Why doesn't Gun Control or Right to Carry affect the crime rate significantly?

[bugly]

imported post

Really doesn't make much difference if you are joined at the synapses or not. The fact is, you guys have been arguing the same points for days now and what, exactly has been accomplished?
You're not going to change anyone's mind, nor is anyone going to change your mind.
Also, arguing with people on the internet is like masturbating, it may feel good, but really isn't necessary for well-being.
If you really want to change somebody's mind, the quickest method is 230 gr. of lead @ 850 fps, but I don't think that will make things better either.


Local sports team, anyone?:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

This does not compare to the absolute articulated proscription against infringing on firearms ownership or carry in any way.

Citation please.

Everyone here takes this as FACT when in FACT the SOCTUS has ruled OTHERWISE.

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, but the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." -Scalia

"....constitutional Rights necessarily takes certain policy choices OFF THE TABLE."

"These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

You should note that in your chosen bolded text directly from the "SOCTUS" decision, DC v Heller states that DC cannot prohibit a specific method (handguns) of Right exercise. Now go look at that wording again very carefully. I would attribute a similar careful wording to Scalia that the founders used in wording the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"These (certain policy choices that are taken off the table) include (i.e., are not limited to) the absolute prohibition of handguns....."

DC v Heller does not place limits by declaring that absolute prohibitions of handguns are off the table; DC v Heller states that absolute prohibitions of handguns are included in those policy choices that are Off The Table.

Further, in spite of the suggestion by marshaul that DC v Heller allows restriction on M-16 ownership, the exact quote he used is:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned..."

This does not say that such is the case, but it presents it as a possible argument.
Stating that they "may be banned" does not equate to are banned.

marshaul wrote:

Clearly the Heller decision "cannot protect" the right to own an M-16 rifle. This is a means restriction.

Clearly for the decision to be properly rendered, it would have (without addressing the issue of "nukes" quirky) ) instead unambiguously protected (and not assaulted) specifically and above all else the standard issue primary weapon of the average infantry soldier in our armed forces today. In this case, specifically the M-16 (and variants).

A hitch in this argument is that I, as a law-abiding American Citizen, CAN legally own and "bear" an M-16 military assault rifle. There are limitations on this, but it is not akin to a "means restriction."

I can own one. Legally.

I can use it. Legally.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

bugly wrote:

Really doesn't make much difference if you are joined at the synapses or not. The fact is, you guys have been arguing the same points for days now and what, exactly has been accomplished?
You're not going to change anyone's mind, nor is anyone going to change your mind.
Also, arguing with people on the internet is like masturbating, it may feel good, but really isn't necessary for well-being.
If you really want to change somebody's mind, the quickest method is 230 gr. of lead @ 850 fps, but I don't think that will make things better either.


Local sports team, anyone?:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

Actually, if you can get past the crap, there have been some very good points presented. Marshaul found an excellent SCOTUS decision on the 1st Amendment as protecting Internet use as free speech, which actually presents what appear to be very relevant precedents for 2nd Amendment protections, where open carry is concerned.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

A hitch in this argument is that I, as a law-abiding American Citizen, CAN legally own and "bear" an M-16 military assault rifle.  There are limitations on this, but it is not akin to a "means restriction."

I can own one.  Legally. 

I can use it.  Legally.

Oh, so the FOPA of 1986 doesn't prohibit the sale to civilians of automatic weapons manufactured after 1986?

Silly me, all this time I thought it did.

It's certainly a means restriction, read the darn Heller decision. Just because you can still buy an M-16 for 100x its actual value doesn't mean that it isn't a restricted means. If it weren't, you could buy one at market price and Scalia wouldn't have had to torture logic in order to claim that, whether some people may happen to be able to buy/afford them for now, "sophisticated" weapons of the type "originally designed" for war are not protected by the second amendment.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

wrightme wrote:

A hitch in this argument is that I, as a law-abiding American Citizen, CAN legally own and "bear" an M-16 military assault rifle. There are limitations on this, but it is not akin to a "means restriction."

I can own one. Legally.

I can use it. Legally.

Oh, so the FOPA of 1986 doesn't prohibit the sale to civilians of automatic weapons manufactured after 1986?

Silly me, all this time I thought it did.

It's certainly a means restriction, read the darn Heller decision. Just because you can still buy an M-16 for 100x its actual value doesn't mean that it isn't a restricted means. If it weren't, you could buy one at market price and Scalia wouldn't have had to torture logic in order to claim that, whether some people may happen to be able to buy/afford them for now, "sophisticated" weapons of the type "originally designed" for war are not protected by the second amendment.

I did read the Heller decision. I also presented my case from the Heller decision.
I did not specify what year of M-16 I can own. It really doesn't matter what year the firearm is, DC V Heller provides no support for "means restriction" as you contend. With that said, as you can see from my post, DC v Heller also does not prevent such means restriction. Not Preventing is not the same as supporting.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

With that said, as you can see from my post, DC v Heller also does not prevent such means restriction. Not Preventing is not the same as supporting.

Game playing again? When are you going to learn?


You likeusing this, "it's not supporting it, it's just not not supporting it" and "I'm not saying this, I'mjust not not saying this." Game playing.


NOT PREVENTING is ALLOWING. Which means Heller ALLOWS means restriction.

Play all the word games you want, it ALLOWS means restriction. It doesn't mandate it, butno one claimed it did.It ALLOWS it and that was the point all along.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

bugly wrote:

Really doesn't make much difference if you are joined at the synapses or not. The fact is, you guys have been arguing the same points for days now and what, exactly has been accomplished?

Exactly what I want accomplished, it keeps me entertained at work.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

No games, simply taking the time to comprehend the DC v Heller decision, and drawing rational, logical conclusions based upon it. Should you choose to take the time to rationally and logically respond, you may find yourself able to actually add something to the discussion beyond your own amusement.



AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

With that said, as you can see from my post, DC v Heller also does not prevent such means restriction. Not Preventing is not the same as supporting.

Game playing again? When are you going to learn?


You likeusing this, "it's not supporting it, it's just not not supporting it" and "I'm not saying this, I'mjust not not saying this." Game playing.


NOT PREVENTING is ALLOWING. Which means Heller ALLOWS means restriction.

Play all the word games you want, it ALLOWS means restriction. It doesn't mandate it, butno one claimed it did.It ALLOWS it and that was the point all along.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

No games, simply taking the time to comprehend the DC v Heller decision, and drawing rational, logical conclusions based upon it. Should you choose to take the time to rationally and logically respond, you may find yourself able to actually add something to the discussion beyond your own amusement.

Here I'll quote it because you obviously missed it.



NOT PREVENTING is ALLOWING. Which means Heller ALLOWS means restriction.

Play all the word games you want, it ALLOWS means restriction. It doesn't mandate it, butno one claimed it did.It ALLOWS it and that was the point all along.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

I know, you feel that if you type something into a post in this forum, it becomes a fact. Suffice it to say, I am not playing word games. Should you wish to honestly discuss the topic, please feel free to do so. You have admittedly (by your own admission)not been doing such for the past 16 pages. I see no evidence to change that view.



AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

No games, simply taking the time to comprehend the DC v Heller decision, and drawing rational, logical conclusions based upon it. Should you choose to take the time to rationally and logically respond, you may find yourself able to actually add something to the discussion beyond your own amusement.

Here I'll quote it because you obviously missed it.



NOT PREVENTING is ALLOWING. Which means Heller ALLOWS means restriction.

Play all the word games you want, it ALLOWS means restriction. It doesn't mandate it, butno one claimed it did.It ALLOWS it and that was the point all along.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

I know, you feel that if you type something into a post in this forum, it becomes a fact. Suffice it to say, I am not playing word games. Should you wish to honestly discuss the topic, please feel free to do so. You have admittedly (by your own admission)not been doing such for the past 16 pages. I see no evidence to change that view.

Here, maybe you'll see it the third time around. I sometimes miss stuff repeatedly too when I'm retarded.

Stop crying because you've been called out AGIAN.



NOT PREVENTING is ALLOWING. Which means Heller ALLOWS means restriction.

Play all the word games you want, it ALLOWS means restriction. It doesn't mandate it, butno one claimed it did.It ALLOWS it and that was the point all along.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

You should go read my full post for context, and respond to my points.

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

I know, you feel that if you type something into a post in this forum, it becomes a fact. Suffice it to say, I am not playing word games. Should you wish to honestly discuss the topic, please feel free to do so. You have admittedly (by your own admission)not been doing such for the past 16 pages. I see no evidence to change that view.

Here, maybe you'll see it the third time around. I sometimes miss stuff repeatedly too when I'm retarded.

Stop crying because you've been called out AGIAN.



NOT PREVENTING is ALLOWING. Which means Heller ALLOWS means restriction.

Play all the word games you want, it ALLOWS means restriction. It doesn't mandate it, butno one claimed it did.It ALLOWS it and that was the point all along.

It really doesn't matter what you think or type. You are only amusing yourself.

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

My rights consist of EVERYTHING I choose to do which does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

I do not see how driving (or owning and carrying a firearm) infringes upon someone else's rights. Therefore, it is a right. If you cannot convince me that it isn't a right on the basis of the definition above, then you are wasting your breath (or your bandwidth, as they case may be).

Government documents and court rulings have no bearing on whether or not something is a right. Rights are natural: they belong to me because I am a human being. For the religious: they belong to you because God gave them to you. Whichever, they mean the same thing: they are not depended on anything said or done by any human. They cannot be taken away or even given away. You can choose not to exercise them, then later choose to begin exercising them.

Rights can be infringed upon, and often are. This infringement can even be justified by "legal" documentation, such as a law, but that doesn't make it any less of a right.

Governments exist for one purpose: to protect the rights of the people it serves. If it fails to do that, then those people have the right and obligation to abolish that government, and institute a new one. (That's paraphrased from a document you might have read)

 

[bugly]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

bugly wrote:

Really doesn't make much difference if you are joined at the synapses or not. The fact is, you guys have been arguing the same points for days now and what, exactly has been accomplished?

Exactly what I want accomplished, it keeps me entertained at work.

You could take up knitting....:lol:

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

My rights consist of EVERYTHING I choose to do which does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

I do not see how driving (or owning and carrying a firearm) infringes upon someone else's rights. Therefore, it is a right. If you cannot convince me that it isn't a right on the basis of the definition above, then you are wasting your breath (or your bandwidth, as they case may be).

Posted: Mon Jan 26th, 2009 09:48 pm

wrightme wrote:

marshaul wrote:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-511

<snip>

I argue that, while it was not always so, at this point in time driving does warrant that full protection of the right of assembly in the same manner that the internet warrants the full protection of the right to free speech.

But is it pervasively so in a similar manner as the Internet? I do not think so. The urbanization of America might be argued to be due to the prevalence of the automobile, but a greater case can be made for the prevalence of mass transit. I see it as more logical to conclude that mass transit is responsible for urbanization, while personally-owned automobiles would be more likely to cause the opposite effect. In fact, if it is "right to assemble," it can actually be easier in many cases to get to an area for assembly using mass transit. Consider the traffic nightmare and parking costs and hassles at most major sporting events. The freeways of Los Angeles have bus/carpool lanes that encourage residents to decrease their driving activities. The pollution created by masses of commuters with combustion engines also makes a case against "right" for the harm caused to others that are not driving due to emissions.

It is definitely arguable, but I see it as far from clear-cut.

Harm to others.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

It really doesn't matter what you think or type. You are only amusing yourself.

One more time. I know your contradictions have caught up with you and you can't distract and side step your way out of it, so, one more time for fun:



NOT PREVENTING is ALLOWING. Which means Heller ALLOWS means restriction.

Play all the word games you want, it ALLOWS means restriction. It doesn't mandate it, butno one claimed it did.It ALLOWS it and that was the point all along.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

My rights consist of EVERYTHING I choose to do which does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

I do not see how driving (or owning and carrying a firearm) infringes upon someone else's rights. Therefore, it is a right. If you cannot convince me that it isn't a right on the basis of the definition above, then you are wasting your breath (or your bandwidth, as they case may be).

Government documents and court rulings have no bearing on whether or not something is a right. Rights are natural: they belong to me because I am a human being. For the religious: they belong to you because God gave them to you. Whichever, they mean the same thing: they are not depended on anything said or done by any human. They cannot be taken away or even given away. You can choose not to exercise them, then later choose to begin exercising them.

Rights can be infringed upon, and often are. This infringement can even be justified by "legal" documentation, such as a law, but that doesn't make it any less of a right.

Governments exist for one purpose: to protect the rights of the people it serves. If it fails to do that, then those people have the right and obligation to abolish that government, and institute a new one. (That's paraphrased from a document you might have read)

Hey look, another person on board the elementary logic ship! Congratulations, sir.



See writeme, it really isn't that difficult to understand.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Harm to others.

Bullets contain lead. What a great idea! Maybe I should make a case against lead bullets. That'd be an original idea... oh wait.

The anti's make some great, stretch of logic connections about "harm to others" to justify restrictions on firearms. Again, your own logic is used against you, but you don't accept it because you don't like how it's being used.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Slayer of Paper wrote:

My rights consist of EVERYTHING I choose to do which does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

I do not see how driving (or owning and carrying a firearm) infringes upon someone else's rights. Therefore, it is a right. If you cannot convince me that it isn't a right on the basis of the definition above, then you are wasting your breath (or your bandwidth, as they case may be).

Government documents and court rulings have no bearing on whether or not something is a right. Rights are natural: they belong to me because I am a human being. For the religious: they belong to you because God gave them to you. Whichever, they mean the same thing: they are not depended on anything said or done by any human. They cannot be taken away or even given away. You can choose not to exercise them, then later choose to begin exercising them.

Rights can be infringed upon, and often are. This infringement can even be justified by "legal" documentation, such as a law, but that doesn't make it any less of a right.

Governments exist for one purpose: to protect the rights of the people it serves. If it fails to do that, then those people have the right and obligation to abolish that government, and institute a new one. (That's paraphrased from a document you might have read)

Hey look, another person on board the elementary logic ship! Congratulations, sir.



See writeme, it really isn't that difficult to understand.

Having others agree with you is not indication of correctness, or ability to understand or failure to understand. As I have mentioned several times, I comprehend and understand Rights. I do not agree that driving is a Right, and as you can see several posts back, I have addressed my disagreement. I do realize that you will likely ignore my reasoning out of hand, as it does not further your self-amusement. Should you wish to discuss the topic as adults, please do so. So far, you have shown an intractible desire to argue as a child.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Should you wish to discuss the topic as adults, please do so. So far, you have shown an intractible desire to argue as a child.

Umpteenth time's a charm?



NOT PREVENTING is ALLOWING. Which means Heller ALLOWS means restriction.

Play all the word games you want, it ALLOWS means restriction. It doesn't mandate it, butno one claimed it did.It ALLOWS it and that was the point all along.