Gun Control Compromise

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Actually I've posted absolutely nothing about "what I 'like'". I've been posting about what *IS*.

And what "is" is arms means arms means arms.

.

 

[progressive hunter]

So then you and I can keep and bear nukes. And anything else.

Note that "keep and bear nukes" is not the same as "owning" nukes. I can keep and bear somebody else's nuke. You can too. Highest bidder.

Yes, according to the 2A.

Like I said, if you don't like it....CHANGE IT!!!

No, you want to parse words and "interpret" your way around the CLEAR language of the 2A.

Besides, no citizen owns nukes.

Have you thought that argument through all the way?

Iran---the entire fucking country of Iran---has been trying to get nukes for decades.

Actually I've posted absolutely nothing about "what I 'like'". I've been posting about what *IS*.

you must have posted that on a different thread, cause all youve posted here is whats,,NOT

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

How about this: we get strong gun control, you kids can have your silly wall.

How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.

Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.

Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.

 

[Pogo]

So then you and I can keep and bear nukes. And anything else.

Note that "keep and bear nukes" is not the same as "owning" nukes. I can keep and bear somebody else's nuke. You can too. Highest bidder.

Yes, according to the 2A.

Like I said, if you don't like it....CHANGE IT!!!

No, you want to parse words and "interpret" your way around the CLEAR language of the 2A.

Besides, no citizen owns nukes.

Have you thought that argument through all the way?

Iran---the entire fucking country of Iran---has been trying to get nukes for decades.

Actually I've posted absolutely nothing about "what I 'like'". I've been posting about what *IS*.

you must have posted that on a different thread, cause all youve posted here is whats,,NOT

By all means go ahead and quote where I made a value judgment. I stand behind everything I post.

 

[progressive hunter]

So then you and I can keep and bear nukes. And anything else.

Note that "keep and bear nukes" is not the same as "owning" nukes. I can keep and bear somebody else's nuke. You can too. Highest bidder.

Yes, according to the 2A.

Like I said, if you don't like it....CHANGE IT!!!

No, you want to parse words and "interpret" your way around the CLEAR language of the 2A.

Besides, no citizen owns nukes.

Have you thought that argument through all the way?

Iran---the entire fucking country of Iran---has been trying to get nukes for decades.

Actually I've posted absolutely nothing about "what I 'like'". I've been posting about what *IS*.

you must have posted that on a different thread, cause all youve posted here is whats,,NOT

By all means go ahead and quote where I made a value judgment. I stand behind everything I post.

well everything you posted was devoid of reality and accuracy ,and just your opinion

I provided you with the words and intent of the founders and you ignored it,,,

beyond that no one can help whats ailing you

 

[Crepitus]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

How about this: we get strong gun control, you kids can have your silly wall.

How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.

Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.

Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.

Lol, piss you off a bit did I?

You know why?

It's because you know I'm right.

 

[progressive hunter]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

How about this: we get strong gun control, you kids can have your silly wall.

How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.

Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.

Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.

Lol, piss you off a bit did I?

You know why?

It's because you know I'm right.

thats not what that means

 

[Crepitus]

How about this: we get strong gun control, you kids can have your silly wall.

How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.

Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.

Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.

Lol, piss you off a bit did I?

You know why?

It's because you know I'm right.

thats not what that means

 

[JoeB131]

Most of us wouldn't know about that. Having a tiny pecker, and trying to compensate for it, seems to be uniquely your area of experience and expertise. We'll leave that to you.

i'm not the one who needs to stockpile guns... that would be you nuts.

 

[progressive hunter]

How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.

Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.

Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.

Lol, piss you off a bit did I?

You know why?

It's because you know I'm right.

thats not what that means

View attachment 240351

you know that better than me

 

[Rigby5]

Most of us wouldn't know about that. Having a tiny pecker, and trying to compensate for it, seems to be uniquely your area of experience and expertise. We'll leave that to you.

i'm not the one who needs to stockpile guns... that would be you nuts.

Every responsible person in a democratic republic is supposed to stockpile weapons because clearly an armed people is necessary to the security of a free State.
It was the armed population that allowed us to rebel from the illegal abuses of a corrupt state in 1776, and it will be an armed population that allows us to rebel next time it becomes necessary.
In the mean time, that is also how you protect your family from criminals.

 

[Rigby5]

Correct, it does not change the concept of "Arms". Nor did I ever claim it does.

It changes the (again) definition.

It doesn't do either. Arms are weapons. Weapons vary, and new weapons are invented, but the definition of a weapon does not change.

You don't want to accept what is blindingly obvious. Weapons can kill people. Better weapons do it more efficiently.

Indeed. Weapons do what they've always done, regardless of the technology. How they do it, and how much they do it, and how efficiently they do it, is what changes.

There's no point of disagreement there.

The founders knew that weapons or "arms" were deadly when they wrote the 2A. You are arguing that they would have changed their minds had the weapons been more efficient. PROVE IT.

That's your ass-sertion so YOU prove it.

I in fact stated the opposite, that your position of "arms is arms is arms" means I can own a nuke and you can own a shoulder-fired antiaircraft gun. And that's just following your position to its logical conclusion.

What the Founders did know that you don't mention here, is that as time goes on there needed to be a remedy for changing the Constitution and specific Amendments in the event that, say, the country banned alcohol and then figured out that was a stupid idea. You know, unforeseen events that would have happened long after they were gone. And they did that.

You can accept the FACT that "arms" means any weapon, or you can continue to try twist the meaning of words to make you feel safer or whatever you are trying to do.

It does, and specifically it means Arms that were extant and conceivable at the time. If you're trying to claim the Founders could have envisioned submarines and drones and nukes and 3D printers and presumably heretofore unconceived inventions, and meant to include them as well, well ---- prove THAT.

You need to amend the constitution if you want to exclude certain types of arms.

Yep. Mentioned that right above, didn't I.

POGO if youre going to say what the founders intended you should post it,,,otherwise youre just blowing leftist smoke

it is well documented their intention was to have the people as well armed as the governemnt

Again for the Illiterati, number one my name is not an acronym; number two I cannot have any way to know "what the founders intended", nor can you, nor did I suggest such an idea; and number three if the intention is to have people as well-armed as the government, whelp the government has nukes, and drones, and entire military forces, so you and I should have them too. RIGHT?

Of course we can tell what the intentions of the founder were.
They were much more literate and expansive in their writings than people currently are.

And yes, private citizens are much more responsible and safer with powerful technology like nukes and drones, than the government is.
Where do you think the government gets it weapons like nukes from? They buy them from privately owned companies that make them.
If you think it is hard to get a license for nukes, you are wrong. Lots of companies in the US have them. They don't even have to be making them to sell to the government, but can just be using them for research.

 

[JoeB131]

Every responsible person in a democratic republic is supposed to stockpile weapons because clearly an armed people is necessary to the security of a free State.

Bullshit. Plenty of countries that had weapons still got dictatorships when one side or the other won.

It was the armed population that allowed us to rebel from the illegal abuses of a corrupt state in 1776

You mean actually making rich people pay their taxes? Oh, for shame.

In the mean time, that is also how you protect your family from criminals.

Gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

Well, considering that family members are around that gun 100,000x more than a bad guy (if not infinite), that statistic is motherfucking meaningless and stupid.

 

[2aguy]

Every responsible person in a democratic republic is supposed to stockpile weapons because clearly an armed people is necessary to the security of a free State.

Bullshit. Plenty of countries that had weapons still got dictatorships when one side or the other won.

It was the armed population that allowed us to rebel from the illegal abuses of a corrupt state in 1776

You mean actually making rich people pay their taxes? Oh, for shame.

In the mean time, that is also how you protect your family from criminals.

Gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

You moron......

Gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy

You know, because we keep showing you, that the guy who did that research had to change that number from 43 to 2.3 times....and even then, he kept the same flawed techniques to get even that number...you doofus....

Here is the new research he did where he had to walk back the 43 times and where he changed it to 2.3, and then an analysis of how wrong his research still is.........

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You mean actually making rich people pay their taxes? Oh, for shame.

Go be a Brit, you piece of shit. Get the fuck out.

 

[JoeB131]

You know, because we keep showing you, that the guy who did that research had to change that number from 43 to 2.3 times....and even then, he kept the same flawed techniques to get even that number...you doofus....

Nope, he never said that.

Tell you what, show me VIDEO of him saying that. DIRECTLY. Not, "how we parse some parts of his research through five sources to kind of get a number that doesn't look so bad."

 

[Rigby5]

Actually, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008. I voted for him in 2012 because I fucking hate Mormons with a passion that would blot out suns.

Frankly, running a business (you inherited from your dad who did all the real work) doesn't really prepare you for running a government, as Trump is demonstrating amply now.

I see you never addressed that comprehension problem either. I said he ran or owned over 500 businesses. HIs father was just a real estate guy.

Well, at least she got something out of it.. that's the point. Enlightened self interest. If you have half the population voting for free stuff, it's because you've made it so hard for them to get it on their own.

Nothing hard about getting a cell phone on your own. Get a job and pay for it like everybody else.

Naw, man, I just enjoy needling you about it. The best thing in the world for you in your situation would be to have Single Payer, where they don't care who you work for or how sick you are... you get covered.

I think you're just sacred of what the doctor might say. Perhaps even you know how bad of a problem you have.

Why should anyone need to get an ID to practice a human right.

And, yes, SCOTUS had no idea what they were talking about in Heller...

Obviously they did and that's why Americans being armed are protected by the Constitution.

Voting is a human right? When did that happen? A human right is a right everybody on earth has. And trust me, if you don't have the smarts to get an ID (which even a mentally retarded person does) then you're not smart enough to vote either.

Ever hear of "no taxation without representation"?
If you are going to be taxed, you then have the right to vote.
The fact there are dictators who violate this right, does not mean the right does not exist anyway.
For example, the fact there are murders does not mean you don't have the right to life.

And the problem with voter ID is that they range from $35 to $75, and they must be free to the poor.

 

[Rigby5]

So then you and I can keep and bear nukes. And anything else.

Note that "keep and bear nukes" is not the same as "owning" nukes. I can keep and bear somebody else's nuke. You can too. Highest bidder.

Yes, according to the 2A.

Like I said, if you don't like it....CHANGE IT!!!

No, you want to parse words and "interpret" your way around the CLEAR language of the 2A.

Besides, no citizen owns nukes.

Have you thought that argument through all the way?

Iran---the entire fucking country of Iran---has been trying to get nukes for decades.

And Iran has a right to nukes.
It is obviously illegal to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
Lots of people have nukes the government does not control, like private universities and companies doing research, private fission electrical power companies, private companies that make weapons for the US, and countries like Israel that the US does not at all control.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And Iran has a right to nukes.
It is obviously illegal to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
Lots of people have nukes the government does not control, like private universities and companies doing research, private fission electrical power companies, private companies that make weapons for the US, and countries like Israel that the US does not at all control.

No argument from me. I agree.