Drones Tanks, we have no chance.... What liberals say.

[_ldsfaqs]

Because the far right tends to use guilt by association to marginalize supporters of any civil rights issue they don't like (i.e., most of them), and what you said kind of looked like you were doing that. Maybe you were not, but taken with your other posts it kind of looked that way.

You claim to be "intellectual" by being a great law man, so how can you say something so utterly false as this???

We don't like the liberal civil rights issues for which they themselves are against civil rights.
Trying to take away civil rights of others under the guise of protecting someone else's civil rights is immoral and against civil rights.
We have nothing wrong at all for civil rights for anyone. We just don't like the above.

It's that simple.

P.S. Stop lying about people....

[Guest]

For example, Antonin Scalia dissenting along with Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan this week in Maryland v. King. Or Roberts writing the majority opinion holding that Obamacare is constitutionally permissible.

I did notice Scalia this week, and was pleasantly surprised, as I was with Roberts on the ACA ruling (of course the right went berserk, calling him a traitor). I'll be impressed if they both rule against marriage discrimination, too, but I don't expect they will.

Couldn't they have done the same thing with the DC gun law (found a plausible way to uphold the statute)?

Found a way or invented a way? Roberts found a way in Article I of the Constitution: Congress' power to tax. If you are finding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, there isn't a comparable provision somewhere else in the Constitution that allows for de facto deprivations of the Bill of Rights. In other words, if you accept the premise that the Second Amendment provides for individuals having a right to bear arms, that premise is determinative under the facts in Heller (and McDonald).

I take it you are not impressed with the way found by the dissenting justices, then.

Edit = Here's my amateur attempt at it:

"Arms" that are "kept and borne" as self-defense weapons are not limited to firearms. They can include items such as knives, clubs, pepper spray, and brass knuckles. Therefore, as long as every viable self-defense weapon is not banned, the citizens' rights are not infringed and the 2nd amendment is not violated. A reasonable restriction to protect public safety is to disallow the most dangerous self-defense options (ranging from grenade launchers and poison gas to machine guns and handguns), while allowing the other options.

That's fine, but ambiguity is not unique to the Second Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, for example, mentions probable cause but does not explicitly say that is the standard of proof for obtaining a search warrant. And yet somehow we have muddled along for 222 years using probable cause as the standard of proof for issuing a search warrant or for charging someone with a crime.

Well, we used to muddle through. Until the Obama administration started with the Patriot Act's near-repeal of the Fourth Amendment and took it up to eleven.

Yeah, that's pretty shameful.

[_krose]

This is funny.....

I'm actually responding to YOU people being asses, and you claim "I'm" the one being the ass. haa haa

What you've just said I could say and have said about you people.
I'm the one who should be punching you people in the face, which is exactly why I respond the way I do to you people. I'm showing you your scum.

I don't know who the "you people" are with whom you are grouping me. But if you look back, you won't find any occasion where I have called you "stupid," "moron," "dumb," etc. But you definitely have indulged in that name calling.

[_krose]

Further, 99% of the country's that have banned guns have a ZERO decrease in actual DEATH, by murder, and some even remain the same, as well some even have worse violence...

Really? Name the countries and show me their statistics.

Although I doubt that you can, since you couldn't even name a single current "fascist" country that was previously an open democracy.

Further, you ignore the fact that guns and weapons bans have caused BILLIONS in Genocides through history. Gun bans alone in just the last 100 years have resulted in multi-millions of deaths by fascists like you.

Billions? Let's see how you add those up. Specifics please.

By the way, nice of you to now add "fascist" to your name-calling repertoire. I wonder... What Would Jesus Call People?

[_ldsfaqs]

I don't know who the "you people" are with whom you are grouping me. But if you look back, you won't find any occasion where I have called you "stupid," "moron," "dumb," etc. But you definitely have indulged in that name calling.

1. Well not in this discussion I don't think. But you have before.

2. One doesn't actually have to say disrespectful "single words", in order to be a jerk, a moron, dumb, etc. in their conversation.

[_ldsfaqs]

Really? Name the countries and show me their statistics.

Although I doubt that you can,

Easy, Australia and the UK.... the two primary poster children of Gun Controlists.

Here's stats for Australia: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts

The UK has almost the same exact stats, though much greater since they are not an "island" like Australia is. You can look that up on your own. Why am I doing your work for you? Smart people properly research things themselves so they can really know what is and isn't the truth. Knowing you people you'll just ignore the information because I linked it and it's at a conservative website.

Anywhere, here's some additional information: http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

since you couldn't even name a single current "fascist" country that was previously an open democracy.

Again, that's a straw-man question. Historical Democracy's have been brief, only modern ones have lasted for a bit, but several are showing many signs of becoming fascist. The gun bans are simply one significant sign.

Do you know some "magical truth" that Modern Democracy's will NEVER go fascist???
Give me one of those "crystal balls".....

You don't think banning guns is a sign of fascism?
You don't think banning Big Gulps is a sign of fascism?
You don't think banning Ice Cream cones in one town in California is Fascism?
There are hundreds more, and that's just the U.S. Many other countries have implemented far more.

Billions? Let's see how you add those up. Specifics please.

See this video for just the last 100 years of gun bans with "select" major cases, however not all for MILLIONS of deaths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmKT43j4Tc

As to the "Billion" number well..... Why don't you read history when it concerns "weapons control" for yourself?
I would say it's in the billions all totaled for the different types of weapons "controls" through history.

You feel "bad" because mass shootings exist, but why don't you feel "bad" for the millions who have died because your gun control? Why don't you feel bad the 100,000's a year who can't defend themselves with a gun who would have, who get raped, murdered, disfigured, etc. around the world because of gun control? Don't they matter too?

You people accuse conservatives of not "caring", why don't YOU CARE???

By the way, nice of you to now add "fascist" to your name-calling repertoire. I wonder... What Would Jesus Call People?

Calling evil evil is not a sin, nor is calling a thing the thing it's named. Jesus called evil evil.
If you display fascist views and actions, then clearly it's perfectly reasonable to call someone a fascist. An anti-mormon is an anti-mormon, a bigot is a bigot, etc. etc.

Instead of complaining I'm calling you "names", why don't you instead change your fascist views to no longer being fascist?

Oh, and to be perfectly clear.... I'm not just calling people names like some low class person, I back it up with the facts. I name as they are, not simply because I don't like someone like liberals and anti-mormons generally do.

[_ludwigm]

[Australia and the UK.... the two primary poster children of Gun Controlists.

Europe.

Do You know this name/title - and the thoughts behind?
(by the way they have some different language than English, a hard task for most of Americans)

[_krose]

I don't know who the "you people" are with whom you are grouping me. But if you look back, you won't find any occasion where I have called you "stupid," "moron," "dumb," etc. But you definitely have indulged in that name calling.

Well not in this discussion I don't think. But you have before.

Prove it.

Oh, and to be perfectly clear.... I'm not just calling people names like some low class person...

Wow. That's describes exactly what you do. The lack of self awareness is astonishing.

[_krose]

Easy, Australia and the UK.... the two primary poster children of Gun Controlists.
Here's stats for Australia: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts

There you go. Australia and the UK = "99% of the country's [sic] that have banned guns." Third-grade arithmetic is one of your strong suits, I see (not to mention grammar, of course).

The UK has almost the same exact stats, though much greater since they are not an "island" like Australia is.

Oh! And just like that, it's fourth-grade geography for the win!

You can look that up on your own. Why am I doing your work for you? Smart people properly research things themselves so they can really know what is and isn't the truth.

Maybe you are new to this, but the rule has always been that it's the responsibility of the person who makes a claim to provide proof when challenged. So no, it's not my work, although I do know the truth of these claims. It's yours. But thanks for the advice about what smart people do. I'll be sure to take that advice for what it's worth.

Knowing you people you'll just ignore the information because I linked it and it's at a conservative website.

I still don't know who these "you people" are, but speaking only for myself, I don't care who points out the results of a study, as long as they include a link to an actual study and as long as it's done by a legitimate organization. This person didn't, so for all I know he could have made up the numbers.

But here is an analysis of these kinds of claims by snopes.com, well-respected debunker of myths and Internet lies:

In the specific case offered here, context is the most important factor. The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors.

Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because "criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed" are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback.

... Then we have the claim that "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent." This is another example of how misleading statistics can be when the underlying numbers are not provided: Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997. An additional twelve homicides amongst a population of 4.5 million is not statistically significant, nor does this single-year statistic adequately reflect long-term trends.

So as we see, it's just not true.

[_ldsfaqs]

And just as I said Krose, you're a brainwashed zombie that just ignores the proof we post.

If you had actually read the two links I gave you, specifically the one with the charts, you would have noticed that your snoops article had NOTHING to do with it, thus your snoops article was attacking a straw-man IT created, by also maybe quoting the "rare" gun nut statement, not the actual DATA/STATS that the gun expert uses.

We've NEVER made the argument that Austrialia gun crime "over-all" has gone up.
So, get your head out of your butt.
We've argued other points, that murder itself hasn't gone down, and other crimes are up.
If you're not trying to stop violent death, then what's the point?
My 99% is in relation to the # of country's, city's etc. that have implemented Gun Control to try and reduce violent death and yet there has been ZERO change in actual violent death rates, many actually going up. There is like one country, if I remember a 2nd/3rd world African country in which a gun ban HAS actually reduced death, but other factors create that, and it's only one out of hundreds thus not statistically significant.

Why don't you put away your judgments, and actually read those pages. The chart one isn't very long, so your Elementary brain should be able to understand it.