National School Walkout

[seer]

Correctly punctuated, it could be: "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."
Or it could be: "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."

So the right of the people only means the right of the Militia people? Strange if you use that criterion with other amendments:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Sparko]

I already debunked several of the same misquotes when Sparko posted them. 100% of his ones that I double-checked were wrong. Your list includes all his incorrect ones.

no you did not.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post530788

[Mountain Man]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27153[/ATTACH]

Do you have the rights to release that? Just curious.

[Juvenal]

I will be waiting...

Instead of contributing...

What I wrote was not a personal attack since I did not attack a person.

123 apologized for doing the same, and it made him look like an adult who takes responsibility for his actions. There's no downside here.

I attacked a way of arguing. I pointed out that seer did not deliever facts but had an approach of waiting for others to do so while insinuating he was right without proving himself right.

It's possible to make this point without addressing any particular poster.

Charles, I'm trying to keep this discussion civil. You're not helping.

[Sparko]

The ellipses suggest a preamble that doesn't confirm the conclusion.

the preamble just gives a REASON why the right shall not be infringed. It does not mean or say only militias can have guns. It say the people have a right to bear arms. and that congress cant infringe on that right because the security of our nation depends on militias.

[Juvenal]

Do you have the rights to release that? Just curious.

Yes.

Most of JSTOR is publicly available nowadays, even if indirectly through libraries and universities. The purpose here is in accord with standard guidelines, at no charge, and for discussion and critique.

[rogue06]

A less graceful interlocutor might suggest this is why the NRA regularly misrepresents all gun control legislation as attempts to ban all guns. They do get most of their money from gun manufacturers.



This is propaganda, and not bad as such things go, with the usual mix of fiction and personal attack, some of which you can't even complain about, because lampooning elected representatives isn't just every American's God-given right, it's great fun for every citizen from any civilized country.

Probably not the best idea under Putin, or Xi, though.

Making up dialog from a former president. Cool.

But then again.

Infantilizing a shooting victim by suggesting he needs a sippy cup. Not so cool. And as a matter of thread policy, it's a personal attack, and not allowed.

And yet it is your side that continues to "infantilize" an adult by falsely pushing the myth that he is a child and therefore above reproach. And while I've been in places (not just once) where people got shot and killed I would never characterize myself as a "shooting victim." The shooting victims are the ones who were actually shot.

The fact that he is, dare I say, gleefully putting himself in the center of a debate, appearing on various news shows several times a day, means he cannot have it both ways. Nobody gets a free pass to keep saying, day after day, whatever they want without being subject to scrutiny.

As for the image... It was humorous, plain and simple. It mocks the lefts insistence that Hogg be treated like a child yet simultaneously be regarded as a sage and font of wisdom. And I thought it was better than this...

a76ed9b365b5ad4e8f410a32bbf8bad2a4eefcdf9bbe4b2f3bb4e39bc1f4c4bf_1.jpg

ETA:

And then there's the more substantive point. Yes, indeed, gun ownership has rocketed under these propaganda campaigns. How's that working out. Less killings? Safer schools maybe?

00000000000000ars2.jpg

[Charles]

123 apologized for doing the same, and it made him look like an adult who takes responsibility for his actions. There's no downside here.



It's possible to make this point without addressing any particular poster.

Charles, I'm trying to keep this discussion civil. You're not helping.

Or rather your idea that something that was not a personal attack should be characterized as one is the problem. It was not and it was not intended as one and if seer saw it that way I am sorry. And this is my last comment on this.

[Mountain Man]

Yes.

Most of JSTOR is publicly available nowadays, even if indirectly through libraries and universities. The purpose here is in accord with standard guidelines, at no charge, and for discussion and critique.

Fair enough.

[Juvenal]

And this is my last comment on this.

I'm going to hold you to this. Thank you for your contributions.

[Juvenal]

So much for attempts to hand wave it off.

In response to the citation of Kleck And Gertz 1995, I presented the top scholarly critique, attaching the complete study when requested.

You could check out some of the exchanges on Twitter between Hogg and Kyle Kashuv for a start. And over on CNN, when the host included some of their fellow students at Stoneman Douglas High School (likely a reference to Kashuv and a few others) as among their critics one of the sanctified lambs that no one dare disagree with called them all "murderers" (I'll see if I can find the transcript).

I'd appreciate that.

It would be useless and counterproductive in that she's fighting a knee-jerk boycott

Do you believe her apology was sincere.

And we continue to shelter an adult from responsibility for his words and deeds

The need to attack the messenger is promoted in fringe media. It's not actually necessary.

[rogue06]

In response to the citation of Kleck And Gertz 1995, I presented the top scholarly critique, attaching the complete study when requested.

Which apparently ignores the fact that their findings have been validated by three separate and independent studies -- none of which were conducted by someone sympathetic to 2A rights.

Do you believe her apology was sincere.

Honestly I thought she was likely shocked at the response considering it will likely go down as the all-time mildest political jab to cause such a reaction in all of history (or maybe not). But as the boycott of MSNBC for something that someone who used to be on that network shows, these boycotts are largely knee-jerk mindless affairs.

[Juvenal]

As for the image... It was humorous ...

I don't really understand spiteful humor, so it's difficult to respond effectively. In any case, there's no place for this in a serious discussion.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27156[/ATTACH]

The graph is fairly well known, and it's been noted that it neglects relevant factors, from the aging of the population (which means the baseline needs to be adjusted to per 100k in the relevant age bracket), to the significant increases in law enforcement in the 90s in response to public demands for action against "superpredators."

AEI is known for such misrepresentations, especially on climate research.

Significantly, the largest decline was not due to increased gun ownership in general, but from increased law enforcement. So yeah, there's that. Good guys with guns with the power to take away guns from bad guys with guns is a winning combination.

It's associated with unintended consequences that have fed into a BLM issue that has yet to be properly resolved, but net-net, it's still a winner.

LEOs are highly regulated, required to undergo continuous training, and provide a model we could build upon when considering how to legislate responsible gun ownership.

[Juvenal]

Sorry - I didn't see this until after I had posted. I have amended my post and made it clear I won't be responding further...

Pretty sure the thread just dodged a bullet.

[Roy]

By doing that you will just cause a civil war, especially considering the current divisive political climate. A point you, and others don't seem to get is that the Constitution of the US only lists rights that exists, and is not there to limit them or grant them.

The 18th amendment limited the right to produce, transport and sell alcohol.