On 4/4/2021 10:01 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> I had a realization today. There is a plausible path by which our
> society might through Unintended Consequences get to the political
> structure of Starship Troopers.
>
> This is based in the notion that the courts like consistency in
> language--if a phrase means something in one paragraph of a contract
> it means the same thing in another paragraph.
>
> There is a phrase, "the people" used in the US Constitution 9 times:
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
> Union . . ."
> "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen
> every second Year by the People of the several States . . ."
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed."
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
> not be violated . . ."
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or to the people."
> "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
> from each State, elected by the people thereof . . ."
> "That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof
> to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by
> election as the legislature may direct."
>
> So we have the election of senators and representatives, the right to
> be secure from unlawful search and seizure, and the right to assemble
> all belonging to "the people".
>
> There is a movement to "pack the court" with Justices who will rule
> that in the fourth occurrance of that phrase in the Constitution, the
> meaning is "a well-regulated militia".
>

The Second Amendment is written in stone and it
gives us the right to bear arms.

A careful reading of the amendment is required.

The part about a militia does NOT qualify the
right, as in the right only exists while part
of some militia.

The militia statement explains...why...we
are given the right. Which means the right
is unqualified, a right of the people.

To change the constitution the amendment must
be approved by 2/3rds vote in Congress.

Then the amendment has to be approved by 3/4ths
of the states, 38 states.

The chances of that happening for an amendment
everyone left or right thinks is wonderful is
almost zero.

A controversial amendment like changing the
right to bear arms would be /LESS THAN ZERO/.

You couldn't get 3 states to overturn the
Second Amendment, let alone 38 states.

Yet, republicans go on and on like the right
might evaporate tomorrow. It's called a
wedge issue, used only to rile up the
uninformed base, but has no basis in reality.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-u-s-constitution.aspx

--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote in
news:2NmdnT0I_v6m7Vf9nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com:

> On 4/4/2021 10:01 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> I had a realization today. There is a plausible path by which
>> our society might through Unintended Consequences get to the
>> political structure of Starship Troopers.
>>
>> This is based in the notion that the courts like consistency in
>> language--if a phrase means something in one paragraph of a
>> contract it means the same thing in another paragraph.
>>
>> There is a phrase, "the people" used in the US Constitution 9
>> times: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
>> more perfect Union . . ."
>> "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
>> chosen every second Year by the People of the several States .
>> . ." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
>> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
>> of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
>> Government for a redress of grievances." "A well regulated
>> Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
>> right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>> infringed." "The right of the people to be secure in their
>> persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
>> searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ."
>> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
>> not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
>> people." "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
>> Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
>> to the States respectively, or to the people."
>> "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
>> Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof . . ."
>> "That the legislature of any State may empower the executive
>> thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill
>> the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
>>
>> So we have the election of senators and representatives, the
>> right to be secure from unlawful search and seizure, and the
>> right to assemble all belonging to "the people".
>>
>> There is a movement to "pack the court" with Justices who will
>> rule that in the fourth occurrance of that phrase in the
>> Constitution, the meaning is "a well-regulated militia".
>>
>
>
>
> The Second Amendment is written in stone and it
> gives us the right to bear arms.
>
> A careful reading of the amendment is required.
>
> The part about a militia does NOT qualify the
> right, as in the right only exists while part
> of some militia.
>
> The militia statement explains...why...we
> are given the right. Which means the right
> is unqualified, a right of the people.

Plus, at the time, "well regulated" in that context meant "well
equipped." The biggest controvery over the Federal Militia Act of
1792 was whether the 2nd amendment *required* the federal
government to provide weaponry of current military design to anyone
who couldn't afford one on their own.
>
> To change the constitution the amendment must
> be approved by 2/3rds vote in Congress.
>
> Then the amendment has to be approved by 3/4ths
> of the states, 38 states.
>
> The chances of that happening for an amendment
> everyone left or right thinks is wonderful is
> almost zero.
>
> A controversial amendment like changing the
> right to bear arms would be /LESS THAN ZERO/.
>
> You couldn't get 3 states to overturn the
> Second Amendment, let alone 38 states.
>
> Yet, republicans go on and on like the right
> might evaporate tomorrow. It's called a
> wedge issue, used only to rile up the
> uninformed base, but has no basis in reality.

And yet, cases keep showing up on the Supreme Court's docket, as
states attempt - successfully until it gets to SCOTUS - to subvert
it. It took 30 years for California's "assault weapons ban" to
reach the circuit court, and it will be several more before it
reaches the Supremes. Today's court will strike it down, if they're
not too cowardly to take it. but that changes if Biden's puppeteers
pack the court (which is, in fact, one of the specific reasons they
want to).

What the Constitution (and all its amendments) says is,
specifically, according to the Constitution, interpreted by the
Supreme Court. It says what *they* say it says, even if it's been
packed with more members than Congress.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

> Jonathan
>
> Yet, republicans go on and on like the right
> might evaporate tomorrow. It's called a
> wedge issue, used only to rile up the
> uninformed base, but has no basis in reality.

Because the 2nd Amendment is continually under attack.

Prior to the early 1980s, the NRA was strictly a hobbyist
organization, they were forced to become politically active
because of the ever more draconian gun control laws being
passed at the time (despite these laws having no effect on
crime).

And everytime a Dem gets in the White House, they propose
a whole raft of back-door (and up-front) gun bans, Biden did
just that when he entered the race for President.

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

There is no point where anti-gun fundies will ever say;
"that's enough gun control".

On 17 Jun 2021 at 13:21:48 BST, "edstasiak1067@gmail.com"
<edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Jonathan
>>
>> Yet, republicans go on and on like the right
>> might evaporate tomorrow. It's called a
>> wedge issue, used only to rile up the
>> uninformed base, but has no basis in reality.
>
> Because the 2nd Amendment is continually under attack.

Do you talk about anything else? I was wondering if you had any opinions
about science fiction books.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
When one door closes another door opens; but we so often
look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that
we do not see the ones which open for us.
- Alexander Graham Bell

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:42:17 -0400, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:

>The Second Amendment is written in stone and it
>gives us the right to bear arms.

It is /not/ "written in stone". Prohibition was reversed, and so could
this one be, at least in theory.

And it might be, not reversed, but amended in turn, to "clarify" it,
if that appears to be needed.

And, of course, provided the votes can be found. Which seems unlikely,
I'll admit.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 05:21:48 -0700 (PDT), "edstas...@gmail.com"
<edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Jonathan
>>
>> Yet, republicans go on and on like the right
>> might evaporate tomorrow. It's called a
>> wedge issue, used only to rile up the
>> uninformed base, but has no basis in reality.
>
>Because the 2nd Amendment is continually under attack.
>
>Prior to the early 1980s, the NRA was strictly a hobbyist
>organization, they were forced to become politically active
>because of the ever more draconian gun control laws being
>passed at the time (despite these laws having no effect on
>crime).

And now it is being investigated as a criminal organization, and gives
off all the classic signs of an organization run for the benefit of
the leaders.

I don't like gun nuts; they are boring. But they deserve better than
to see the NRA self-destruct.

>And everytime a Dem gets in the White House, they propose
>a whole raft of back-door (and up-front) gun bans, Biden did
>just that when he entered the race for President.
>
>https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
>
>There is no point where anti-gun fundies will ever say;
>"that's enough gun control".

Now /that/ I agree with.

Not that there aren't a few restrictions (such as on "ghost guns" and
weapon shops that regularly supply local criminals) that might not
reasonably be applied.

But, really, 18 people can be stabbed to death and there is no major
outcry. Three get shot and its a national disaster.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

> Paul S Person
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Prior to the early 1980s, the NRA was strictly a hobbyist
> > organization, they were forced to become politically active
> > because of the ever more draconian gun control laws being
> > passed at the time (despite these laws having no effect on
> > crime).
>
> I don't like gun nuts; they are boring. But they deserve better
> than to see the NRA self-destruct.

If it wasn’t for the NRA, we’d be living under UK type anti-gun laws
or worse (i.e. no handguns and all kinda other restrictions).

The U.S. murder rate peaked in the early 1990s and has been going
downhill ever since and this despite almost every state in the union
having “shall issue” concealed carry laws on the books, as well as
Americans buying shitloads more guns every time a Dem gets in the
White House.

https://ibb.co/g4JJB8s

If guns were the problem then the murder rate would be more or less
the same across the country, instead of being concentrated in the same
inner cities year after year and ought to be astronomically higher today.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Just to give you an idea of how many guns were bought in just ONE MONTH,
the entire U.S. military consists of 1.38 million personnel, so Americans
bought 240% more guns in a _single month_ then there are soldiers…

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/01/business/gun-sales-march/index.html
April 1, 2021

Gun background checks soar to record in March following mass shootings and gun-control bills

New York (CNN Business)The FBI conducted more background checks for firearms purchases in March -- a month in which several prominent mass shootings reignited America's conversation about gun control -- than they have in any month so far this year.

About 4.7 million Americans initiated gun background checks last month -- a 36% increase from February, according to the FBI. More than 2 million of those checks were for new gun purchases, according to the National Shooting Sports Federation, the firearms industry trade group that compares FBI background check numbers with actual sales data to determine its sales figures.

The new guns purchased in March make it the second highest month on record for firearms sales, according to NSSF spokesman Mark Oliva, who said the threat of looming gun control legislation was the catalyst for last months sales surge.

NSSF data shows last month's sales were surpassed only by the estimated 2.3 million guns sold in March 2020, when the spread of Covid-19 have caused Americans to horde guns and bullets in addition to toilet paper and hand sanitizer.

"It is clear that firearm sales in March were driven by gun control calls from politicians to ban entire classes of firearms and enact onerous gun laws," Oliva told CNN Business via email Thursday afternoon.
House Democrats passed a pair of gun-control bills last month that would expand background check requirements on all gun sales and transfers. GOP senators are expected to oppose the measures, which will require support from all 50 Democrats and at least 10 Republicans in the Senate to establish the filibuster-proof majority needed to pass the bills before President Biden can sign either of them into law.

Oliva said the ongoing surge in gun purchases, which last year was fueled largely by African American and women first-time gun buyers, suggests that the demographic profile of American gun owners is changing.

This year, an ongoing surge in hate crimes against Asian Americans has also led to an increase in first-time firearms purchases among this demographic group.

"The face of today's gun owner no longer fits in the neat little box that some would like to put gun ownership into," Oliva said. "The fact is gun ownership in America looks more like the country than it ever has."

The House of Representatives passed the pair of gun control bills on March 11. Five days later eight people were killed in Atlanta, including six Asian women, in a series of shootings at spas. A week after that, 10 people, including a local police officer, were shot dead in a Boulder, Colorado grocery store. Biden urged the Senate to pass gun control legislation in the aftermath of both shootings.

There have been at least 20 mass shootings in the three weeks since the Atlanta attack.

Firearm sales fell slightly in February after a January surge, which had been fueled in part by the Capitol Hill insurrection. January and March are the only two months in which FBI gun background checks surpassed 4 million since records were first kept in 1998.

The Covid-19 pandemic, fears of civil unrest stemming from nationwide protests and riots that erupted in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd last summer all helped 2020 set the all-time record for gun purchases in a single year.

On 2021-06-17 5:21 a.m., edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Yet, republicans go on and on like the right
>> might evaporate tomorrow. It's called a
>> wedge issue, used only to rile up the
>> uninformed base, but has no basis in reality.
>
> Because the 2nd Amendment is continually under attack.
>
> Prior to the early 1980s, the NRA was strictly a hobbyist
> organization, they were forced to become politically active
> because of the ever more draconian gun control laws being
> passed at the time (despite these laws having no effect on
> crime).
>
> And everytime a Dem gets in the White House, they propose
> a whole raft of back-door (and up-front) gun bans, Biden did
> just that when he entered the race for President.
>
> https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
>
> There is no point where anti-gun fundies will ever say;
> "that's enough gun control".
>

The NRA is now mostly a mouthpiece for the firearms manufacturers.

On 2021-06-17 10:01 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 05:21:48 -0700 (PDT), "edstas...@gmail.com"
> <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> Yet, republicans go on and on like the right
>>> might evaporate tomorrow. It's called a
>>> wedge issue, used only to rile up the
>>> uninformed base, but has no basis in reality.
>>
>> Because the 2nd Amendment is continually under attack.
>>
>> Prior to the early 1980s, the NRA was strictly a hobbyist
>> organization, they were forced to become politically active
>> because of the ever more draconian gun control laws being
>> passed at the time (despite these laws having no effect on
>> crime).
>
> And now it is being investigated as a criminal organization, and gives
> off all the classic signs of an organization run for the benefit of
> the leaders.
>
> I don't like gun nuts; they are boring. But they deserve better than
> to see the NRA self-destruct.
>
>> And everytime a Dem gets in the White House, they propose
>> a whole raft of back-door (and up-front) gun bans, Biden did
>> just that when he entered the race for President.
>>
>> https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
>>
>> There is no point where anti-gun fundies will ever say;
>> "that's enough gun control".
>
> Now /that/ I agree with.
>
> Not that there aren't a few restrictions (such as on "ghost guns" and
> weapon shops that regularly supply local criminals) that might not
> reasonably be applied.
>
> But, really, 18 people can be stabbed to death and there is no major
> outcry. Three get shot and its a national disaster.

When was the last time 18 people got stabbed in a single incident?

How many mass shootings have there been this year?

On 2021-06-17 2:18 p.m., edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Paul S Person
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> Prior to the early 1980s, the NRA was strictly a hobbyist
>>> organization, they were forced to become politically active
>>> because of the ever more draconian gun control laws being passed
>>> at the time (despite these laws having no effect on crime).
>>
>> I don't like gun nuts; they are boring. But they deserve better
>> than to see the NRA self-destruct.
>
> If it wasn’t for the NRA, we’d be living under UK type anti-gun laws
> or worse (i.e. no handguns and all kinda other restrictions).

And that would be so terrible... ...why?

>
> The U.S. murder rate peaked in the early 1990s and has been going
> downhill ever since and this despite almost every state in the union
> having “shall issue” concealed carry laws on the books, as well as
> Americans buying shitloads more guns every time a Dem gets in the
> White House.
>
> https://ibb.co/g4JJB8s
>
> If guns were the problem then the murder rate would be more or less
> the same across the country, instead of being concentrated in the
> same inner cities year after year and ought to be astronomically
> higher today.

Nope. That doesn't follow.

>
> You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
>
> Just to give you an idea of how many guns were bought in just ONE
> MONTH, the entire U.S. military consists of 1.38 million personnel,
> so Americans bought 240% more guns in a _single month_ then there are
> soldiers…
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/01/business/gun-sales-march/index.html
> April 1, 2021
>
> Gun background checks soar to record in March following mass
> shootings and gun-control bills
>
> New York (CNN Business)The FBI conducted more background checks for
> firearms purchases in March -- a month in which several prominent
> mass shootings reignited America's conversation about gun control --
> than they have in any month so far this year.
>
> About 4.7 million Americans initiated gun background checks last
> month -- a 36% increase from February, according to the FBI. More
> than 2 million of those checks were for new gun purchases, according
> to the National Shooting Sports Federation, the firearms industry
> trade group that compares FBI background check numbers with actual
> sales data to determine its sales figures.
>
> The new guns purchased in March make it the second highest month on
> record for firearms sales, according to NSSF spokesman Mark Oliva,
> who said the threat of looming gun control legislation was the
> catalyst for last months sales surge.
>
> NSSF data shows last month's sales were surpassed only by the
> estimated 2.3 million guns sold in March 2020, when the spread of
> Covid-19 have caused Americans to horde guns and bullets in addition
> to toilet paper and hand sanitizer.
>
> "It is clear that firearm sales in March were driven by gun control
> calls from politicians to ban entire classes of firearms and enact
> onerous gun laws," Oliva told CNN Business via email Thursday
> afternoon. House Democrats passed a pair of gun-control bills last
> month that would expand background check requirements on all gun
> sales and transfers. GOP senators are expected to oppose the
> measures, which will require support from all 50 Democrats and at
> least 10 Republicans in the Senate to establish the filibuster-proof
> majority needed to pass the bills before President Biden can sign
> either of them into law.
>
> Oliva said the ongoing surge in gun purchases, which last year was
> fueled largely by African American and women first-time gun buyers,
> suggests that the demographic profile of American gun owners is
> changing.
>
> This year, an ongoing surge in hate crimes against Asian Americans
> has also led to an increase in first-time firearms purchases among
> this demographic group.
>
> "The face of today's gun owner no longer fits in the neat little box
> that some would like to put gun ownership into," Oliva said. "The
> fact is gun ownership in America looks more like the country than it
> ever has."
>
> The House of Representatives passed the pair of gun control bills on
> March 11. Five days later eight people were killed in Atlanta,
> including six Asian women, in a series of shootings at spas. A week
> after that, 10 people, including a local police officer, were shot
> dead in a Boulder, Colorado grocery store. Biden urged the Senate to
> pass gun control legislation in the aftermath of both shootings.
>
> There have been at least 20 mass shootings in the three weeks since
> the Atlanta attack.
>
> Firearm sales fell slightly in February after a January surge, which
> had been fueled in part by the Capitol Hill insurrection. January and
> March are the only two months in which FBI gun background checks
> surpassed 4 million since records were first kept in 1998.
>
> The Covid-19 pandemic, fears of civil unrest stemming from nationwide
> protests and riots that erupted in the wake of the police killing of
> George Floyd last summer all helped 2020 set the all-time record for
> gun purchases in a single year.
>

On 6/17/2021 12:55 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:42:17 -0400, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
>
>> The Second Amendment is written in stone and it
>> gives us the right to bear arms.
>
> It is /not/ "written in stone". Prohibition was reversed, and so could
> this one be, at least in theory.
>
> And it might be, not reversed, but amended in turn, to "clarify" it,
> if that appears to be needed.

"...shall not be infringed" isn't ambiguous in the slightest.

>
> And, of course, provided the votes can be found. Which seems unlikely,
> I'll admit.
>

--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

On 2021-06-17 2:50 p.m., Jonathan wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 12:55 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:42:17 -0400, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> The Second Amendment is written in stone and it
>>> gives us the right to bear arms.
>>
>> It is /not/ "written in stone". Prohibition was reversed, and so could
>> this one be, at least in theory.
>>
>> And it might be, not reversed, but amended in turn, to "clarify" it,
>> if that appears to be needed.
>
>
> "...shall not be infringed" isn't ambiguous in the slightest.

And neither is "amendment".

>
>
>>
>> And, of course, provided the votes can be found. Which seems unlikely,
>> I'll admit.
>>
>
>
>

On 6/17/2021 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:42:17 -0400, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
>
>> The Second Amendment is written in stone and it
>> gives us the right to bear arms.
>
> It is /not/ "written in stone". Prohibition was reversed, and so could
> this one be, at least in theory.
>
> And it might be, not reversed, but amended in turn, to "clarify" it,
> if that appears to be needed.
>
> And, of course, provided the votes can be found. Which seems unlikely,
> I'll admit.

Texas became the 21st Constitutional Carry State today.

“Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept.
1, after Gov. Greg Abbott signs permitless carry bill into law”
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-constitutional-carry-greg-abbott/

“Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept.
1, after Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed the permitless carry bill
into law.”

Texas is now the 21st Constitutional Carry State. I thought that this
would never happen.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210525/alabama-texas-beats-alabama-to-become-21st-constitutional-carry-state

Lynn

On 2021-06-17 7:32 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:42:17 -0400, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> The Second Amendment is written in stone and it
>>> gives us the right to bear arms.
>>
>> It is /not/ "written in stone". Prohibition was reversed, and so could
>> this one be, at least in theory.
>>
>> And it might be, not reversed, but amended in turn, to "clarify" it,
>> if that appears to be needed.
>>
>> And, of course, provided the votes can be found. Which seems unlikely,
>> I'll admit.
>
> Texas became the 21st Constitutional Carry State today.
>
> “Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept.
> 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott signs permitless carry bill into law”
>
> https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-constitutional-carry-greg-abbott/
>
>
> “Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept.
> 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed the permitless carry bill
> into law.”
>
> Texas is now the 21st Constitutional Carry State.  I thought that this
> would never happen.
>
> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210525/alabama-texas-beats-alabama-to-become-21st-constitutional-carry-state
>
>
> Lynn

Let the carnage commence.

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 11:01:59 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> But, really, 18 people can be stabbed to death and there is no major
> outcry. Three get shot and its a national disaster.

Guns make it a lot easier for people to kill people.

So if people are killed by the use of guns, these deaths could
perhaps have been *prevented* if the killer had not had any
access to a gun. Of course there is an outcry when people die
as a result of government negligence.

A ban on knives would create problems for law-abiding citizens;
how would they cut their food? Of course, some kinds of knives
aren't kitchen utensils, but are principally weapons, so a ban on
carrying them is possible, but the line between different kinds of
knives is more difficult to deal with.

John Savard

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:29:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-06-17 2:18 p.m., edstas...@gmail.com wrote:

> > If guns were the problem then the murder rate would be more or less
> > the same across the country, instead of being concentrated in the
> > same inner cities year after year and ought to be astronomically
> > higher today.

> Nope. That doesn't follow.

Oh, it _does_ follow. Guns aren't "the problem". If peaceful law-abiding
citizens owned guns in greater numbers, this would not greatly increase
crime using guns.

The principal cause of crime is, after all, criminals.

The case for gun control is a bit more difficult to make.

The first thing is to admit that gun control won't _immediately_
address gun crimes by, say, drug traffickers. These people might
have to start spending more money to get guns through more
illicit channels, but they will likely have guns regardless of what
is done.

Still, there was gun control legislation that might have had a
chance of working, but it was thrown out by the courts - a law
that would have allowed warrantless searches for guns.

But if guns were much less common, things like school
shootings, and other cases where people are massacred by
one lone deranged gunman wouild decrease. That's what
gun control is intended to address.

Guns don't cause criminality, but they do facilitate kililngs.
It's much harder for an unarmed person to defend against someone
yards away shooting at him than it is to possibly resist a knife-wielding
attacker.

John Savard

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 05:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:29:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-06-17 2:18 p.m., edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> > If guns were the problem then the murder rate would be more or less
>> > the same across the country, instead of being concentrated in the
>> > same inner cities year after year and ought to be astronomically
>> > higher today.
>
>> Nope. That doesn't follow.
>
>Oh, it _does_ follow. Guns aren't "the problem". If peaceful law-abiding
>citizens owned guns in greater numbers, this would not greatly increase
>crime using guns.
>
>The principal cause of crime is, after all, criminals.
>
>The case for gun control is a bit more difficult to make.
>
>The first thing is to admit that gun control won't _immediately_
>address gun crimes by, say, drug traffickers. These people might
>have to start spending more money to get guns through more
>illicit channels, but they will likely have guns regardless of what
>is done.
>
>Still, there was gun control legislation that might have had a
>chance of working, but it was thrown out by the courts - a law
>that would have allowed warrantless searches for guns.
>
>But if guns were much less common, things like school
>shootings, and other cases where people are massacred by
>one lone deranged gunman wouild decrease. That's what
>gun control is intended to address.

So your solition is a law that addresses about 1% of the problem.

>Guns don't cause criminality, but they do facilitate kililngs.
>It's much harder for an unarmed person to defend against someone
>yards away shooting at him than it is to possibly resist a knife-wielding
>attacker.
>
>John Savard

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 04:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 11:01:59 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> But, really, 18 people can be stabbed to death and there is no major
>> outcry. Three get shot and its a national disaster.
>
>Guns make it a lot easier for people to kill people.
>
>So if people are killed by the use of guns, these deaths could
>perhaps have been *prevented* if the killer had not had any
>access to a gun. Of course there is an outcry when people die
>as a result of government negligence.

Or he might have blocked the doors and thrown in a Molotov and killed
ten times as many.

>A ban on knives would create problems for law-abiding citizens;
>how would they cut their food? Of course, some kinds of knives
>aren't kitchen utensils, but are principally weapons, so a ban on
>carrying them is possible, but the line between different kinds of
>knives is more difficult to deal with.

We have a knife ban at work. I got yelled at and my manager got
yelled at just because I _asked_ if a Leatherman Micra was OK. Was
told by HR "No knives, period, for anybody". Funny thing, that
doesn't seem to apply to the people in the cafeteria or the
electricians or the art department, and I doubt that they have ever
asked. I suspect that the HR person would be horrified if she ever
opened her wife's kitchen drawers.

As for certain kind of knives being principally weapons, what exactly
makes a Fairbairn Commando Knife more or less of a "weapon" than an 8"
Henckel chef's knife?

> Alan Baker
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > If it wasn’t for the NRA, we’d be living under UK type anti-gun laws
> > or worse (i.e. no handguns and all kinda other restrictions).
>
> And that would be so terrible... ...why?

The NRA is the primary and most successful political advocacy group
protecting our 2nd Amendment right, without them we'd have been
stripped of our right to self-defense a long time ago, as is unfortunately
the case for most people on the planet.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/638369/Girl-fights-back-man-who-sexually-assaulted-her-in-Denmark-street-faces-jail
By LIZZIE STROMME
Wed, Jan 27, 2016

Girl fights back against man who 'sexually assaulted her in street' - now
SHE faces jail

A TEENAGE girl could be jailed after she allegedly fought back against
a man who tried
pulling down her trousers.

The 17-year-old was allegedly molested by a man who spoke English
before she hit him in the face with pepper spray.

But, because the use of the substance is illegal in Denmark, the teenager
could face a fine or even three months in jail if charges are pressed under
the country's weapons act.

Local police spokesman Knud Kirsten said: "It is illegal to be in possession
of and/or using a pepper spray, so she will probably [be] charged."

The girl reported her alleged attacker on Thursday and according to Danish
media the man is yet to be detained.

He allegedly pushed the girl to the ground on the street and tried pulling
down her trousers.

Police officer Svend Erik Lassen said: "He grabbed her arm and told her
in English to come with him, but she broke lose from the grip.

"He then pushed her over, and while he was laying on top of her, he tried
taking off her trousers.

Lassen added the girl "found her pepper spray" and "sprayed his face". He
added: "After this the man ran off."

Mr Lassen said that they are not investigating the newly arrived migrants
in the area.

He also refused to comment on whether or not they will consider dropping
any possible charges against the girl as the alleged action was self-defence.

Mr Lassen added: "It's up to our legal department."

Police chief Kirsten said this is a case of "illegal weapons possession, so
it's the same as walking around with a switchblade".

> > https://ibb.co/g4JJB8s
> >
> > If guns were the problem then the murder rate would be more or less the
> > same across the country, instead of being concentrated in the same inner
> > cities year after year and ought to be astronomically higher today.
>
> Nope. That doesn't follow.

Of course it does, if more guns = more crime as anti-gun fundies insist, then
there ought to be fuckloads of crime happening today, seeing as the U.S. is
awash in guns, yet the exact opposite the case.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLN-7ReXcAITGc3.jpg

> Alan Baker
> > Lynn McGuire
> >
> > Texas is now the 21st Constitutional Carry State.
>
> Let the carnage commence.

We’ve been hearing the same thing ever since Florida introduce “shall issue”
concealed carry back in 1987, yet the U.S. murder rate continues to go down
despite over 19 million Americans now carrying a concealed handgun.

https://www.readkong.com/static/a8/18/a818d7c4e7d13bac2512e5135622b310/concealed-carry-permit-holders-across-the-united-states-9639846-3.jpg

On 6/18/2021 8:16 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 04:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 11:01:59 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> But, really, 18 people can be stabbed to death and there is no major
>>> outcry. Three get shot and its a national disaster.
>> Guns make it a lot easier for people to kill people.
>>
>> So if people are killed by the use of guns, these deaths could
>> perhaps have been*prevented* if the killer had not had any
>> access to a gun. Of course there is an outcry when people die
>> as a result of government negligence.
> Or he might have blocked the doors and thrown in a Molotov and killed
> ten times as many

UpStairs Lounge attack in New Orleans in 1973. Emergency exits jammed,
entrance firebombed. 36 dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack

On 2021-06-18 7:22 a.m., Jay E. Morris wrote:
> On 6/18/2021 8:16 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 04:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 11:01:59 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>
>>>> But, really, 18 people can be stabbed to death and there is no major
>>>> outcry. Three get shot and its a national disaster.
>>> Guns make it a lot easier for people to kill people.
>>>
>>> So if people are killed by the use of guns, these deaths could
>>> perhaps have been*prevented*  if the killer had not had any
>>> access to a gun. Of course there is an outcry when people die
>>> as a result of government negligence.
>> Or he might have blocked the doors and thrown in a Molotov and killed
>> ten times as many
>
> UpStairs Lounge attack in New Orleans in 1973. Emergency exits jammed,
> entrance firebombed. 36 dead.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack

And how many have there been since 1973?

What is the total number dead?

Compare and contrast with mass shootings.

On 6/18/2021 12:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-06-17 7:32 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 6/17/2021 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:42:17 -0400, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Second Amendment is written in stone and it
>>>> gives us the right to bear arms.
>>>
>>> It is /not/ "written in stone". Prohibition was reversed, and so could
>>> this one be, at least in theory.
>>>
>>> And it might be, not reversed, but amended in turn, to "clarify" it,
>>> if that appears to be needed.
>>>
>>> And, of course, provided the votes can be found. Which seems unlikely,
>>> I'll admit.
>>
>> Texas became the 21st Constitutional Carry State today.
>>
>> “Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting
>> Sept. 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott signs permitless carry bill into law”
>>
>> https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-constitutional-carry-greg-abbott/
>>
>>
>> “Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting
>> Sept. 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed the permitless
>> carry bill into law.”
>>
>> Texas is now the 21st Constitutional Carry State.  I thought that this
>> would never happen.
>>
>> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210525/alabama-texas-beats-alabama-to-become-21st-constitutional-carry-state
>>
>>
>> Lynn
>
> Let the carnage commence.

People said that in 1995 when concealed carry passed and were shown to
be full of shit. People said that in 2016 when the open carry bill
passed and were shown to be full of shit. People said that in every
state where permitless or constitutional carry passed and were shown to
be full of shit.

Welcome to the club.

On 2021-06-18 7:27 a.m., Jay E. Morris wrote:
> On 6/18/2021 12:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-06-17 7:32 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 6/17/2021 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:42:17 -0400, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Second Amendment is written in stone and it
>>>>> gives us the right to bear arms.
>>>>
>>>> It is /not/ "written in stone". Prohibition was reversed, and so could
>>>> this one be, at least in theory.
>>>>
>>>> And it might be, not reversed, but amended in turn, to "clarify" it,
>>>> if that appears to be needed.
>>>>
>>>> And, of course, provided the votes can be found. Which seems unlikely,
>>>> I'll admit.
>>>
>>> Texas became the 21st Constitutional Carry State today.
>>>
>>> “Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting
>>> Sept. 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott signs permitless carry bill into law”
>>>
>>> https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-constitutional-carry-greg-abbott/
>>>
>>>
>>> “Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting
>>> Sept. 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed the permitless
>>> carry bill into law.”
>>>
>>> Texas is now the 21st Constitutional Carry State.  I thought that
>>> this would never happen.
>>>
>>> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210525/alabama-texas-beats-alabama-to-become-21st-constitutional-carry-state
>>>
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> Let the carnage commence.
>
> People said that in 1995 when concealed carry passed and were shown to
> be full of shit. People said that in 2016 when the open carry bill
> passed and were shown to be full of shit. People said that in every
> state where permitless or constitutional carry passed and were shown to
> be full of shit.
>
> Welcome to the club.

Ask yourself what is going to happen when there is an active shooter,
and then 6 other people take out their guns...

....and then the trigger-happy police show up.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:28:13 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:

>On 2021-06-17 10:01 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 05:21:48 -0700 (PDT), "edstas...@gmail.com"
>> <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> Yet, republicans go on and on like the right
>>>> might evaporate tomorrow. It's called a
>>>> wedge issue, used only to rile up the
>>>> uninformed base, but has no basis in reality.
>>>
>>> Because the 2nd Amendment is continually under attack.
>>>
>>> Prior to the early 1980s, the NRA was strictly a hobbyist
>>> organization, they were forced to become politically active
>>> because of the ever more draconian gun control laws being
>>> passed at the time (despite these laws having no effect on
>>> crime).
>>
>> And now it is being investigated as a criminal organization, and gives
>> off all the classic signs of an organization run for the benefit of
>> the leaders.
>>
>> I don't like gun nuts; they are boring. But they deserve better than
>> to see the NRA self-destruct.
>>
>>> And everytime a Dem gets in the White House, they propose
>>> a whole raft of back-door (and up-front) gun bans, Biden did
>>> just that when he entered the race for President.
>>>
>>> https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
>>>
>>> There is no point where anti-gun fundies will ever say;
>>> "that's enough gun control".
>>
>> Now /that/ I agree with.
>>
>> Not that there aren't a few restrictions (such as on "ghost guns" and
>> weapon shops that regularly supply local criminals) that might not
>> reasonably be applied.
>>
>> But, really, 18 people can be stabbed to death and there is no major
>> outcry. Three get shot and its a national disaster.
>
>When was the last time 18 people got stabbed in a single incident?

Who can say? Nobody cares.

>How many mass shootings have there been this year?

Since they are defined (IIRC) as "at least 3 victims and, no, it
doesn't matter if it's a domestic dispute", probably quite a few.

Just like last year and the year before that and the year before that
and ...

You might as well try to outlaw automobiles because of car crashes.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."