Yep, They're Coming to Take Our Guns!

[Stinger]

49 innocent civilians are killed for every known terrorist,according to a joint study[/url] by Stanford and New York Universities.

I don't trust the Mail. The study says this:

TBIJ [The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the group responsible for collecting the data] reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.

http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

That's an almost 4 to 1 ratio of bad guys to good guys, not a 49 to 1 ratio of good guys to bad guys.

[rstrong]

That's an almost 4 to 1 ratio of bad guys to good guys, not a 49 to 1 ratio of good guys to bad guys.

It looks like the Mail is using other statements, like:

The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated
at just 2%. (pg viii)

The difference is the grey area of people considered non-civilians because they're "militants." The report "challenges the oversimplified civilian/“militant” binary reproduced in many accounts."

[mike]

Five Reasons Why the NRA Must Be Stopped

How Conservatives “Reinvented” the Second Amendment

And, the NRA is even opposed to federally funded research on gun ownership’s impact on public health. Opposing science that might be contrary - Where have we heard that before?

Hmmm ... R.J.Reynolds and company? Am I close?

Interesting reads, Vrede, thanks.

As I have mentioned over and over regarding the 2nd Amendment, the words "well regulated" and "militia" continue to be my touchstone.

[O Really]

As I have mentioned over and over regarding the 2nd Amendment, the words "well regulated" and "militia" continue to be my touchstone.

Give it up, m'friend. Heller flushed that out of play. But even if it hadn't, the poor sentence structure and ambiguity leads to an argument that the first clause about a regulated militia only provides the basis or reason for the second, which isn't limited to militia activity. For example, suppose the Amendment said, "the woods being full of predatory critters and Indians, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Well, now the woods have changed and the original reason for the provision is obsolete, but that second clause still remains in effect.

As another example, the Seventh Amendment says, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..." Well, that twenty dollars back then is probably more than $300 now, but it says what it says.

[mike]

As another example, the Seventh Amendment says, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..." Well, that twenty dollars back then is probably more than $300 now, but it says what it says.

Exactly, and as Vrede alluded to above, what "arms" did the founding members have in mind for a well regulated Militia by the people and not those who serve in our modern day military industrial complex employed as soldiers?

[O Really]

The link argues that Heller is a recent and unusual interpretation. So, it follows that it could be overturned.

However, I think we're a long ways from ever limiting ownership to "Militia" members. That's why I think it's a better strategy to examine what "Arms" does or should mean.

The woods are now full of predatory rednecks, and Indians run all the motels and casinos.

I agree on focusing on the meaning of "arms" but I'm pretty sure the train has left the station with regard to going back to former interpretations.

[mike]

The link argues that Heller is a recent and unusual interpretation. So, it follows that it could be overturned.

However, I think we're a long ways from ever limiting ownership to "Militia" members. That's why I think it's a better strategy to examine what "Arms" does or should mean.

The woods are now full of predatory rednecks, and Indians run all the motels and casinos.

I agree on focusing on the meaning of "arms" but I'm pretty sure the train has left the station with regard to going back to former interpretations.

Sadly, counselor, I think you are correct. Even so, it won't keep me from doing the little bit I can do with regard to the "original intent."

I don't believe the original intent was to arm every American with arms capable of taking out 26 people in barely more than a few heartbeats.

Call me a sort of Don Quixote ...

[Mad American]

Sadly, counselor, I think you are correct. Even so, it won't keep me from doing the little bit I can do with regard to the "original intent."

I don't believe the original intent was to arm every American with arms capable of taking out 26 people in barely more than a few heartbeats.

Then what was the intent? To embrace technology on all fronts except in firearms? As I pointed out in another thread, today's guns are just like those at the time of 2nd amendment...they fire a single round, for a single pull of the trigger. Technology has decreased lock time, reload time, and increased capacity.

Finally, if you only have a few heart beats in almost ten minutes you need to see your doctor.

[mike]

Finally, if you only have a few heart beats in almost ten minutes you need to see your doctor.

Your callousness regarding the 26 people who were killed is disconcerting.

It took each and every one of the children and adults shot by an "arm" I believe should be "well regulated" ten minutes to die?

Go back to your NRA talking points. It's the best you can do.

[O Really]

Sadly, counselor, I think you are correct. Even so, it won't keep me from doing the little bit I can do with regard to the "original intent."

I don't believe the original intent was to arm every American with arms capable of taking out 26 people in barely more than a few heartbeats.

Then what was the intent? To embrace technology on all fronts except in firearms? As I pointed out in another thread, today's guns are just like those at the time of 2nd amendment...they fire a single round, for a single pull of the trigger. Technology has decreased lock time, reload time, and increased capacity.

Finally, if you only have a few heart beats in almost ten minutes you need to see your doctor.

So, you're not a Constitutional original constructionist, right? You believe that an interpretation of the original words has to be viewed in light of contemporary conditions, right? I agree with you in that opinion. Of course, a lot of your fellow conservatives disagree with us, particularly on First Amendment issues.

The truth is, however, that even though your logic with regard to "one pull one shot" is sound, the Newtown model rifle is in performance and capability nothing at all like the old musket. Your comparison, though logically and technically sound, is like saying there's no difference in a chihuahua and a rottweiler, except size, and that both should be equally welcome in the apartment complex.

[Mad American]

Your callousness regarding the 26 people who were killed is disconcerting.

It took each and every one of the children and adults shot by an "arm" I believe should be "well regulated" ten minutes to die?

Go back to your NRA talking points. It's the best you can do.

Your dodge of the question, unwillingness, and inability to engage in civil discussion are noted.

[Mad American]

So, you're not a Constitutional original constructionist, right? You believe that an interpretation of the original words has to be viewed in light of contemporary conditions, right? I agree with you in that opinion. Of course, a lot of your fellow conservatives disagree with us, particularly on First Amendment issues.

The truth is, however, that even though your logic with regard to "one pull one shot" is sound, the Newtown model rifle is in performance and capability nothing at all like the old musket. Your comparison, though logically and technically sound, is like saying there's no difference in a chihuahua and a rottweiler, except size, and that both should be equally welcome in the apartment complex.

The same can be said with everything that has been touched by technology. If you think that "arms" should be bound by "single shot muskets" because that is all that was available at the time of the second amendment, then "the press" should only apply to those institutions putting out information produced on a manual moveable type printing press. While the AR-15 is nothing like the old musket, neither are THOUSANDS of other modern day firearms. Including hundreds of modern muzzle-loaders. The move simply from flint lock to cap lock decreased lock time and reload time. So should a cap lock muzzle-loader not be considered due to it being technologically superior to a flint lock?

Your comparison using the dogs is interesting but unfortunately incorrect. The difference between a chihuahua, a rottie, and an AR-15 is that the AR-15 will never move, never load, never fire, never take any action at all...NEVER, unless it is placed into action by a person. It is an inanimate object. The dogs however, are capable of doing what ever they wish when ever they wish. Big difference.

I appreciate your efforts at civil discussion O'really. Unfortunately, that is a trait that is missing in many people here.

[O Really]

The same can be said with everything that has been touched by technology. If you think that "arms" should be bound by "single shot muskets" because that is all that was available at the time of the second amendment, then "the press" should only apply to those institutions putting out information produced on a manual moveable type printing press. While the AR-15 is nothing like the old musket, neither are THOUSANDS of other modern day firearms. Including hundreds of modern muzzle-loaders. The move simply from flint lock to cap lock decreased lock time and reload time. So should a cap lock muzzle-loader not be considered due to it being technologically superior to a flint lock?

Your comparison using the dogs is interesting but unfortunately incorrect. The difference between a chihuahua, a rottie, and an AR-15 is that the AR-15 will never move, never load, never fire, never take any action at all...NEVER, unless it is placed into action by a person. It is an inanimate object. The dogs however, are capable of doing what ever they wish when ever they wish. Big difference.

I appreciate your efforts at civil discussion O'really. Unfortunately, that is a trait that is missing in many people here.

The comparison was between one dog and another dog - one firearm and another firearm, not dog to firearm. The Second Amendment specifically uses the term "arms" and uses it without definition or limitation. Therefore, it is necessary to either (1) allow unrestricted anything that meets the broadest definition of "arms" or (2) to find a definition or description that can be used. I'm pretty sure there are many firearms experts out there who could do that if they weren't all focused on prevented any and all limitations or restrictions. To reiterate, however, in my personal view it's not a matter of banning, it's a matter of making it more difficult to get firearms, increasing penalties for criminal use of firearms, including allowing - by intent or neglect - your firearms to be used illegally, and getting a culture change to make ownership of Newtown model firearms socially unacceptable.

[homerfobe]

To me, every gun is an "assault weapon" and has, basically, that as its only purpose. Don't quibble about the definition thereof with me.
You're fine. It's long been known that it's useless to argue with an idiot.
Take away the guns, who's going to end up owning guns?

As I have mentioned over and over regarding the 2nd Amendment, the words "well regulated" and "militia" continue to be my touchstone.
So who determines the definition of "well regulated"? Even you moonbats go looney at the full moon;
who's to determine which of those "well-regulated militiamen" aren't going to go postal and shoot anything that moves?
That thought could wind up being on your tombstone.

Let's say we ban all the guns, period. All are destroyed; moonbats and wingnuts can now walk safely on the streets at night without fear of being mugged, or even having their homes broken into, right? A foreign enemy decides the time is right to attack because only America's "well-regulated militia" will be armed...right? (remember the movie Red Dawn?)

Barring the "confused genders" who attack schools, theaters, etc., the actual number of gun-shot murders were down from last year, whereas blunt-force murders were up. I guess that means that hammers, boards, ball bats, etc. will now have to be registered or banned?

Hey Whiny Mike, here's you a story that will warm your heart:
Bet he won't do this again!

[Mad American]

No, I got your point about one dog being bigger and "meaner" than another, and therefore should possibly be restricted. I think you missed mine and I probably didn't present it as well as I should have. My point is that no matter how big or mean a firearm is, whether it is a Mal-duece, an AR-15, a single shot muzzle-loader, or everything in between they will NEVER get up load, aim, and fire themselves. Just because a gun LOOKS bigger and meaner than another does not make it so.

[O Really]

...A foreign enemy decides the time is right to attack because only America's "well-regulated militia" will be armed...right? (remember the movie Red Dawn?).

...confused genders...

A foreign enemy defeats the US military, seizes all its remaining weaponry and homophile (nttawwt) will rescue America with his rifle and his "gun". Looks like homosexual sex is not the only thing he fantasizes about.

Thanks for reminding us about your illiteracy, though: http://blueridgedebate.com/phpBB3/viewt ... der#p14598. It's still funny.

Yes, and we know all "foreign enemies" would not attack with planes into buildings, bombs, infrastructure disablement, or contamination of water supply, but would march into neighborhoods in straight lines, getting past US military and police, just so they could be picked off by homo and his dead fangers friends, right?

[Crock Hunter]

(remember the movie Red Dawn?)

"Remember the movie" huh??

You do realize that a giant mutant monster did not actually attack Tokyo nor do dead baseball players hang out in magical corn fields... ..

Rightwing idiots... always your best entertainment value..

[O Really]

(remember the movie Red Dawn?)

"Remember the movie" huh??

You do realize that a giant mutant monster did not actually attack Tokyo nor do dead baseball players hang out in magical corn fields... ..

Rightwing idiots... always your best entertainment value..

I didn't see the original "Red Dawn" nor the last years remake, but reading the synopsis and reviews is enough to set off peals of laughter that Homo actually used it as a (apparently serious) example of why we should be ever vigilant in keeping our Newtown specials always at the ready. Probably the best part of the movie would have been seeing Jennifer Gray being a tough chick before she was Baby.

[Boatrocker]

. . . I didn't see the original "Red Dawn" nor the last years remake, but reading the synopsis and reviews is enough to set off peals of laughter that Homo actually used it as a (apparently serious) example of why we should be ever vigilant in keeping our Newtown specials always at the ready. Probably the best part of the movie would have been seeing Jennifer Gray being a tough chick before she was Baby.

I'm sure homofob thinks Red Dawn was a documentary. Just like The Dukes of Hazzard.

[O Really]

. . . I didn't see the original "Red Dawn" nor the last years remake, but reading the synopsis and reviews is enough to set off peals of laughter that Homo actually used it as a (apparently serious) example of why we should be ever vigilant in keeping our Newtown specials always at the ready. Probably the best part of the movie would have been seeing Jennifer Gray being a tough chick before she was Baby.

I'm sure homofob thinks Red Dawn was a documentary. Just like The Dukes of Hazzard.

And Men in Black, Independence Day, Armageddon, Total Recall, Escape from New York, yada. All really sound examples of what could happen tomorrow if we don't have enough guns.