Supreme Court to Decide Second Amendment Incorporation

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

oralloy wrote:
H2O MAN wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
As dependable as the swallows returning to Capistrano, oralloy returns to A2K every time the supreme court takes a second amendment case.

For that, he earns our respect and gratitude.

David

+1

Thank you oralloy.

You're welcome. I'm glad I could provide that info.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it almost looks like I am being defended from a perceived attack from joefromchicago.

I'm always glad to be defended from attacks, but I don't believe he was actually attacking me, if anyone thinks that.

I did not interpret what joefromchicago wrote as an attack.

OK. Maybe I read too much into it. Just didn't want him to be blamed when I was sure he wasn't attacking.

I'll add more info on the case when it comes my way.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Gun control that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Gun control that does not violate the Constitution is not unconstitutional

QED

LOL - how 'bout those penumbras, you seem to be sitting in the shade yourself. Anyway, does anyone know if this poll was paid for with taxpayers' money?

Quote:

This week, anti-gun New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, released the findings of a poll conducted by a political consulting firm called "The Word Doctors," whose slogan is "It's not what you say, it's what people hear." Word Doctors' president is a pollster who has been reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research and censured by the National Council on Public Polls, and who says that the key to polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer."

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5252

This must be the same pollster who decided a majority (sic) of Americans believe in anthropogenic global warming.

0 Replies

Of interest...

Marta crime rate falls in wake of gun law

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Of interest...

Marta crime rate falls in wake of gun law

Yes; this is 100% consistent with the experience
of states that rejected, by statute, victim disarmament laws
in favor of CCW, most of the nation now, whose crime rates fell
when it became legal for future victims to arm themselves in self defense.

Armed victims are violent criminals' worst nightmare.

Gun control is O.S.H.A. for violent criminals, offering them on-the-job protection from their victims.

David

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Of interest...

Marta crime rate falls in wake of gun law

Correlation is not causation.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

It's not mathematical PROOF of causation, but if you see hundreds of occurences of an event invariably leading to the identical result, you do arrive at a reasonable inference of a causal link.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

yes indeed Helen (Toyko rose) the number of fire trucks seen at a fire is positively correlated to the size of the fire, thus, reducing the number of fire trucks responding to fires will reduce the size of fires.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

Brilliant - and if you call me Tokyo Rose one more time deep trouble will befall you: I know where you live! Exclamation

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Ok doofus, I know when I'm outnumbered.

0 Replies

The number of police cars seen at the end of a high speed chase positively correlated to the severity of the
infraction, thus, reducing the number of police cars responding to such a chase will reduce the length of the chase?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

the number of police cars seen at the end of a high speed chase is directly correlated to the number of innocent civilians hurt/injured by speeding police cars. This is extremely well documented by police departments throughout the USA and has resulted in extremely limited use of police cars involved in high speed chases.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

It's not mathematical PROOF of causation, but if you see hundreds of occurences of an event invariably leading to the identical result, you do arrive at a reasonable inference of a causal link.

Indeed, which is why it is highly problematic when one attempts to infer causation based on only two events.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Gun control that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Gun control that does not violate the Constitution is not unconstitutional

QED

This Republic was founded upon the principle inter alia that
". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That is absolute; it has no qualifiers; it does not say "except on Friday mornings".

On the Aristotelian Square of Logical Opposition,
it is an "E" proposition: UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE.

David

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

High Seas wrote:

It's not mathematical PROOF of causation, but if you see hundreds of occurences of an event invariably leading to the identical result, you do arrive at a reasonable inference of a causal link.

Indeed, which is why it is highly problematic when one attempts to infer causation based on only two events.

But H2O was referring to only the latest occurence in a very long series of one event (lifting restrictions on gun ownership) being promptly followed by another (drop in crime rate). This linkage has been observed internationally over decades.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

High Seas wrote:

It's not mathematical PROOF of causation, but if you see hundreds of occurences of an event invariably leading to the identical result, you do arrive at a reasonable inference of a causal link.

Indeed, which is why it is highly problematic when one attempts to infer causation based on only two events.

But H2O was referring to only the latest occurence in a very long series of one event (lifting restrictions on gun ownership) being promptly followed by another (drop in crime rate). This linkage has been observed internationally over decades.

And that's a fact!

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

But H2O was referring to only the latest occurence in a very long series of one event (lifting restrictions on gun ownership) being promptly followed by another (drop in crime rate). This linkage has been observed internationally over decades.

A "long series of one event?" What the hell does that mean?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

It means a legally armed population is less likely to be victimized by the criminal element.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

High Seas wrote:
But H2O was referring to only the latest occurence in a very long series of one event (lifting restrictions on gun ownership) being promptly followed by another (drop in crime rate). This linkage has been observed internationally over decades.

A "long series of one event?" What the hell does that mean?

It's surprising that a parenthesis would make you stop reading - perhaps you belong to the Sotomayor remedial-English-grammar-and-syntax school? Here is the sentence again, highlighted for ease of reading comprehension; try not to let parentheses confuse you to such extent:
[quote]...the latest occurence in a very long series of one event (lifting restrictions on gun ownership) .....
being promptly followed by another (drop in crime rate).[/quote]

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

A "long series of one event?" What the hell does that mean?

It's surprising that a parenthesis would make you stop reading - perhaps you belong to the Sotomayor remedial-English-grammar-and-syntax school? Here is the sentence again, try not to let parentheses confuse you to the extent you stop reading:

Parentheses don't confuse me. Suggesting that one event can be a "series," on the other hand, does.

High Seas wrote:

Quote:
...the latest occurence in a very long series of one event (lifting restrictions on gun ownership) being promptly followed by another (drop in crime rate).

I know that you don't have a scintilla of proof to back up that claim, so I won't even bother to ask.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

....I know that you don't have a scintilla of proof to back up that claim, so I won't even bother to ask.

Ah, telepathy! Even Sotomayor didn't claim such talents - you "know" (sic) of no proof, you say?! Perhaps you've heard of Lexis-Nexis, or even Google - but I forget, you're a telepath, so can't be bothered with evidence like the rest of us Smile

_

1 Reply

Supreme Court to Decide Second Amendment Incorporation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know