|
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. |
26th December 2018, 03:34 AM | #721 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
26th December 2018, 04:56 AM | #722 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
Don't own a gun, mate. Wouldn't want one.
Quote:
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! |
26th December 2018, 05:00 AM | #723 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
|
26th December 2018, 07:07 AM | #724 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
|
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic |
|
26th December 2018, 07:08 AM | #725 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
26th December 2018, 07:10 AM | #726 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
26th December 2018, 07:18 AM | #727 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
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. |
26th December 2018, 07:46 AM | #728 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
|
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic |
|
26th December 2018, 08:06 AM | #729 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
|
26th December 2018, 12:26 PM | #730 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
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 |
|
26th December 2018, 12:47 PM | #731 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
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 |
|
26th December 2018, 02:18 PM | #732 |
Quester of Doglets
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sunny South Australia
Posts: 6,803
|
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. |
|
26th December 2018, 02:44 PM | #733 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
26th December 2018, 02:47 PM | #734 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
26th December 2018, 02:51 PM | #735 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
26th December 2018, 03:00 PM | #736 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
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.
|
26th December 2018, 03:01 PM | #737 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
26th December 2018, 04:24 PM | #738 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
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.
|
26th December 2018, 04:41 PM | #739 |
Philosopher
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 |
|
27th December 2018, 02:52 AM | #740 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
|
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic |
|
27th December 2018, 09:42 AM | #741 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
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." |
|
27th December 2018, 10:16 AM | #742 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
|
__________________
"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." |
|
27th December 2018, 12:40 PM | #743 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
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 |
|
27th December 2018, 04:48 PM | #744 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
28th December 2018, 01:51 AM | #745 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
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 |
|
28th December 2018, 01:52 AM | #746 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
28th December 2018, 01:56 AM | #747 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
|
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic |
|
28th December 2018, 02:02 AM | #748 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
28th December 2018, 02:11 AM | #749 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
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 |
|
28th December 2018, 02:25 AM | #750 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
28th December 2018, 02:47 AM | #751 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
|
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic |
|
28th December 2018, 02:49 AM | #752 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
28th December 2018, 02:52 AM | #753 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
28th December 2018, 03:07 AM | #754 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
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 |
|
28th December 2018, 03:09 AM | #755 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
|
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic |
|
28th December 2018, 03:10 AM | #756 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
28th December 2018, 03:12 AM | #757 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
28th December 2018, 03:25 AM | #758 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
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 |
|
28th December 2018, 03:26 AM | #759 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
28th December 2018, 03:28 AM | #760 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
|
|
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|