ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags police issues , police misconduct charges

Reply
Old 26th December 2018, 03:34 AM   #721
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You have so far shown yourself incapable of evidencing I am wrong.
No I haven't. See:

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Interpretations have not altered the basic tenet that it means citizens have the right to firearms and there has been very little compromise on that tenet.

Last edited by Baylor; 26th December 2018 at 03:40 AM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 04:56 AM   #722
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,498
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Triggered.
Don't own a gun, mate. Wouldn't want one.

Quote:
No. The answer is fertile women.
Let me Google that.... US birth rate 1.8 UK birth rate 1.8 .... oops.

Let me see what people have to say about the US birth rate:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...s-births-women

You probably won't want to check who is having all the babies in the US either... you would definitely be triggered!
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 05:00 AM   #723
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,498
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
No I haven't. See:


https://i.imgur.com/MDIeXpf.png
That's hugely interesting. Can you tell me the dates between which individual Americans were not able to own guns because of this ruling? Would also be interested to know the militia to which this ruling refers who benefited from it.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 07:07 AM   #724
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
No I haven't. See:


https://i.imgur.com/MDIeXpf.png
Again, where did you copy and paste that from? What is the source?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 07:08 AM   #725
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Don't own a gun, mate. Wouldn't want one.



Let me Google that.... US birth rate 1.8 UK birth rate 1.8 .... oops.

Let me see what people have to say about the US birth rate:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...s-births-women

You probably won't want to check who is having all the babies in the US either... you would definitely be triggered!
Scottish Birth rates......1.53.....oops.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...land-annually/
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 07:10 AM   #726
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
That's hugely interesting. Can you tell me the dates between which individual Americans were not able to own guns because of this ruling? Would also be interested to know the militia to which this ruling refers who benefited from it.
There are such things as dumb questions and this is one of them.

It would take a lot for you to understand the context of what that image said. I have no interest in teaching you and you have no interest in learning so let's not do this.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 07:18 AM   #727
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Again, where did you copy and paste that from? What is the source?
You should start Googling things that go against the point you're trying to make. You didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia page of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. (This forum is getting lazy) If you had, you'd know that image is of no surprise, countless different articles say the exact same things and you wouldn't be stuck trying to dig yourself out of this hole you're in.
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
Supreme Court of the United States 1876
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...s_Constitution

As they say in Scotland, I guess......"oops"

I recommend you not post further until you familiarize yourself with your chosen topic of discussion. I'm sure you can find some courses on the US constitution on YouTube. It's not my job to teach Constitutional law to you.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 07:46 AM   #728
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
You should start Googling things that go against the point you're trying to make. You didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia page of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. (This forum is getting lazy) If you had, you'd know that image is of no surprise, countless different articles say the exact same things and you wouldn't be stuck trying to dig yourself out of this hole you're in.
I cannot find it. Please link to the source.

Quote:
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
Supreme Court of the United States 1876
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...s_Constitution

As they say in Scotland, I guess......"oops"

I recommend you not post further until you familiarize yourself with your chosen topic of discussion. I'm sure you can find some courses on the US constitution on YouTube. It's not my job to teach Constitutional law to you.
It is your job to back up your claims. Please quote from the Wiki source you posted that there is no individual right to bear arms. What I see are various judgements refining the right to bear arms, not removing it.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 08:06 AM   #729
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,498
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
There are such things as dumb questions and this is one of them.

It would take a lot for you to understand the context of what that image said. I have no interest in teaching you and you have no interest in learning so let's not do this.
I know you aren't interested in explaining why you think things...usually because a cursory examination of facts proves you to be wronger than a wrong thing going the wrong way down a one way street.

Quote:
in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 12:26 PM   #730
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Indeed, since Baylor likes Wiki, lets quote where the entry refers to individual rights to own and possess guns;

"The Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 Heller decision that the right belongs to individuals in their homes for self-defense..."

"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.[17][18] This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun"

"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms"

"the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Acts of 1792 and the similar act of 1795"

Etc, etc. It is not a universal right;

"...2009...The court cited "the existence of a longstanding tradition of prohibiting juveniles from both receiving and possessing handguns" and observed "the federal ban on juvenile possession of handguns is part of a longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms – those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public."

Then recently;

"Wrenn v. District of Columbia, No. 16-7025 – On July 25, 2017, the D.C. Circuit ruled that a District of Columbia regulation that limited conceal-carry licenses only to those individuals who could demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the chief of police, that they have a "good reason" to carry a handgun in public was essentially designed to prevent the exercise of the right to bear arms by most District residents and so violated the Second Amendment by amounting to a complete prohibition on firearms possession."

There are many other similar rulings;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

"On February 13, 2014, in Peruta v. San Diego, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the San Diego policy to disallow both concealed carry, and the State of California law that disallows open carry anywhere in the state, were not acceptable under Supreme Court precedent in Heller and McDonald. A "responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." More specifically, "the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home."(italics in original) ... and "carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms."[101] The case was remanded to the district court because "San Diego County’s 'good cause' permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 12:47 PM   #731
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,999
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
No I haven't. See:


https://i.imgur.com/MDIeXpf.png
It's that comma right after the word "State" that forces the SCOTUS to rule in favor of individuals to own guns.

The Amendment does not specify what kinds of guns can and cannot be owned, and in the past we have banned specific weapon's types, and restricted ownership of other weapons.

The Amendment also does not define what a militia is, and thus a militia can be one person as the amendment was written.

This is all case law now. The only way to change it is to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and that won't happen in this century.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 02:18 PM   #732
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,974
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
...
and shown you do not understand tu quo que arguments
I'm sorry but inserting that space into tu quoque is really distracting, can you persuade your phone to stop doing it?

Tu_quoqueWP
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 02:44 PM   #733
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I know you aren't interested in explaining why you think things...usually because a cursory examination of facts proves you to be wronger than a wrong thing going the wrong way down a one way street.
You need to be aware you are proving your fellow Scot Nessie wrong and me right.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 02:47 PM   #734
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Indeed, since Baylor likes Wiki, lets quote where the entry refers to individual rights to own and possess guns;

"The Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 Heller decision that the right belongs to individuals in their homes for self-defense..."

"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.[17][18] This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun"

"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms"

"the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Acts of 1792 and the similar act of 1795"

Etc, etc. It is not a universal right;

"...2009...The court cited "the existence of a longstanding tradition of prohibiting juveniles from both receiving and possessing handguns" and observed "the federal ban on juvenile possession of handguns is part of a longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms – those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public."

Then recently;

"Wrenn v. District of Columbia, No. 16-7025 – On July 25, 2017, the D.C. Circuit ruled that a District of Columbia regulation that limited conceal-carry licenses only to those individuals who could demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the chief of police, that they have a "good reason" to carry a handgun in public was essentially designed to prevent the exercise of the right to bear arms by most District residents and so violated the Second Amendment by amounting to a complete prohibition on firearms possession."

There are many other similar rulings;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

"On February 13, 2014, in Peruta v. San Diego, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the San Diego policy to disallow both concealed carry, and the State of California law that disallows open carry anywhere in the state, were not acceptable under Supreme Court precedent in Heller and McDonald. A "responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." More specifically, "the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home."(italics in original) ... and "carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms."[101] The case was remanded to the district court because "San Diego County’s 'good cause' permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."
I actually predicted you'd do this. Skim Wikipedia and to "prove" you were right when you are proving yourself wrong.
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The 2nd is worded exactly now as it was when it first appeared. Interpretations have not altered the basic tenet that it means citizens have the right to firearms and there has been very little compromise on that tenet
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 02:51 PM   #735
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,411
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Scottish Birth rates......1.53.....oops.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...land-annually/
Scotland is part of the UK. Given that you once posted that London's Camden Town is a 'no-go area' it might be fair to suppose that you don't know much about Scotland, including where it actually is.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 03:00 PM   #736
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I cannot find it. Please link to the source.
This isn't arcane knowledge, big guy. You need to learn about the US constitution before using the US constitution as a foundation for your argument. Frantically copying and pasting different Supreme Court decisions without having basic understanding of the US constitution is only going to embarrass you further. Like your friend putting words in bold thinking it proves your point when in fact, it debunks it. I asked you nicely to take a course on US constitution before advancing the discussion. There are some good ones on YouTube or you can register on coursera for free.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 03:01 PM   #737
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Scotland is part of the UK. Given that you once posted that London's Camden Town is a 'no-go area' it might be fair to suppose that you don't know much about Scotland, including where it actually is.
Nice derail but that guy is a Scottish Nationalist so declaring Muslim women living in England as one of his own is disingenuous.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 04:24 PM   #738
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
It's that comma right after the word "State" that forces the SCOTUS to rule in favor of individuals to own guns.

The Amendment does not specify what kinds of guns can and cannot be owned, and in the past we have banned specific weapon's types, and restricted ownership of other weapons.

The Amendment also does not define what a militia is, and thus a militia can be one person as the amendment was written.

This is all case law now. The only way to change it is to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and that won't happen in this century.
This doesn't seem to be the case. Had Bill Clinton's wife won the presidential election, she would have appointed two (three including Ginsburg's inevitable demise) activist justices who would have overturned DC v. Heller and would have adopted a "collectivist rights theory" interpretation of the second amendment.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 04:41 PM   #739
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
I think her name is Hillary.

And I would think you would support her. She has children, which appears to be your single criteria.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 02:52 AM   #740
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
I actually predicted you'd do this. Skim Wikipedia and to "prove" you were right when you are proving yourself wrong.
I have shown you cherry picked one sentence from an uncredited source. With certain restrictions that vary state by state, there is a right for the individual to bear arms.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 09:42 AM   #741
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,195
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The 2nd is worded exactly now as it was when it was first introduced. The USA is well known for the freedom and ease its citizens have to possess firearms. There is a history of high levels of civilian possession of guns.

This is a more recent development than you seem to think.

Within my lifetime it was relatively unusual for the average person to own a hand gun. This was true for most of the country's history. Long arms for hunting or pest control by farmers, sure, but most people who didn't have one of those reasons didn't own firearms.

The "Wild West" was largely a creation of penny dreadfuls, dime novels, radio serials, and B movies. Towns in the west in that brief era routinely required the "cowboys" (a pejorative at that time) to surrender their sidearms when they came into town.

By way of example, the famous "Gunfight at the OK Corral" was the result of a refusal to do just that.

Most people didn't even have them, and the ones they had were often left over from military service in the Civil War, and somewhat long in the tooth.

Your perspective does seem somewhat over-influenced by past and present media depictions.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

Last edited by quadraginta; 27th December 2018 at 10:13 AM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 10:16 AM   #742
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,195
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
It's that comma right after the word "State" that forces the SCOTUS to rule in favor of individuals to own guns.

The Amendment does not specify what kinds of guns can and cannot be owned, and in the past we have banned specific weapon's types, and restricted ownership of other weapons.

The Amendment also does not define what a militia is, and thus a militia can be one person as the amendment was written.

This is all case law now. The only way to change it is to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and that won't happen in this century.

Or reinterpret it ... again.

It hasn't been all that long since it happened last century. Most of the pro-gun rights decisions have happened in the last few decades. Reversing earlier ones.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 12:40 PM   #743
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,999
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
This doesn't seem to be the case. Had Bill Clinton's wife won the presidential election, she would have appointed two (three including Ginsburg's inevitable demise) activist justices who would have overturned DC v. Heller and would have adopted a "collectivist rights theory" interpretation of the second amendment.
You don't know what would have happened.

First, the SCOTUS doesn't seek out cases, they are petitioned to the court for review, and the court decides which cases they will adjudicate. A law is upheld or overturned on it's individual specifications, and how they are in concert with, or in contradiction to the Constitution.

Many well intentioned laws are thrown out because sections of those laws over-reach. McCain/Feingold was thrown out because a section of the law gave the government power to censor political materials (books, fliers, videos, web-content). The rest of the law that limited campaign donations was solid, and the SCOTUS even said so in their opinions.

An individual state can pass some type of restriction on firearms, this has been upheld by the court, as long as it is not an outright ban on all firearms.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 04:48 PM   #744
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I have shown you cherry picked one sentence from an uncredited source. With certain restrictions that vary state by state, there is a right for the individual to bear arms.
Obfuscating arguments doesn't win them.

Last edited by Baylor; 27th December 2018 at 05:01 PM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 01:51 AM   #745
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
You produced one sentence from an uncredited source that states individuals did not have the right to own or carry a weapon. I produce various credited sources which show judgements which specifically state individuals do have the right, within certain conditions, to own or carry weapons.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 01:52 AM   #746
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You produced one sentence from an uncredited source that states individuals did not have the right to own or carry a weapon.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 01:56 AM   #747
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
You keep suggesting I am wrong, but you are unable to show me where I have gone wrong and instead you suggest I watch you tube videos to find out
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 02:02 AM   #748
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You keep suggesting I am wrong, but you are unable to show me where I have gone wrong and instead you suggest I watch you tube videos to find out
Here:

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Interpretations have not altered the basic tenet that it means citizens have the right to firearms and there has been very little compromise on that tenet
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 02:11 AM   #749
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
OK, over what time period did US citizens not have the right to own or carry a gun under any circumstances and there was little to no citizen possession of firearms?

I ask because from what I have read, that right has always been there, with some conditions and depending on state and citizens have always been able to possess firearms.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 02:25 AM   #750
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
I see what you're trying to do from a mile away. You're not going to be able to dig yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself by saying, among many other dumb things, this:
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Interpretations have not altered the basic tenet that it means citizens have the right to firearms and there has been very little compromise on that tenet.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 02:47 AM   #751
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
I see what you're trying to do from a mile away. You're not going to be able to dig yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself by saying, among many other dumb things, this:
Again, you say I am wrong, but you are unable to answer my questions about where I have gone wrong.

Is it because I said "citizens have the right to firearms"? Does your one uncredited copy and paste opinion prove that wrong?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 02:49 AM   #752
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The high esteem for guns in the USA comes from history; from the 2nd amendment in 1791, through the "wild west" and the importance of the gun in the settlement and creation of the USA, to not having had to directly face the horrors of modern warfare on US civilians.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 02:52 AM   #753
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Again, you say I am wrong, but you are unable to answer my questions about where I have gone wrong.
I answered it several times.
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Is it because I said "citizens have the right to firearms"? Does your one uncredited copy and paste opinion prove that wrong?
It is because you are wrong.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 03:07 AM   #754
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
That just shows there were certain historic local restrictions on gun possession, as there are now.

It does not show I am wrong to say that the gun is held in high esteem in the USA and how that developed through US history.

Western Europeans colonised North America and created the USA and Canada as they are today, by out gunning the native Americans and fighting each other. The gun did play a huge part in the creation of modern day USA.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic

Last edited by Nessie; 28th December 2018 at 03:10 AM.
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 03:09 AM   #755
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
I answered it several times.


It is because you are wrong.
You have not shown me any evidence, other than that one copy and paste uncredited opinion, that I am wrong to say citizens have the right to firearms. At most you have pointed out that it is a conditional right, which is not disputed.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 03:10 AM   #756
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
It does not show I am wrong to say that the gun is held in high esteem in the USA and how that developed through US history.
"The gun is held in high esteem[by whom?]" is not a truth-apt statement. This is the sixth time I've told you this.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 03:12 AM   #757
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You have not shown me any evidence, other than that one copy and paste uncredited opinion, that I am wrong to say citizens have the right to firearms.
That's not what you said. You said this:

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Interpretations have not altered the basic tenet that it means citizens have the right to firearms and there has been very little compromise on that tenet
And you are wrong.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 03:25 AM   #758
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
"The gun is held in high esteem[by whom?]" is not a truth-apt statement. This is the sixth time I've told you this.
It is my opinion that in the USA the gun is generally, legally and culturally held in high esteem, compared to the UK.

I base that opinion on evidence from what people have written and linked to on this forum and my own reading and research (in particular Defensive Gun Use).

As an example, when there was an infant school mass shooting in Scotland, the nation reacted in horror, the law was changed over the entire of the UK and possession of handguns virtually ended as owners surrendered them with very little protest.

When there was an infant school mass shooting in the USA, the nation reacted in horror, there were some local laws changed, possession of the type of weapon used was virtually unaltered and there was huge howl of protest when some suggested guns should be surrendered. There was even a movement set up attacking the shooting as a hoax.

Now do you understand why I say the gun is held in high esteem in the USA?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 03:26 AM   #759
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
It is my opinion that in the USA the gun is generally, legally and culturally held in high esteem, compared to the UK.

I base that opinion on evidence from what people have written and linked to on this forum and my own reading and research (in particular Defensive Gun Use).

As an example, when there was an infant school mass shooting in Scotland, the nation reacted in horror, the law was changed over the entire of the UK and possession of handguns virtually ended as owners surrendered them with very little protest.

When there was an infant school mass shooting in the USA, the nation reacted in horror, there were some local laws changed, possession of the type of weapon used was virtually unaltered and there was huge howl of protest when some suggested guns should be surrendered. There was even a movement set up attacking the shooting as a hoax.

Now do you understand why I say the gun is held in high esteem in the USA?
No
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 03:28 AM   #760
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
That's not what you said. You said this:



And you are wrong.
Can you please go through what I said, in detail and evidence where I am wrong.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.