OT: *Bang* you are dead

Could you explain how this relates to electronic design?

Dan

Some of the regulars here are a trifle confused as to what might constitute a "well-regulated militia". Nowhere near enough of them have died "while cleaning their fire-arms", but we can hope.

Sounds plausable everyone saw more stringent restrictions on gun purchases coming...

let me get this off-topic bullshit straight...

Are you are claiming that 20 years ago the gun laws were tougher than they are now?

On 9/21/2013 5:03 AM, Robert Baer wrote: One month

The last time I had heard that I also heard that whoever was writing couldn't find any evidence that it was real.

Bill

Robert, go to >rec.boats< there's a need for a counter to the liberal anti gun rhetoric there. Don't expect to see anything boat related. Mikek

--- As is your bent, you snip what you can't refute and pretend it's insignificant.

Here's the unsnipped salient part of the post:

"Some people say we shouldn't be allowed to carry guns because more people will get shot and more crime will take place. Every time there's a mass shooting, politicians come out in favor of more stringent gun laws and regulations. One month after the Sandy Hook shooting; President Obama signed 23 executive orders related to firearms and proposed 12 Congressional actions.

But the exact opposite has been true for decades. There are over eight million concealed-carry permit holders in the U.S. today. That's an all-time high. And the homicide rate is the lowest it's been in four decades, less than half what it was 20 years ago, according to an Atlantic magazine article last December."

---

--- Hoping for an opponent's accidental death is the coward's way.

The point of the earlier part of this thread has nothing to with a "well-regulated militia", but rather with the fact that the homicide rate in the US seems to be inversely proportional to the number of firearms possessed by its citizens.

That may be counter-intuitive to you and your ilk, what with your abrogation of personal responsibility fueled by your cradle-to-grave dependence on government tit.

The second amendment to the Constitution states:

"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."

Your interpretation is that since we have no well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be rescinded.

However, since our armed forces constitute the well-regulated militia which sees to the security of our free State, they also see to it that the right of the people to keep and bear arms - for the people's personal security - shall not be infringed.

Also - out of either convenience or ignorance - you seem to have neglected to consider the tenth amendment, which reads:

"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."

Consequently, since ownership of firearms isn't expressly forbidden by the constitution and, in fact, is tacitly approved of by the second amendment, the final word on gun control lies within the jurisdiction of the various States, the constitutionality of which rests on the decisions of the Justices of the US Supreme Court.

-- JF

Yep. The decline in homicide rate is clearly due to global warming

...Jim Thompson

Blah, B-Blah, B-Blah, Bla Apples Blah, B-Blah, B-Blah, Bla Oranges

It must be real, I read it on the internet.

;-)

Slowman is your typical leftist/liberal. Strutting around all the time claiming his opinion is the only correct opinion, trying to force his opinions and controls on the rest of us... in other words, being a perfect asshole all the time.

So is it any wonder that these people are for gun control?

They're for gun control because they realize their BS socialist systems are crumbling... when the end comes and it's every man for himself, these leftists/liberals are going to be the targets >:-}

Bring it on.

(I claim Slowman first :-) ...Jim Thompson

Nope! Unfortunately, since there is no data concerning a tough law rating VS guns-in-hand, no hypothesis can be made on that account. Only "points of interest" on guns-in-hand VS crime rate AND only in the interest of law stupidity.

Interesting..if executive orders and Congressional actions are not real, then the TSA is not real...

..does that mean all of that rhetoric is in dry dock?

I didn't - dca did. I just marked the snip.

Why bother reposting it, when it's avaiable at the top of the htread?

The usual observation is that the US murder rate is higher than that of mos t other advanced industrialised countries, and the difference is essentiall y the gun murder rate.

Nobody says much about crime - it doesn't seem to correlate strongly with g un ownership. US states with low crime rates do seem to be more relaxed abo ut gun ownership, but it isn't obvious if this is cause or effect.

The exact opposite of what? This isn't coherent argument.

It's still higher than the homicide rate in pretty much every other advance d industrial country, and it's the gun homicide rate that makes the differe nce.

ute a "well-regulated militia". Nowhere near enough of them have died "whil e cleaning their fire-arms", but we can hope.

"Died while cleaning their fire-arm" is the usual euphemism for gun suicid e, which is the biggest risk of gun-ownership - the person most likely to b e killed by a gun is the person who owns it, almost always at their own han d.

Such deaths aren't actually accidental, though the fatal impulse is usually transient and irrational.

Within the US. States that suffer from a lot of gun deaths have more restri ctive fire-arms possession laws. The laws don't stop people from owning gun s, because they buy them in less restrictive states, and the illegally held guns don't show up in teh gun possession figures.

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that you have to be crazy to keep a gun in your house, because if you go nuts, you run the risk of k illing somebody with it - usually yourself, but some crazies kill other peo ple first.

People who aren't members of well-regulated militias don't get much benefit from being able to bear arms. Even the Swiss, who did organise pretty much everybody into a well-regulated militia, have given up on the idea.

Since what they are guaranteeing is the right of armed citizens to kill the mselves - and sometimes innocent by-standers - when they go nuts, it's prob ably not the cleverest idea you've come up with.

You all dream of shooting a burglar or some other kind of home invader, and the NRA publicises those rare occasions when it happens, but these deaths are a negligible proportion of the deaths that home-owned guns inflict.

The US Constitution was a Moderate Enlightenment document when it was writt en, designed to let the people who owned the country run the country. They did a relatively good job of it back in 1776, but other people have written better constitutions since then, and found better ways of running countrie s.

It's well overdue for revision and correction. Your scholars had a big hand in writing the 1948 German constitution, which does work rather better, an d may go some way to explain why Germany has a Gini index of 0.283, while y ours is 0.45 (worse than Russia at 0.401, if better than China at 0.47).

ute a "well-regulated militia". Nowhere near enough of them have died "whil e cleaning their fire-arms", but we can hope.

As opposed to Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson, who knows that every last opinion that he ventilates here is absolutely right.

Since it seems to be the US system that is crumbling, as the 99% of the pop ulation realise that the last thirty years of US economic growth has gone s traight into the pockets of the top 1%, Jim's as out of touch with reality as ever. The US would do better with a bit more socialism, but they are too silly to realise it.

I try to stay out of war zones. If Jim wants to start shooting people, he c ould always go to Syria - I'm sure that there's a Christian minority there who would welcome anybody who'd brought his own gun and was prepared to sho ot at their perceived enemies. Jim wouldn't last long, but his gun might be useful.

John F, If you enclose your links in , you don't lose continuity due to parentheses or spaces...

That's a good link. Proving you can correlate ANY variable with another variable if you try hard enough.

Like, I'm sure I can "prove" global warming is due entirely to the number of farts emitted by Slowman >:-} ...Jim Thompson