CDZ Women should embrace both owning and carrying guns as acts of personal empowerment.

[Cecilie1200]

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

Coming from someone who just posted a complete non sequitur, AND projected his own interpretation of causes onto blank statistics about outcomes, that's pretty funny.

Write this down somewhere, lackwit, because I don't want to have to explain it to you repeatedly: Correlation DOES NOT equal causation.

I could tell you that the sales of ice cream cones and the rate at which rapes are committed rise and fall in correlation to each other (which is, in fact, true). Does that mean eating ice cream causes rape? As it happens, neither is the cause of the other; both are effects, totally unrelated to each other, of a separate circumstance entirely. As temperatures rise with the advent of summer, people are more inclined to buy ice cream AND to leave their windows open to increase air circulation . . . which makes it easier for rapists to break into the house.

In your case, however, you have a problem with the direction of causality: simply put, you think hospitals cause people to die, since so many people die after going to the hospital. You aren't considering that the fatal illness causes the hospital visit, not the other way around (usually).

Is it that buying a gun increases the likelihood of someone shooting you, or is it that the likelihood of someone shooting you motivates you to buy a gun?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.

The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?

Many things are actually obvious, such as the fact that - in the world of the Framers - "militia" referred to able-bodied citizens. They mentioned it because they considered the ability of the citizens to fulfill that function to be important.

Actually it was a “well regulated militia” Amazing what happens when you actually read the document==you learn some things. Now you guys don’t want any regulations at all…which is fine. It’s unconstitutional but I’m okay with it.

A militia, regardless, is not possible without arms. If the people do not have "arms" they cannot "form" a militia, regulated or not. Understand what regulated meant in the 18th century, meaning organized to do it's duty, NOT regulated by the government.

A militia may be a "standing militia", or a future "militia". A standing militia is one already called to duty and trained, a future militia is one that has the ability to be called up, with all the material "kept" by those potentially to be called.

If there is no need for a standing militia, one that can be at the ready is the one you have.

Hope this clears this up for you (what the hell am I thinking)

Oh….kay

So now we have this one part of the constitution that applies to “all citizens” where other parts of the document clearly did not…. and not only that, the words “well regulated militia” now refer to a militia that may or may not exist as long as there are no regulations at all.

The Constitution is very clear at all points whether it is talking about a group, or about individual citizens. The phrase "the people" is NEVER used except when referring to individual citizens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

Only in the hood.

As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.

Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.

You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.

So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.

View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053

Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.

Ahhh, yes. "I can point out ONE CASE that's different, which means I WIN!"

What part of "almost all" was confusing to you, cupcake?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Try putting that in a language anyone can understand. AND if you disagree, state your disagreement.

Just saying you disagree is stupid

I was reciting your arguments that the Constitution applied to “all citizens”. Clearly it does not.

Sure it does

Facts are not your friends on this one either. Sorry.

Again, because you say so is not an argument.

See 3/5 compromise for just one example.

What about it? Go ahead, enlighten us all with your wisdom about what the "3/5 compromise" was, and how it is somehow exclusionary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was reciting your arguments that the Constitution applied to “all citizens”. Clearly it does not.

Sure it does

Facts are not your friends on this one either. Sorry.

Again, because you say so is not an argument.

See 3/5 compromise for just one example.

You know that got repealed, right? Want to repeal the 2nd, get working on it. I for one would actually love a constitutional convention.

"3/5 compromise" was never repealed. It was made obsolete, but it's never actually been repealed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Founders also didn't DENY women the vote. The original Constitution doesn't mention voting at all. Suffrage was considered something for the individual states to decide, and some allowed women to vote, and some did not.

"Oh for the love of Christ….."

These states and territories gave women full or partial suffrage before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920:

• Wyoming (1869)
• Utah (1896)
• Colorado (1893)
• Idaho (1896)
• Washington (1910)
• California (1911)
• Oregon (1912)
• Arizona (1912)
• Kansas (1912)
• Alaska (1913)
• Illinois (1913)
• North Dakota (1917)
• Indiana (1919)
• Nebraska (1917)
• Michigan (1918)
• Arkansas (1917)
• New York (1917)
• South Dakota (1918)
• Oklahoma (1918)

The Constitution was written during the Philadelphia Convention—now known as the Constitutional Convention—which convened from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It was signed on September 17, 1787.

Thank you for proving me right, but I'm fully capable of doing so myself, if I feel the need.

 

[koshergrl]

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.

The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?

Many things are actually obvious, such as the fact that - in the world of the Framers - "militia" referred to able-bodied citizens. They mentioned it because they considered the ability of the citizens to fulfill that function to be important.

Actually it was a “well regulated militia” Amazing what happens when you actually read the document==you learn some things. Now you guys don’t want any regulations at all…which is fine. It’s unconstitutional but I’m okay with it.

A militia, regardless, is not possible without arms. If the people do not have "arms" they cannot "form" a militia, regulated or not. Understand what regulated meant in the 18th century, meaning organized to do it's duty, NOT regulated by the government.

A militia may be a "standing militia", or a future "militia". A standing militia is one already called to duty and trained, a future militia is one that has the ability to be called up, with all the material "kept" by those potentially to be called.

If there is no need for a standing militia, one that can be at the ready is the one you have.

Hope this clears this up for you (what the hell am I thinking)

Bingo. The primary distinguishing feature of a *militia* is that it is supplied by locals out of their private aresenals.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Founders also didn't DENY women the vote. The original Constitution doesn't mention voting at all. Suffrage was considered something for the individual states to decide, and some allowed women to vote, and some did not.

"Oh for the love of Christ….."

These states and territories gave women full or partial suffrage before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920:

• Wyoming (1869)
• Utah (1896)
• Colorado (1893)
• Idaho (1896)
• Washington (1910)
• California (1911)
• Oregon (1912)
• Arizona (1912)
• Kansas (1912)
• Alaska (1913)
• Illinois (1913)
• North Dakota (1917)
• Indiana (1919)
• Nebraska (1917)
• Michigan (1918)
• Arkansas (1917)
• New York (1917)
• South Dakota (1918)
• Oklahoma (1918)

The Constitution was written during the Philadelphia Convention—now known as the Constitutional Convention—which convened from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It was signed on September 17, 1787.

Thank you for proving me right, but I'm fully capable of doing so myself, if I feel the need.

"Oh for the love of Christ….."
So you really, really "feel" you are right. Well bully for you and your ginormous ego. That and a dollar might get you a cup of coffee, Good luck Meanwhile, what's that? An adult is considering posting here? OMG!

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Founders also didn't DENY women the vote. The original Constitution doesn't mention voting at all. Suffrage was considered something for the individual states to decide, and some allowed women to vote, and some did not.

"Oh for the love of Christ….."

These states and territories gave women full or partial suffrage before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920:

• Wyoming (1869)
• Utah (1896)
• Colorado (1893)
• Idaho (1896)
• Washington (1910)
• California (1911)
• Oregon (1912)
• Arizona (1912)
• Kansas (1912)
• Alaska (1913)
• Illinois (1913)
• North Dakota (1917)
• Indiana (1919)
• Nebraska (1917)
• Michigan (1918)
• Arkansas (1917)
• New York (1917)
• South Dakota (1918)
• Oklahoma (1918)

The Constitution was written during the Philadelphia Convention—now known as the Constitutional Convention—which convened from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It was signed on September 17, 1787.

Thank you for proving me right, but I'm fully capable of doing so myself, if I feel the need.

"Oh for the love of Christ….."
So you really, really "feel" you are right. Well bully for you and your ginormous ego. That and a dollar might get you a cup of coffee, Good luck Meanwhile, what's that? An adult is considering posting here? OMG!

No, sweetcheeks, "feelz" are the province of leftists. I KNOW I'm right, and you just proved it.

Let me break it down for you, since linear thinking clearly isn't your strong suit.

I said:

"The Founders also didn't DENY women the vote. The original Constitution doesn't mention voting at all."

This is an incontrovertible fact (which, I assume, is why you didn't even try to deny it). Cornball "feelz" that the Framers of the Constitution dissed women by "not giving them the right to vote", but I am factually correct in stating that they didn't give ANYONE the right to vote; they left that to the states.Suffrage was considered something for the individual states to decide, and some allowed women to vote, and some did not.

I then said:

"Suffrage was considered something for the individual states to decide, and some allowed women to vote, and some did not."

To which you gave an exasperated "Oh, for the love of Christ", and then proceeded to prove me correct by listing the states that gave women full or partial suffrage prior to the 19th Amendment.

So if you'd like to tell me at what point you think this was me "really, really feeling I'm correct", as opposed to stating cold fact, please enlighten me.

Trying to play faux-condescending in the hopes everyone will just THINK you scored points isn't going to work, though.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Trying to play faux-condescending in the hopes everyone will just THINK you scored points isn't going to work, though.

There you go, denying and projecting again...

"some allowed women to vote"

Your words. Deny all you want. Here's news. None (no States) actually did - allow women in general to vote - until Wyoming - which did not exist - when these Framer/Founders were apparently so darn busy not considering suffrage. Delegating it all to the States. Yet suffrage (the right to vote in political elections) somehow did!... Immediately!... Go figure! Better yet - Start making sense!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

Only in the hood.

As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.

Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.

You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.

So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.

View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053

Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.

Accidents happen always have always will.

Accidental gun deaths are not even a blip on the list of causes of accidental death

 

[Cecilie1200]

Trying to play faux-condescending in the hopes everyone will just THINK you scored points isn't going to work, though.

There you go, denying and projecting again...

"some allowed women to vote"

Your words. Deny all you want. Here's news. None (no States) actually did - allow women in general to vote - until Wyoming - which did not exist - when these Framer/Founders were apparently so darn busy not considering suffrage. Delegating it all to the States. Yet suffrage (the right to vote in political elections) somehow did!... Immediately!... Go figure! Better yet - Start making sense!

Deny it? Far from denying it, Captain Senility, I repeated it. Here's news: I never said "when the Founders wrote the Constitution". That's YOUR retroactive goalpost, and I'm neither obligated to abide by it, nor interested in doing so. You're not setting the parameters of debate here, so you might as well suck it up and learn to live with this right now.

For the third time, since you're having trouble grasping it, this is what I said:

"The Founders also didn't DENY women the vote. The original Constitution doesn't mention voting at all. Suffrage was considered something for the individual states to decide, and some allowed women to vote, and some did not."

Now, if you'd like to show me where I EVER set a specific time on WHEN some states allowed women to vote, and some didn't, then you just go right on with yourself. But I hope when it dawns on you that I didn't say that at all, and you merely PROJECTED that onto what I said, you'll have the intellectual honesty to admit your error.

But I won't hold my breath.

 

[candycorn]

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

Only in the hood.

As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.

Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.

You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.

So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.

View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053

Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.

Accidents happen always have always will.

Accidental gun deaths are not even a blip on the list of causes of accidental death

Except your accidental death by gunshot doesn’t happen if you don’t bring it into the house.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Only in the hood.

As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.

Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.

You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.

So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.

View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053

Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.

1 percent of all gun deaths are accidental. What's your point. Can you give us an idea of how banning bump stocks and AR style rifles would have stopped this from happening?

Oh for the love of Christ…..

The OP…remember that…tells you to feel safe by bringing a gun into the house. Clearly between the 20,000 suicides and the 1% (more than one per day is a shockingly high number by the way for an accidental death!!!!—-not to mention the injuries and disabilities inflicted by the guns) it does not. Study after study repeat the same facts. Caveats are fine and drilling down on the data is what you’re supposed to do. The fact is though that the caveats are not usually so different than our daily lives. But it never stops there…Somehow, as always with gun nuts, it becomes about the 2nd Amendment and I was pointing out the lunacy of the interpretation that you folks have when you start ignoring entire phrases in the text and rely on what you think a common means. And then the lunatic arguments about cars, swimming pools and lawn mowers ensues.

You can take statistics out of context if you wish, but you will be likely called out for doing so.

Of the total gun related deaths annually, 99% of all are done in the commission of a crime (80% of those are gang related) and the rest of that 99% is by suicide. A very few, roughly 1 per day, out of a total population of over 300,000,000 are via an actual accident. You have a 1 in more than 300,000,000 chance of being killed in an accidental gun accident. That is a fact.
There is no evidence that removing a gun from a suicidal household stops the suicide from happening anyway. There are soooooo many tools one can use to kill themselves with it would be hard to list them all.

Tell any sane human being that they should not do something (name it) because they stand a 1 in more than 300,000,000 chance that they will not survive that thing, and they would laugh in your face and do it anyway.

It is the paranoia that your side is so intent in putting into the minds of everyone that I find repulsive. Combine that with the reality that guns are the great equalizer of the weakest of us when required against the strongest, and most evil, well, your gonna get a fight.

Somehow 20,000 of them decide to use guns. I’m sure they had other means available…but they chose guns they had in their house.

As for one in 300 million, what if the world are you talking about?

Suicide is a choice it's not a crime.

But we all now how you people feel about people having choices

 

[Skull Pilot]

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

Only in the hood.

As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.

Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.

You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.

So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.

View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053

Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.

Accidents happen always have always will.

Accidental gun deaths are not even a blip on the list of causes of accidental death

Except your accidental death by gunshot doesn’t happen if you don’t bring it into the house.

Sure it can.

And car accidents don't happen without cars so what is the point?

Accidents will always happen accept it and move on

 

[candycorn]

I was reciting your arguments that the Constitution applied to “all citizens”. Clearly it does not.

Sure it does

Facts are not your friends on this one either. Sorry.

Again, because you say so is not an argument.

See 3/5 compromise for just one example.

You know that got repealed, right? Want to repeal the 2nd, get working on it. I for one would actually love a constitutional convention.

And….

The point is you said they (the framers) treated everyone the same. I have demonstrated two instances where they did not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

Only in the hood.

As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.

Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.

You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.

So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.

View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053

Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.

Accidents happen always have always will.

Accidental gun deaths are not even a blip on the list of causes of accidental death

Except your accidental death by gunshot doesn’t happen if you don’t bring it into the house.

Yeah, and my accidental death by slipping in the bathtub and hitting my head doesn't happen if I never bathe.

What's your damned point? I'm supposed to live my life covered in bubble wrap and using kindergarten safety scissors, because if I never allow myself around anything remotely dangerous, nothing bad will ever happen?

Or, y'know, I could accept a reasonable amount of risk and exercise a reasonable amount of caution, like a grown-up.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

Only in the hood.

As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.

Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.

You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.

So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.

View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053

Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.

Accidents happen always have always will.

Accidental gun deaths are not even a blip on the list of causes of accidental death

Except your accidental death by gunshot doesn’t happen if you don’t bring it into the house.

Sure it can.

And car accidents don't happen without cars so what is the point?

Accidents will always happen accept it and move on

I would point out that the car has multiple uses; the gun has one….how the only reason we call it an “accident” is because of who the gun shoots at; if it hits someone else, it’s homicide…etc… But what is the point really?

 

[candycorn]

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

Only in the hood.

As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.

Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.

You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.

So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.

View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053

Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.

Accidents happen always have always will.

Accidental gun deaths are not even a blip on the list of causes of accidental death

Except your accidental death by gunshot doesn’t happen if you don’t bring it into the house.

Yeah, and my accidental death by slipping in the bathtub and hitting my head doesn't happen if I never bathe.

What's your damned point? I'm supposed to live my life covered in bubble wrap and using kindergarten safety scissors, because if I never allow myself around anything remotely dangerous, nothing bad will ever happen?

Or, y'know, I could accept a reasonable amount of risk and exercise a reasonable amount of caution, like a grown-up.

I’ve mentioned it 12 times already….feel free to go back and try to comprehend.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sure it does

Facts are not your friends on this one either. Sorry.

Again, because you say so is not an argument.

See 3/5 compromise for just one example.

You know that got repealed, right? Want to repeal the 2nd, get working on it. I for one would actually love a constitutional convention.

And….

The point is you said they (the framers) treated everyone the same. I have demonstrated two instances where they did not.

Actually, you talked about the Constitution's treatment of citizens, and then you brought up the 3/5 compromise, which is odd, since the 3/5 compromise specifically dealt with people who were NOT citizens.

And NOW your'e talking about "treating everyone the same". Shifting goalposts. Are we talking about "everyone", or citizens? Pick one.