Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[frigidweirdo]

You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US? Dream on

Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The People are the Militia.

Which ones? All of them or some of them?

Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.

Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?

I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.

The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.

Right, if you want to know if your personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights are protected, just go to government and they will decide and inform you of their choice. Clearly that's what the Founders intended, I hear you

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[kaz]

You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US? Dream on

Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.

Suurreee they would. They can't even defend themselves without us. What difference does the number of people in the country make?

 

[kaz]

Which ones? All of them or some of them?

Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.

Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?

I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.

The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.

Right, if you want to know if your personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights are protected, just go to government and they will decide and inform you of their choice. Clearly that's what the Founders intended, I hear you

What the hell are you talking about?

What is unclear about it? it's a direct response to your last post where you said the government decides who is a militia

 

[frigidweirdo]

You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US? Dream on

Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.

Suurreee they would. They can't even defend themselves without us. What difference does the number of people in the country make?

Why would you think they can't defend themselves?

US Military active manpower 1.3 million.
EU Military active manpower 1.5 million.

Both have about 8,000 tanks, for example.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.

Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?

I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.

The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.

Right, if you want to know if your personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights are protected, just go to government and they will decide and inform you of their choice. Clearly that's what the Founders intended, I hear you

What the hell are you talking about?

What is unclear about it? it's a direct response to your last post where you said the government decides who is a militia

Well, I was making the assumption that you'd have read my post.

I said the right to bear arms was the right to be in militia. You know what this means? It means almost all adults have the right to be in the militia. HOWEVER, because the right exists and the US govt KNOWS that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, they decided to just put most males into the "unorganised militia" so they couldn't go to court griping about their right to bear arms.

It was a perfect solution. So, the US govt can decide who is in the militia, however it can't decide who is not in the militia before due process.

I'm sorry if I made an assumption that you'd have been able to understand something so fundamental from what I wrote.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia), that is my plan.

Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters. So which people are the militia?

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]

The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion. I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.

Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people. Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed. That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.

Everyone is in the "militia." That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right. The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people. Government alone can't limit rights

You're wrong. Read the Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.

Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.

Want to test free speech? Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.

That isn't free speech any more than robbing a bank is freedom to bear arms

Point missed ^^^!

It is speech freely spoken and limited by the rule of law, a law and regulation imposed by and enforced by the government.

It is illegal to rob a bank, by gun or water balloon.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?

I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.

The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.

Right, if you want to know if your personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights are protected, just go to government and they will decide and inform you of their choice. Clearly that's what the Founders intended, I hear you

What the hell are you talking about?

What is unclear about it? it's a direct response to your last post where you said the government decides who is a militia

Well, I was making the assumption that you'd have read my post.

I said the right to bear arms was the right to be in militia. You know what this means? It means almost all adults have the right to be in the militia. HOWEVER, because the right exists and the US govt KNOWS that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, they decided to just put most males into the "unorganised militia" so they couldn't go to court griping about their right to bear arms.

It was a perfect solution. So, the US govt can decide who is in the militia, however it can't decide who is not in the militia before due process.

I'm sorry if I made an assumption that you'd have been able to understand something so fundamental from what I wrote.

What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Their is an active militia and an inactive militia. The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft. Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns ain't members.

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

You do not understand anything you read there.
You prove this with every post.

Oh please Wise and Wonderful shooter, do educate me on how to read with comprehension and the ability to make obvious inferences. I need your guidance, as someone whose nom de plume is M14 Shooter you must be unbiased, trustworthy and morally pure.

I await you counsel and guidance with expectation.

[Sarcasm Alert]

 

[M14 Shooter]

Point missed ^^^!
It is speech freely spoken and limited by the rule of law, a law and regulation imposed by and enforced by the government.

Not that you have the capacity to soundly respond, but...
Yes - because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
How does simple possession/ownership of a firearm place anyone in in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts,....

Excellent characterization of most, if not all, of your posts regarding gun control.

 

[kaz]

Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters. So which people are the militia?

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]

The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion. I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.

Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people. Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed. That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.

Everyone is in the "militia." That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right. The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people. Government alone can't limit rights

You're wrong. Read the Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.

Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.

Want to test free speech? Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.

That isn't free speech any more than robbing a bank is freedom to bear arms

Point missed ^^^!

It is speech freely spoken and limited by the rule of law, a law and regulation imposed by and enforced by the government.

It is illegal to rob a bank, by gun or water balloon.

Point missed ^^^!

government cannot convict you of a crime on it's own

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]

The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion. I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.

Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people. Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed. That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.

Everyone is in the "militia." That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right. The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people. Government alone can't limit rights

You're wrong. Read the Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.

Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.

Want to test free speech? Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.

That isn't free speech any more than robbing a bank is freedom to bear arms

Point missed ^^^!

It is speech freely spoken and limited by the rule of law, a law and regulation imposed by and enforced by the government.

It is illegal to rob a bank, by gun or water balloon.

Point missed ^^^!

government cannot convict you of a crime on it's own

LOL, really? What planet are you from?

What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts,....

Excellent characterization of most, if not all, of your posts regarding gun control.

My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law. Your opinion is based exclusively on the 2nd, what you call "due process" and your ridiculous effort to prove to be a modern Nostradamus.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.

This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[kaz]

Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people. Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed. That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.

Everyone is in the "militia." That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right. The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people. Government alone can't limit rights

You're wrong. Read the Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.

Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.

Want to test free speech? Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.

That isn't free speech any more than robbing a bank is freedom to bear arms

Point missed ^^^!

It is speech freely spoken and limited by the rule of law, a law and regulation imposed by and enforced by the government.

It is illegal to rob a bank, by gun or water balloon.

Point missed ^^^!

government cannot convict you of a crime on it's own

LOL, really? What planet are you from?

What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts,....

Excellent characterization of most, if not all, of your posts regarding gun control.

My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law. Your opinion is based exclusively on the 2nd, what you call "due process" and your ridiculous effort to prove to be a modern Nostradamus.

You don't know what a jury is apparently

 

[Wry Catcher]

My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.

This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Your repetitious comments are the lie, but given you're not bright enough to expand on your allegations with evidence, it's best to continue to remind others that anyone whose nom de plume is M14 shooter is a single issue concrete thinker.

I hesitate to use the word thinker in any reference to anything posted by shooter, so I remind the reader that any thinking shooter engages in, is limited to defending his love of guns and callous disregard for the victims of gun violence in America.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.

This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Your repetitious comments are the lie,

Yawn.
Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do

 

[2aguy]

You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US? Dream on

Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.

Suurreee they would. They can't even defend themselves without us. What difference does the number of people in the country make?

Why would you think they can't defend themselves?

US Military active manpower 1.3 million.
EU Military active manpower 1.5 million.

Both have about 8,000 tanks, for example.

They don't have the balls............you can have all the tanks and guns you want but you need to actually have men and women ready to fight.....the E.U. welfare kids will only fight when the tanks are rolling into their internet cafes......

 

[2aguy]

Politifact did exactly what you wanted and cited the stats, they compared what they could of the two systems and came up with the numbers.......of course since that shows you are wrong they are now not a legitimate source...got you.......

Uh hu.

From what you posted

"However, before we put too much credibility on these calculations, we should note that criminologists say there is actually no good way to compare violent crime rates in these two countries."

"Another problem is that aggravated assaults, rapes and robberies are victim-reported crimes, so whether the crime gets reported varies widely, depending on such factors as the victim’s trust in the police. "

"Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of "assaults and threats" per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher -- 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. "

"And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales."

""Recorded crime data are problematic due to definitional issues, reporting rates and other concerns," said Shane D. Johnson, a professor in the University College of London Department of Security and Crime Science. "There may also be considerable variation across counties, or states.""

"
Our ruling

The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False."

Did you read this all before telling me what you just said? Really? I mean, this backs up EVERYTHING I have been saying.

I said rape rates in the US were under reported. They suggest that rape rates in the US are higher than the UK. I said other crimes are also under reported, they estimate that assaults and threats are higher in the US than the UK.

So, I'm just wondering how Politifact is showing that I'm wrong. You've used it as a source, it seems to show everything that I said to be true, and yet you're making some silly claim that it doesn't back me up. How?

Let me guess, you read "
Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does" and thought this backed up your points. It doesn't. This was how they started to make their hypothesis.

You need to read beyond this before you post things claiming stuff it doesn't say.

Sorry moron...you didn't read closely enough......politifact is a left wing source and after pointing out that indeed, Britain has 2 times the violent crime rate that we do....they went on to prove their own research wrong because they had already proven that the British crime rate is 2 times higher...they had to fix that.....I posted what they found....notice what they say here......which you posted.....

Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries,

But there is a difference, they stated the difference and it is almost 2 times higher violent crime in Britain......

That is the 2 times the violent crime rate where as they were investigating..hang on....I'll post it specifically, again...

Again...this is what they found and I posted.....

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does PolitiFact


For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

'
But it is still greater............they had to try to hide that in the rest of the article.....it is just about 2 times greater comparing their stats as closely as they could to corresponding stats here in the U.S......

 

[2aguy]

And genius.....how is giving poor people vouchers for their share of education dollars robbing poor schools to give money to rich people? They can spend that money anywhere they want and each student would get the same amount...again, how is that just giving money to rich people?

And here, this points out how obama cut the successful voucher program in D.C. because the teachers unions know it will get rid of bad teachers...

D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


In 2008, the program funded attendance at 54 D.C. private schools for students from families with an average income of $22,736, "or about 107 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of four."[1]

In 2009 the program faced a phase out with President Barack Obama’s 2009 budget proposal cutting all funding for the program and including language to prohibit any new students from receiving scholarships.[2]

In 2011, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senator Joe Lieberman introduced the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act to restore funding for the program and again allow new students to participate. The entirety of the SOAR Act was included in the 2011 long-term continuing resolution, the passage of which resulted in a five-year reauthorization of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.[3] The 2004 legislation had permitted students to receive scholarships of up to $7,500, whereas the 2011 bill provides scholarships of up to $8,000 for students in kindergarten through eighth grade and up to $12,000 for students in grades 9-12.[4]

In February 2012, President Barack Obama announced his budget proposal for 2013, which did not include new funding for the program.[


And the actual results....for the poorest kids.....


Students who were offered vouchers had a graduation rate of 82%, while those who actually used their vouchers had a graduation rate of 91%. By comparison, the rate for students who did not receive vouchers was only 70%. The study received the Department of Education’s highest rating for scientific rigor.[11] Over 90% of the study’s participants were African American, and most of the remainder were Latino American.

Further research found that students who received vouchers were 25% more likely to enroll in college than students with similar demographic characteristics who did not receive vouchers.[12]


Yeah...can't have more minorities going to college can we......?