life.

 

[Bold Seagull]

What makes me chuckle is that I have read it, and you clearly have not.

The article is entirely focused on examining what Madison intended when drafting the 2nd amendment. The whole point of the article is to argue that defending the right to own a firearm on constitutional grounds, may not be correct.

So when you say "I actually thought it was a balanced argument that countered...blah blah blah", you are talking out of your behind. You have not read it. I did not believe it was a pro-gun control article, but I did think it might have something to do with gun control.

This article has nothing to do with anything I have said. Nice job.

I thought one particular quote was poignant for you:

"Only fantasists can think the self-styled militias of our day are acting under the mandate of, or even in accord with, the Second Amendment. Only madmen, one would think, can suppose that militias have a constitutional right to levy war against the United States, which is treason by constitutional definition (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1). Yet the body of writers who proclaim themselves at the scholarly center of the Second Amendment’s interpretation say that a well-regulated body authorized by the government is intended to train itself for action against the government."

I remember only to well your theories on the US governments undertaking of 9/11, it's invention of Al Queda etc. etc. You're interest in this is one of fantasist and madman.

 

[beorhthelm]

ffs, I never said gun laws caused gun crime to go up. YOU said gun laws would cause gun crime to go down. Demonstrably false. And I am done with you.

Mate you are too stupid to have a discussion with, I have tried quite afew times, but there is no hope for you. Always comes back to calling me right wing etc.

Not interested in what you have to say anymore.

myself and every rational person has acknowledged that Western countries with strict gun control have fewer gun related crimes, because its true.

i'm not calling you right wing as some sort of insult (most would consider me right wing), im questioning why you persist in defending and advocating a particular set of political ideas that are foreign. i can only assume its because you have educated yourself on US dominated forums and youtube videos. your avoidance of an answer confirms this, both in the style of responce and lack of any defence.

im sure your no more interseted in what i say than i you. im more curious in why you say these things.

 

[dingodan]

I thought one particular quote was poignant for you:

"Only fantasists can think the self-styled militias of our day are acting under the mandate of, or even in accord with, the Second Amendment. Only madmen, one would think, can suppose that militias have a constitutional right to levy war against the United States, which is treason by constitutional definition (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1). Yet the body of writers who proclaim themselves at the scholarly center of the Second Amendment’s interpretation say that a well-regulated body authorized by the government is intended to train itself for action against the government."

I remember only to well your theories on the US governments undertaking of 9/11, it's invention of Al Queda etc. etc. You're interest in this is one of fantasist and madman.

Right. So in fact you hold a personal prejudice against me. You think I am a "fantasist" and a "madman". Well that's one way to dismiss what I say out of hand. Perhaps this is why you are unable to read my posts and respond to what they actually say. Because you have decided before I say a word, that you disagree with me.

Great quote, considering this conversation has nothing to do with the concept of militia, nice one again.

Always comes back to trying to insult or discredit me, rather than dealing with the subject matter.

Gun laws do not reduce gun crime. That is my outrageous "fantastical" and "madman" viewpoint. And whether you like it or not, it is a viewpoint I came to after examining the facts.

Try it.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Right. So in fact you hold a personal prejudice against me. You think I am a "fantasist" and a "madman". Well that's one way to dismiss what I say out of hand. Perhaps this is why you are unable to read my posts and respond to what they actually say. Because you have decided before I say a word, that you disagree with me.

Great quote, considering this conversation has nothing to do with the concept of militia, nice one again.

Always comes back to trying to insult or discredit me, rather than dealing with the subject matter.

Gun laws do not reduce gun crime. That is my outrageous "fantastical" and "madman" viewpoint. And whether you like it or not, it is a viewpoint I came to after examining the facts.

Try it.

Please read your own posts again, it might be more enlightening than everyone else's for you!

 

[Acker79]

Great quote, considering this conversation has nothing to do with the concept of militia, nice one again.

The second amendment is at the heart of every debate on gun control for america. The second amendment is:

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.​

Of course the concept of militia is important.

 

[dingodan]

The second amendment is at the heart of every debate on gun control for america.

But it's not at the heart of the debate we were having is it. At all.

 

[Acker79]

But it's not at the heart of the debate we were having is it. At all.

Isn't the quote from an article you provided? If it's not part of the debate, why bring it up?

EDIT: I see it is in fact from another article posted in response to one you brought up.

Either way, this debate is about gun laws and america, and as such the second amendment and militias are relevant, even if you don't want them to be.

 

[dingodan]

Isn't the quote from an article you provided? If it's not part of the debate, why bring it up?

EDIT: I see it is in fact from another article posted in response to one you brought up.

Either way, this debate is about gun laws and america, and as such the second amendment and militias are relevant, even if you don't want them to be.

*sigh* when I say "gun laws do not reduce gun crime", and I provide evidence of this fact, responding with "The 2nd amendment authorizes militia", is not a valid argument. Do you not see why this is frustrating?

 

[Bold Seagull]

*sigh* when I say "gun laws do not reduce gun crime", and I provide evidence of this fact, responding with "The 2nd amendment authorizes militia", is not a valid argument. Do you not see why this is frustrating?

But you twice quoted Joyce Lee Malcolm whose thesis is that!?! You bought all that into the argument!!

 

[Acker79]

*sigh* when I say "gun laws do not reduce gun crime", and I provide evidence of this fact, responding with "The 2nd amendment authorizes militia", is not a valid argument. Do you not see why this is frustrating?

Along with Bold Seagulls comment that you brought up the articles, I would add: this nine page thread has covered many layers to the argument. You can't pick and choose the arguments to suit yourself.

The potential flaw to your logic for your argument has been highlighted. You disagree, but then, you would, it's your argument and for you that flaw doesn't exist. For others it does. I can see why not having everyone agree with you would be frustrating, but really you should try to get used to it. 6 billion people in the world, we're not all going to agree, even if you think the logic you see to an argument is so clear and flawless.

 

[dingodan]

But you twice quoted Joyce Lee Malcolm whose thesis is that!?! You bought all that into the argument!!

I quoted her article about gun laws and gun crime in the US and UK, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution, or the 2nd amendment, or militias.

 

[looney]

I see the gun grabbers are having a feild day over the latest shooting.

For anybody sane who wishes gun controll the question is would stricter gun controll bring about a net reduction in shootings. ie would gun controlls reduction in shootings outweigh the deterent effect of gun ownership?

The answer based on all evidence is no it wouldn't. Thats why gun controll is listed in the top 10 of useless policy initiatives.