Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
But Title X USC does not refer to to either as "well regulated". If the intent of said code was to discriminate between the two for the purpose of defining the 2nd Amendment, would it not be reasonable to assume they would have used the language in the [amendment].
|
Well look at when they're written. The USC isn't 225 years old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
Unfortunately the opposite is also true. Equally unfortunate is that your professor most likely has strong opinions on the issue that may be swaying his [judgment] (assuming that you asked him about the language in the second [amendment], and not just the archaic definition of regulated). I have heard several different explanations from several different professors, each subtly (and not so subtly) influenced by [their] [views] on guns.
|
I asked him first about the word by itself, then about the word in context. He had the same answer for both. I'm aware that some people would skew their translation based on their personal beliefs, just as I feel many pro-gun people sway the meaning to their benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
Criminals seem to be doing just fine without any training at all right now...
|
I'd say that not only do many criminals train, but many of them see repeated action. That's the best training of all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
Perhaps you would at least agree that gun safety classes should be mandatory in our schools?
|
I agree that anyone who chooses to have a gun should absolutely be trained to the point where they are safe with that gun. I don't want my daughter to take a gun class (unless she chooses to do so).
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
The right to free press is an individual right, part and parcel with the freedom of speech.
|
But it's the same basic concept. The press is based in organizations. The freedom is for the individual, but it applies to the individuals of an organization, just as I was explaining about the militia. I see the two as similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
It does not arm everybody, it just allows them to be armed.
|
I understand that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
Remember: the dangerous sociopath will arm himself regardless of laws against it.
|
Would you care to elaborate on this being an absolute? I agree that sociopaths COULD get guns despite a ban, but you act as if they can make them magically appear. They would have to redouble their efforts in order to attain guns in a place where they are almost not available. It would be considerably more difficult, case in point: the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
The dangerous gunfights breaking out everywhere are [farcical], were it true then we would expect far more shootings in right to carry states than in rights restricted states, which is not the case.
|
We don't because not as many people carry as one would believe, and of them, almost none of them are ever in a situation where they need it. I hope you get my meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
You missed my point. IF you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns in the US [disappear], and decided to disarm your law-enforcement personnel as well, what would happen if a criminal got his hands on a firearm? How would you stop him? The Army?
|
Non-lethal weapons are very effective. Have you ever seen tear gas in action? Have you ever been shot with a bean bag? Have you been maced? Tased? These are not toys. They are powerful weapons that just happen to be difficult to actually kill with.