The science of gun crimes

[tecoyah]

This is not something a free person would ever say.

Courts never rule. They judge.

Well, as I said it and am free...it seems your comment is invalid.

And as an additional strike, it is well established that courts do indeed rule and in fact the term is often used to designate a decision.

"It is the ruling of the Court"

Judges Judge...thus the term used for the position.

 

[Nemo]

The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words "inherent" and "unalienable" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything need must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law. Natural rights are a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings. Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law.

 

[myp]

Of course it does. "Congress shall make no law..."

What does that mean to you?
Does it mean Congress shall make no law?
Does it mean Congress shall make some laws?
Does it mean Congress can do as it wishes because we are no longer constrained by a written Constitution?

Your answer will help me gauge what level of tyranny is acceptable to you.

Where in here do you see that they can't make a law restricting SOME weapons? " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Like it or not, words are open to interpretation. Such is the way of literature.

 

[myp]

The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words "inherent" and "unalienable" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything need must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law. Natural rights are a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings. Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law.

Fantastic post.

 

[misterveritis]

No one wants to undo the Constitution, misterveritis.

I disagree. We see all sorts of mental gymnastics here that are clearly intended to dismantle a portion of it.

You and yours will try to make it all pretty but it is an assault of the Constitution and therefore an assault upon our liberty.

That sort of out-of-the-blue fabrication and jumping to conclusions really hurts your ethos. The point is you interpret the Constitution differently than I do and that will happen.

I am not the one who is arguing that "shall not infringe" means the Congress can do whatever it likes. That is an assault upon the Constitution. It is you who are making the argument. You are an enabler.

The way things are the SCOTUS decides- according to the Constitution itself, the way I interpret it and even if not, that is the way things work and have worked for a very long time.

If a law is made and if it infringes and if the Court agrees to hear it, then yes, arguments will be made and the Supremes can decide broadly or narrowly the impact of the case.

You think the 2nd amendment says you can bear any arms, but even then I am sure even you have contingencies. Can people own grenades? Bombs? Those could be considered arms too.

It is clear from what they wrote that the Framers wanted the armed citizenry to be the antidote to a standing army. Does it make any sense to you that the Framers would cripple themselves by saying only obsolete weapons could be kept? They wanted their unorganized militia to be unbeatable by a standing army. For them that meant each citizen would be armed with the same class of weapons as the infantry.

I read the 2nd amendment as we have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean the right to all arms.

See above.

Considering that guns were no were near as powerful when the 2nd amendment was written, we don't know what the founders would have said about it today anyway.

This is why you fail. They did not say we have the right to keep and bear muskets. They specifically called for a right to keep and bear arms. They did not call for an individual right to have crew-served weapons. It is clear that if the intent was for citizens to act as a counter to a standing army then whatever individual weapons the army would have the Framers wanted the citizens to be so armed. The purpose did not change because the nature of the individual weapons did.

What we do know is that we have a disagreement in interpretation. You can deny that and say I am wrong and you are right, but that is quite egotistical of you because you have no basis for that claim other than your opinion.

It also helps to read what the Framers wrote about this and a broad range of other Constitutional issues. I am right because I read what they wrote and understood why they believed it was necessary for the citizens to be individually armed.

Interpretation is subjective- it entails opinion. You have yours and I have mine. I don't understand why you can't grasp that.

I grasp it just fine. Once you slip away from the Constitution, the reasons for its parts and the reasons for the Bill of Rights it is very easy to be swayed by our common enemy, the statist politician.

 

[misterveritis]

...make no law...shall not be infringed...

Earlier I wrote, "Of course it does. "Congress shall make no law..."

What does that mean to you?
1. Does it mean Congress shall make no law?
2. Does it mean Congress shall make some laws?
3. Does it mean Congress can do as it wishes because we are no longer constrained by a written Constitution?

Your answer will help me gauge what level of tyranny is acceptable to you.

Where in here do you see that they can't make a law restricting SOME weapons? " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Like it or not, words are open to interpretation. Such is the way of literature.

Without specifically saying so you are either at statement 2 or 3. You are happy with some tyranny as long as the tyrant agrees with the opinion you hold today. A little infringement is fine with you.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Out that goes. Where in here do you see that they can't make a law abridging SOME speech? Once you go down this path liberty is over.

 

[myp]

It is clear from what they wrote that the Framers wanted the armed citizenry to be the antidote to a standing army. Does it make any sense to you that the Framers would cripple themselves by saying only obsolete weapons could be kept? They wanted their unorganized militia to be unbeatable by a standing army. For them that meant each citizen would be armed with the same class of weapons as the infantry.

You realize that back then they didn't have the bomb technology we have today right? A militia of citizens today will not have access to bombs, but the military will so advantage military still- even if we allowed citizens to carry everything a soldier can. But on that, you think grenades should be legal? What about rocket launchers? After all, individual infantry do carry those.

It also helps to read what the Framers wrote about this and a broad range of other Constitutional issues. I am right because I read what they wrote and understood why they believed it was necessary for the citizens to be individually armed.

You really don't grasp what interpretation is, do you? The courts of the US seem to disagree with you anyway and they are trained in constitutional law unlike you or me. I'll take their interpretation over yours, thanks.

 

[myp]

You are happy with some tyranny as long as they tyrant agrees with the opinion you hold today. A little infringement is fine with you.

See I don't think it is infringement and I'm definitely not for tyranny. You have no basis to make this claim. You know what? I will make a claim on an equal logical standing and you will see how silly your position really is: since you want to allow assault weapons, you are okay with killing schoolchildren.


Clearly that isn't true right? Well same about your little tyranny comment towards me.

I also don't think you understand that complete freedom is impossible. It is a tradeoff.

 

[misterveritis]

Who has the final say, the people or the politicians?

Okay misterveritis, you think the SCOTUS has been compromised. What are you going to do about it? The vast majority of THE PEOPLE do not agree with you. Go ahead and try to abolish the government or whatever you want to do in the name of the Constitution because fact of the matter is the vast majority of THE PEOPLE do not agree with you and do not want to abolish the government, secede or do whatever it is you want to do.

This is not the first time. It is the most glaring.
I believe a revolution will come. I believe it will be because of the kind of person who would vote for Obama. We can deal with him. He is temporary. We cannot deal with a people so debased that they would vote to steal from their neighbors.

 

[misterveritis]

Disarm or you are for killing children

See I don't think it is infringement and I'm definitely not for tyranny. You have no basis to make this claim. You know what? I will make a claim on an equal logical standing and you will see how silly your position really is: since you want to allow assault weapons, you are okay with killing schoolchildren.

Clearly that isn't true right? Well same about your little tyranny comment towards me.

I also don't think you understand that complete freedom is impossible. It is a tradeoff.

This is yet another example of how far apart your position is from the Constitutional, natural rights view. We all have the right to self defense. We do not get that right from the state. You believe, based on your statements that if I am unwilling to give up my right to defend myself I must be for murdering children. I believe that puts me on the right side of history with you on the other side.

 

[tecoyah]

This is not the first time. It is the most glaring.
I believe a revolution will come. I believe it will be because of the kind of person who would vote for Obama. We can deal with him. He is temporary. We cannot deal with a people so debased that they would vote to steal from their neighbors.

Should a revolution occur, it is likely to be because of people who think as you just posted. Though I will support your right to think as you do, I cannot support violent overthrow of my Government...particularly when it seems based on unfounded fears, and hatred.

Which means, those who think this way will fire the first shot.

Likely the last shot fired will also involve those who think as you do...but not in a way they will enjoy.

 

[misterveritis]

Rocket Launchers

You realize that back then they didn't have the bomb technology we have today right? A militia of citizens today will not have access to bombs, but the military will so advantage military still- even if we allowed citizens to carry everything a soldier can. But on that, you think grenades should be legal? What about rocket launchers? After all, individual infantry do carry those.

You really don't grasp what interpretation is, do you? The courts of the US seem to disagree with you anyway and they are trained in constitutional law unlike you or me. I'll take their interpretation over yours, thanks.

Rocket launchers are not carried as arms. They are an adjunct to arms. Not all carry them. Selected people do.
There is a difference between arms and bombs. Bombs are not individual arms. Hand grenades, grenade launchers and rocket propelled grenades are not arms. They were not then. They were not when I was on active duty over my twenty years.

If we want to include them I think we would need to amend the Constitution. We could add crew-served weapons and specialty weapons.

 

[misterveritis]

Should a revolution occur, it is likely to be because of people who think as you just posted. Though I will support your right to think as you do, I cannot support violent overthrow of my Government...particularly when it seems based on unfounded fears, and hatred.

Which means, those who think this way will fire the first shot.

Likely the last shot fired will also involve those who think as you do...but not in a way they will enjoy.

I do not believe you will even see it coming.
I can imagine that we could go blindly into another dark age of tyranny and slavery. But I do not think it is likely.

I see the coming economic collapse. Such times are ripe for revolution and a reset.

 

[Nemo]

There will be no revolution other than at the ballot box. That's where change is made - not with guns but votes.

 

[misterveritis]

Well, as I said it and am free...it seems your comment is invalid.

And as an additional strike, it is well established that courts do indeed rule and in fact the term is often used to designate a decision.

"It is the ruling of the Court"

Judges Judge...thus the term used for the position.

A ruling is a judgement. You are turning words on their heads. In a Republic no one rules. Monarchs rule. Tyrants rule. The courts judge. They adjudicate.

 

[myp]

You are quite barbaric misterveritis. Go on, have your little one-man revolution (or a couple thousand in the face of 300 million and history's most powerful military). See what happens. I will stay at my house and continue on with my life knowing that I am free and standing up for what I believe in while recognizing opinion and interpretation as opinion and scientific fact as fact.

 

[misterveritis]

There will be no revolution other than at the ballot box. That's where change is made - not with guns but votes.

That has been true in this country for a while. There is no guarantee. In fact as we move away from the Constitutional protections I see a violent revolution as more likely, not less.

 

[misterveritis]

Misterveritis - The Constitutional Barbarian

You are quite barbaric misterveritis. Go on, have your little one-man revolution (or a couple thousand in the face of 300 million and history's most powerful military). See what happens. I will stay at my house and continue on with my life knowing that I am free and standing up for what I believe in while recognizing opinion and interpretation as opinion and scientific fact as fact.

Nice Title. I like it.

 

[myp]

That has been true in this country for a while. There is no guarantee. In fact as we move away from the Constitutional protections I see a violent revolution as more likely, not less.

Throughout the course of human history in every single civilization, there have been the few outliers who predict extreme events such as these. The vast majority of the time they are wrong. And you likely are too because the vast majority of the country does not want revolution, the economic fundamentals are no where near collapse, and people still have access to the things they need to survive. You are just a sensationalist.

 

[tecoyah]

A ruling is a judgement. You are turning words on their heads. In a Republic no one rules. Monarchs rule. Tyrants rule. The courts judge. They adjudicate.

Perhaps we are using the term "Rule" in different ways.

ruleAbout Our Definitions: All forms of a word (noun, verb, etc.) are now displayed on one page.
Popularity



94 ENTRIES FOUND:

1. rule
2. rule against perpetuities
3. rule joint
4. rule nisi
5. rule of adjunction
6. rule of deduction
7. rule of eleven
8. rule off
9. rule of faith
10. rule of law
11. rule of the air
12. rule of the road
13. rule of three
14. rule of thumb
15. rule of two and three
16. rule out
17. Allen's rule
18. Basilian rule
19. batter rule
20. Bergmann's rule
21. board rule
22. caliber rule
23. caliper rule
24. chain rule
25. closed rule
26. column rule
27. composing rule
28. contraction rule
29. cutting rule
30. day rule

Ads by Google
Voted #1 Managed Hosting
Voted #1 in dedicated hosting by HostReview & dedicatedserverdir
superb.net/compare-dedicated-server



1rule

noun \ˈrül\


Definition of RULE

1
a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action
b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members
c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit
d (1) : a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2) : a legal precept or doctrine
e : a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct

2
a (1) : a usually valid generalization (2) : a generally prevailing quality, state, or mode <fair weather was the rule yesterday — New York Times>
b : a standard of judgment : criterion
c : a regulating principle
d : a determinate method for performing a mathematical operation and obtaining a certain result

3
a : the exercise of authority or control : dominion
b : a period during which a specified ruler or government exercises control

4
a : a strip of material marked off in units used especially for measuring : ruler 3, tape measure
b : a metal strip with a type-high face that prints a linear design; also : a linear design produced by or as if by such a strip

I am referring to the definition in red....you may be using the one in blue.