Spoken from someone who can't answer my question on why the Supreme Court never bothered to check if Miller was enlisted in the National Guard. I suspect because it brings your whole house of cards down, like the Kool-Aide man busting through. "oh yeah!"
Look at it this way, for many years the Supreme Court held with the opinion that bearing arms under the second amendment was a collective right belonging to the government controlled militia and you were all quite satisfied with that. And anyone who said they disagreed, you could say suck it up, the Supreme Court says so. Now a ruling by the same court has determined that the second amendment is an individual right, but subject to restrictions. This brings this issue more towards the center. So now the shoe is sort of on the other foot. With the gun control industry being unhappy, especially since they have been quite unsuccessful in getting any legislation passed at the federal level. There are some other interesting events happening too. For example, the violent crime rate in Chicago is at least making a small dip. If it starts a steady decline indicating they are getting a handle on the gang problem, it will indicate that the old guns coming in from states with liberal gun laws isnt as big an issue as claimed.
Gun availability to criminals is and always will be a big issue. If cracking down on gangs brings a decrease in violence, that in no way means gun availability is not a big issue also.
Among the many questions to you that I await answers for, I ask this one again: Can you conceive of a way that someone could disagree with you in a manner that you could respect?
Laci, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Before you label it as ignorant or whatever other sneering term you wish to use, understand that falsifiability is a characteristic of scientific reasoning.
Spoken from someone who can't answer my question on why the Supreme Court never bothered to check if Miller was enlisted in the National Guard. I suspect because it brings your whole house of cards down, like the Kool-Aide man busting through. "oh yeah!"
ReplyDeleteWell Laci,
ReplyDeleteLook at it this way, for many years the Supreme Court held with the opinion that bearing arms under the second amendment was a collective right belonging to the government controlled militia and you were all quite satisfied with that. And anyone who said they disagreed, you could say suck it up, the Supreme Court says so.
Now a ruling by the same court has determined that the second amendment is an individual right, but subject to restrictions. This brings this issue more towards the center.
So now the shoe is sort of on the other foot. With the gun control industry being unhappy, especially since they have been quite unsuccessful in getting any legislation passed at the federal level.
There are some other interesting events happening too. For example, the violent crime rate in Chicago is at least making a small dip. If it starts a steady decline indicating they are getting a handle on the gang problem, it will indicate that the old guns coming in from states with liberal gun laws isnt as big an issue as claimed.
Gun availability to criminals is and always will be a big issue. If cracking down on gangs brings a decrease in violence, that in no way means gun availability is not a big issue also.
DeleteBut nothing you've shown also means that guns are too available. As I've said elsewhere to you, data is not the plural of anecdote.
DeleteAmong the many questions to you that I await answers for, I ask this one again: Can you conceive of a way that someone could disagree with you in a manner that you could respect?
ReplyDeleteLaci, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Before you label it as ignorant or whatever other sneering term you wish to use, understand that falsifiability is a characteristic of scientific reasoning.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Laci, I prefer Roman numerals to bullet points.
ReplyDelete