The Second Amendment - obsolete and in need of reform

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 229
Topic's author
#211
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
I know perfectly well that a Specialist and Corporal are an equivalent pay. You said I was a corporal; I was not. I corrected you. You were wrong. End of story. 
Notwithstanding, my position as an MPI under CID placed me above you while on duty, which was 24/7. So, your rank means nothing. 
Hey LCpl, this guy Robertson who just got sentenced to 7 years in jail for January 6 reminds me of you!

Robertson also misled the court, Rocky Mount police, journalists and friends about his military achievements, according to the FBI. He has indicated in various interviews and conversations that he trained as an Army sniper, Ranger and parachutist in the 1990s; served as an infantryman, sniper and sergeant when he reenlisted in the 2000s; and received a Bronze Star and was awarded a Purple Heart after an injury.

BUT
The FBI agent said that Robertson was discharged three weeks into basic training in 1991 for “lack of motivation”; he reenlisted in 2006 but served as a military police officer and had no apparent training for any other specialty. He spent about eight months in Iraq with the Virginia National Guard and then went to Afghanistan as a contractor in 2011. He was injured there, but contractors are not eligible for the Purple Heart. The agent also said that Robertson exaggerated his recovery time.

- Washington Post, August 11
#212
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
No human is going to want to dismantle all civilisation and industry in fear of death.

Global Covid lockdowns: "hold my beer"
You guys had the lowest vaccination take up and highest covid deaths in the first world. While you sat on your fat arse and wrote dumb shit about lockdowns.

You very clearly don't leave your house.  
#213
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
You very clearly don't leave your house.  
I broke Covid curfew many times. And proud.

While you sat on your fat arse and wrote dumb shit 
The global recession was manufactured. That's the price for being scared of death.
#214
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
And proud.
That's absurd lol. 
#215
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If you followed the original source, you would have seen the footnote referred to a poll from convicted criminals. About 1/4 of them said a friend or family member bought the gun. 42% of them, or about 2 in 5 of them, got their gun illegally or from the black market. The survey is effective because it explains how these people got their guns BEFORE THEY WERE ARRESTED, which is what we are talking about.

In the shootings you mentioned, they go right along with statistics, which shows that gun control failed to prevent either of those shootings.

Additionally, just because a gun rights activist made a study, that does not disprove the study. If you would like to look at the data and provide me a reason the data is wrong, then that would actually be enlightening to me, as you would be the first to do that. Most people just do what you do and make an ad hominem attack.
Topic's author
#216
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Additionally, just because a gun rights activist made a study, that does not disprove the study. If you would like to look at the data and provide me a reason the data is wrong, then that would actually be enlightening to me, as you would be the first to do that. Most people just do what you do and make an ad hominem attack.
He’s not credible because he’s a whack job, not because he’s a gun rights activist. He’s an economist, not a criminologist. Some of his studies have been criticized in peer review. And working for Trump is a very bad thing to have on one’s resume.

Topic's author
#217
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
In the shootings you mentioned, they go right along with statistics, which shows that gun control failed to prevent either of those shootings.
It was the lack of gun control that led to these mass shootings. Assault weapons are way to easy to obtain.

Topic's author
#218
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
The survey is effective because it explains how these people got their guns BEFORE THEY WERE ARRESTED, which is what we are talking about.
Are you not understanding that mass shooters typically do NOT have a criminal record before they go and buy an AR-15 and kill a bunch of people. 

By making assault weapons unavailable, you will reduce the fire power they have when they go nuts and go on a rampage. 
Automatic weapons are generally banned. That’s why you never see them being used in mass shootings.

#219
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is true, but it isn't the full story. According to a Politifact fact check on a Chuck Schumer statement, 91% of those on the FBI's terror watch list were able to buy a gun in 2016 (which includes an FBI background check by federal law). [1]

This means that, even if these people have not committed a crime, the FBI definitely knows they are suspected of being capable to and still allows them to purchase a gun. And, once again, if we follow the survey, this amounts to about 10% of all criminals who buy guns. 

Additionally, according to the National Institute of Justice, while 77% of a PORTION of the guns used by shooters were purchased legally, 77.2% of mass shootings used handguns. Which means that, even if we enacted your form of gun control, it would still largely fail to prevent mass shootings. [2]

Furthermore, half of these mass shootings, according to the National Institute of Justice's study, happened in the last 20 years, and 1 in 3 occurred after 2010. These shootings follow the Brady and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Acts of 1994. [3]

In fact, the gross majority of gun control measures occurred between 1990-2020, [4] but have failed to prevent mass shootings, as evidenced by the National Institute of Justice's statistics.

--EDIT--

And furthermore, the National Institute of Justice's statistics also state that many of the deadliest mass shootings in the last 53 years (study was through 2019) occurred between 1999-2019, with 8 of the 16 deadliest mass shootings happening between 2014-2019. And the deadliest year on record was 2018. The second deadliest were tied between 2017 and 1999. So, no. According to statistics, banning assault weapons will not prevent mass shootings. The gross majority of mass shooters use handguns and banning automatic weapons, as we now know from the data, did absolutely nothing to limit the carnage. So why would banning assault weapons do anything?

Sources: 
[4] ibid
Topic's author
#220
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
91% of those on the FBI's terror watch list were able to buy a gun in 2016 (which includes an FBI background check by federal law). [1]
You mean the No-fly list? That was a Republican idea to let them buy guns.

(Murphy, who is running in Florida's Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in 2016, issued the tweet after Republicans repeatedly blocked a bill that would keep people on the FBI list from buying guns.)

Ya, read your story labeled “Source 1” This is the so-called No-fly list.
Topic's author
#221
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Furthermore, half of these mass shootings, according to the National Institute of Justice's study, happened in the last 20 years, and 1 in 3 occurred after 2010. These shootings follow the Brady and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Acts of 1994. [3]
I noticed you omitted the fact that the number of mass shootings has accelerated in this country after the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004

#222
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
It's called commonsense. One simply cannot gather the town's citizens and ask them to join the militia if they have no weapons to fight with.
What you consider common sense is irrelevant. That’s not how we interpret the constitution.

Really? Hmmm...wonder what Thomas Paine was thinking then when he wrote "Common Sense." And what Charles Pergler thought when he wrote "Common Sense and the Constitution."

James Madison was the "common sense" centrist on the Constitution. 


Shall I go on?


There is much talk in the federalist papers about the militia’s, how they would be organized, what their responsibilities would be, how they would size up against a tyrannical federal government, etc. I can find nothing in it suggestive of the idea that the militia’s they talk so much about were to be made up of every Tom Dick and Harry who decided to pull a gun out of their shed at any point. That’s why I ask. As far as I can tell this idea is purely made up.

"A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone." ~ What is a well-regulated militia?
#223
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Hey LCpl, this guy Robertson who just got sentenced to 7 years in jail for January 6 reminds me of you!
Red herring fallacy.
Strawman fallacy. 
Ad Hominem fallacy.
Appeal to ignorance fallacy.
Non Sequitur fallacy 
Just one fallacy after another...typical desperation from one who has no foundation to stand upon when asserting their unsubstantiated subjective position on the topic at hand in this thread. 
Topic's author
#224
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone." ~ What is a well-regulated militia?
Well now I know where you got all your ideas about the Second Amendment and Well Regulated Militias. From this tiny article in a tiny Libertarian magazine written by some moron who thinks highly of Antonin Scalia. 

Did you also know that Scalia believes a real pitchfork carrying, cloven footed, long tailed devil walks the earth? 

Some points from the article:

1. While Heller declares an individual right to guns, it does not recognize a right to all kinds of guns. It specifically says that the government has a right to legislate restrictions. Which is exactly what I am advocating for, a ban on assault weapons.

2. “Heller merely says the government can't enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense”  The problem with that ruling is there is nothing to prevent a crazy person from taking that weapon outside the home and trying to kill a bunch of people. So we better be careful about what kind of firearms are authorized.

3. “Scalia,  thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service” The right to keep arms absolutely could be just for people in the militia, just as the right to say no to the quartering of troops in the home could only apply to people who had a home. Some rights are only relevant to certain groups of people.

4. 
#225
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
->@TWS1405
A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone." ~ What is a well-regulated militia?
Well now I know where you got all your ideas about the Second Amendment and Well Regulated Militias. From this tiny article in a tiny Libertarian magazine written by some moron who thinks highly of Antonio Scalia. 

Psychic? Crystal ball? Sixth Sense?? Distant relative of Nostradamus? 

Yeah, didn't think so. You know nothing. Mr. Dunning Kruger Effect. 




Topic's author
#226
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
Psychic? Crystal ball? Sixth Sense?? Distant relative of Nostradamus?
No LCpl, just a commonsense analysis of what you said and what you posted as a source for support.

Oh, here commonsense is an adjective describing the type of analysis. lol
#227
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag. 
Topic's author
#228
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag.
Are there debates like that? Are all the people debating in wet paper bags?

Or was that one of your fallacious ad hominems that’s just a innocent observation by you?
#229
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Your petulance knows no bounds.