Hell, guns and anybody is bad news. Guns, IMO, are what police and military and bonafide hunters who are responsible, should have. There are too many ijits and criminals in possession of guns.
I believe I already addressed this. What the Framers could NOT have known at that time is how effective their newly formed government would actually work. The checks and balances that they built into our system have worked remarkably well.... certainly far better than what they imagined based on their period writings. You see, what we must remember is the circumstances that their views were shaped from. They had just led an armed revolt against their national England.
Then you don't know what you're arguing against, then. You originally replied to my post where I said exactly that:"The notion that armed rebellion is the only prevention to tyranny in this country is outdated and wrong, but this is a GOOD thing" This was way back here. You mince words. Your reply to my post stated: "It is neither outdated,nor wrong,it is a basic right" [emphasis mine] You supported this claim of a "right" by twisting the words of our Declaration of Independence and not by quoting our Constitution. Note that I'm using your OWN words, friend. YOU said them, not me.
Once again, my argument was that "the notion that armed rebellion is the only prevention to tyranny in this country is outdated and wrong, but this is a GOOD thing".
I don't understand how you can be against 'McCain-Feingold' AND 'Citizens United' at the same time. There is a glaring contradiction there, friend. In case you missed it, Bush 43 was able to put two conservative Justices on the Supreme Court, one of them replacing a justice that most often voted with the Liberal wing. President Obama's two appointments have been to replace existing liberal Justices. There has been NO change in the conservative majority of this Court. The Opinions you referred to are conservative Opinions. See, this is a classic example why people need to stop watching FOX news. Your facts are not accurate, friend. The Senate Majority leader held up the vote purposely to allow Scott Brown to vote on this legislation. He could have rushed it to vote before Brown was sworn in, but he DIDN'T. Scott Brown voted and the bill was passed. No tricks, sorry. The House voted too, and it passed there as well. Once again you have a loose interpretation of the "facts". The legislation was open, deliberate, and in many cases far more conservative than most Liberals would like to see. The reason for this is that the Conservatives were fully part of the process. I "dodged" NOTHING. I directly addressed your post, and your use of an 'appeal to fear' fallacy. I also addressed your absolutist view of our "rights". No,... it is YOU who are dodging, friend. I'm sorry to say that your simple contrariety is unconvincing and your outright misrepresentation is frankly troubling. No place, .......... NO PLACE in the passage I responded to was any reference made to "an armed citizenry". You just flat made that one up. Kelo crossed party affiliations. We saw O'Connor cross to vote with the conservatives while Kennedy crossed to vote with the Liberals. Souter was a Republican appointment, so do with that as you will. The fact remains that this conservative Court has been an activist court. Just sayin. And the result of that war is not relevant? A successful Union is very relevant. Yes, I understand their sentiments. I also understand their reasons for their sentiments. Looking back can be helpful, but you do yourself a grave disservice by ignoring the present. The best and most important thing we can do to improve this country is to change how we finance our campaigns. This is the single most important issue facing our country and nothing,...... and I mean NOTHING will change for the better here until we do.
You said you already addressed this, I'd like to see where - that's all. I just want to familiarize myself with the topic at hand, okay?
Odd, I reiterated my stance for you above, but stranger still is I had argued my stance in the post you first responded to with me. Here.
Wow, are you wrong and on such an easily checked fact, not to mention something that was in every media outlet in the country. Scott Brown ran on the platform that he would be the 41st vote against Obamacare. He never had the opportunity to vote on the bill. Scott Brown took office on 4 Feb 2010 after winning the election on 29 Jan 2010. The Senate vote was 24 Dec 2009. The House vote was 21 March 2010. It was the reconciliation of the House and Senate versions that was done in such a tricky manner specifically to avoid a reconciliation vote in the Senate, which would have rejected the bill thanks to the Scott Brown election. Go watch this CNN report about the sly way obamacare was passed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vIDBMj5XWYo I'm going to skip the rest of your comments because you are so blatantly uninformed. You should watch more Fox News. Whatever you are watching is clearly screwed up.
I stand corrected. This doesn't happen often here, but when it does, I'm not afraid to stand up and be counted. Good work, I was going from memory on that and I recalled Reid saying how he was waiting for Brown to be sworn in. This does NOT, however absolve you from cherry-picking one paragraph from my response and it doesn't absolve you from addressing the flaws in your arguments that I outlined in that post. We both know that's an old and rather cheap trick that is not worthy of someone who claims to have an aversion to such things.
I appreciate it. The real issue for me was the Fox news comment. When you make comments like that, what you are telling the person you are conversing with is that you think he is brainwashed and/or stupid. Without the Fox news comment, I would have responded to the rest of your post. With the Fox comment, my impression was that there was no point in continuing. I only responded on the one item because of its degree. Just something to keep in mind.
Point taken. You're sensitive to criticisms of FOX news. After giving you two opportunities to address the rest of my post I'll have to assume you are simply unable to muster any logical response to it. P.S.----You misspelled your signature line's author.
Incomplete leaving the wrong impression about suicide. Gun control leads to statistically significant reduction in suicide by guns, but not in the percentage of suicide overall. What that points out is that people that mean to kill themselves find a way to do it.
Wrong....a person is just as likely to try and kill themselves if no gun is present,besides theres no way you can know what an attempted suicide would have used
With respect to a substantive discussion, its not how the comment affects me, its what it says about you that matters. Is there a point to responding? Does it lead to a discussion of substance or nothing more than trivial comments and name calling? Too much to do, too little time, don't have spare time to waste. Thanks.
There is no connection you can prove on the overall suicide rate. The only thing you can prove is that there would be fewer suicide by gun. The biggest influence on suicide is the economy.
References have already been given that demonstrate that your opinion is inconsistent with the available empirical analysis. See, for example, Rodriguez and Hempstead (2011, Gun control and suicide: The impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 19952004, Health Policy, Vol. 101 Issue 1, pp 95-103). Applying a negative binomial regression model to a panel of state level data from 1995 to 2004 this concludes: "firearms regulations which function to reduce overall gun availability have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide"
There are three kinds of lies. Lies (*)(*)(*)(*)ed Lies and Statistics. A major problem with the study is that it makes assumptions about those that try to commit suicide and do not succeed if they do not use a gun. Many, if not most, try again. That has not been taken into account. I will give you a for instance. I have a relative that tried to commit suicide by drinking Drano. It did not succeed. That would have been counted as an unsuccessful suicide in the study. If she had used a firearm, she probably would have succeeded. What the short term study would miss would be that 15 years later, she tried the same thing again and did succeed. Not having a gun did nothing to keep her from killing herself and those that are determined to commit suicide will succeed. That percentage does not change whether there are firearms present or not. The study assumes that firearm suicides are more likely to just be spur of the moment, but I can guarantee that someone the puts a gun in their mouths and pulls the trigger are of the same percentage as my relative.
But you haven't used the cliché correctly! The main point is that its very easy to abuse statistics within a spurious context. We haven't done that here. We've referred to a hypothesis testing methodology within an appropriate empirical methodology capable of isolating gun effects. There is no debate in that! And the result? Your posts have been shown to be quite wrong. This is an invalid critique. Its a panel analysis and therefore would pick up these type of 'repeat' events. Guns stand out, given the nature of impulse suicide attempt. This is completely wrong. The study finds that gun prevalence increases suicide rates, demonstrating that your previous comments are not supported by the evidence. It offers an explanation for that finding. You may not like that explanation but that wouldn't be interesting. You'd still have a result that dismisses your original post as hogwash
