Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

oralloy wrote:

With a greater presence of guns, murders that would have been carried out without a gun, are instead carried out with a gun, leading to a greater number of "gun deaths", but not leading to a greater number of deaths.

You must know that isn't true Oralloy. Surely?

It implies that all other methods of killing people are as successful as guns are.

A fair number of attempted murders using other methods must have failed where a gun would have succeeded.

If you were to bear the sort of arms that were in use when the 2nd was written I don't suppose there would be all that many complaints. Or deaths.

The Supreme Court was allowing the Constitution to be violated at the time.

Note that they have begun to enforce the Constitution now.

You are guilty of a grave atrocity against American freedom.

oralloy wrote:

It should be pretty easy to tell if someone is trying to shoot their way into a school or not.

It should be pretty easy eh?

You're scraping the bottom with that one Oralloy.

oralloy wrote:

Better social programs paid for by higher taxes.

That's interesting. A platform for the next election. Fighting gun control and raising taxes. That should sort out the priorities I should think.

There would be some tossing and turning in beds I imagine.

Note the way I engage in intelligent discourse when there is intelligent discourse to be had.

The Constitution says that Americans get to carry modern weapons when we go about in public.

It's about limits to bear arms in accordance with our Constitution.

What I wrote was,

Quote:

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation,

The congress has the right to impose "limits" on arms in this country; believe it or not!

When Justice Scalia says possession of some dangerous weapons can be limited, including in the future, he doesn't know what he's talking about, right, oralloy?

Only you know how to interpret the Constitution.

Stop clinging to the old definition of "assault weapon"--any new ban is going to include a new definition.

And the previous ban was not found to be unconstitutional, so stop clinging to that as well.

oralloy wrote:

You are guilty of a grave atrocity against American freedom.

I think you need to be wrapped in damp sheets.

oralloy wrote:

Note the way I engage in intelligent discourse when there is intelligent discourse to be had.

I have written a number of posts which I consider reasonably intelligent that you have failed to engage with.

Try this one--

Every effect has a cause. In our world anyway.

Right? Now pulling the trigger, or squeezing it firmly but gently, is an effect. It might have effects beyond itself of course, But the action was caused by something. One couldn't squeeze the trigger of a gun without a cause.

And the cause must be on the pleasure/pain spectrum like all human actions. And that of animals. Because it is voluntary, indeed it costs money, it has to be paid for with after-tax earnings, other pleasurable things must be denied, it must be on the pleasure side of the mid-point. (I would try to think of something exactly on the mid point if this thread wasn't so serious).

On the calculus of pleasure and pain in a democracy there is the sum total of pleasure from all the trigger squeezes to be set against the sum total of all the pain resulting from them.

As a democrat with a small "d" you have to be maintaining that the former is greater than the latter to justify it.

Do you think it is?

Your posts should be accompanied by music....your statements bring this to mind...
[YouTube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk[/YouTube]

oralloy wrote:

The Constitution says that Americans get to carry modern weapons when we go about in public.

Quote me, verbatim, from the passage in the Constitution that says that.

Watch out for squirrels, oralloy.

The question should be:
What do you USE an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine for?

OK Oraboy! What type of a varmit hunter use a 30 round magazine for?

Oraboy