Where have I suggested that would be ok, what you are implying however is that without state interference no one would approach the market. I disagree in a true free market there is no sector of the population left out its bad for business. Perhaps the loans and cost would be different but that's because of the increased risk.


My point was I'm for private property rights even when it doesn't benefit me or even when the discrimination offends me. You where making the accusation I only defended them because I'm a young white Christian male who doesn't face discrimination.

Someone needs his privilege checked.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Nope, lack of agreement.

You lack of both is both apalling and insightful.

---

Historically, yes

"Traditional property rights"?

---

You lack of both is both apalling and insightful.

 

There is no insight to me, you get what you get. People who own things shouldn't have the people who don't own them tell them how they must use them. End of story. I know that's difficult for people who can't have what they want, but, if they don't like it they should take their business somewhere else. Whether it's cakes, pies, photography, mortgages, movie theaters, car dealerships or anything else, both sides should willingly agree to the transaction, not have one side coerced because of the hysterics of the other.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Taken literally, the 2nd amendment says the federal government cannot infringe (interfere) with the right to bear (carry) arms. Any arms. The militia clause states a fact, it is not a rule, and there is no modifier that states the right to bear arms is dependent on having or needing a militia. If that were true 'Because' or 'As long as' would precede the rest of the text.


 

The 14th amendment extended the prohibition to state and local governments.

United States vs. Miller states otherwise:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

 

However, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court says "you can have a gun".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o..._v._Heller

 

These cases and the original wording of the Second Amendment are the basis for my prior statement.

---

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

 

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

 


(B)The classes of the militia are—

 

<div>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
 
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
</div>

---

Wants to join the "cereal box" dating service. I've dated enough flakes and nuts...all I want is the prize now.

 

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

 

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

 

<div>
(B)The classes of the militia are—

 

<div>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
 
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
</div>
 

</div>

So I was a member of the US militia until my last birthday?

 

Cool!

 

Where's my benefits?

---

Gun deaths? Are you once again implying that other deaths aren't as important? What point is lowering gun deaths when people will just find other ways to kill? It didn't take a gun to kill and maim people in Boston. It didn't take a gun in Oklahoma City. It didn't take a gun in Austin.


<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25334106/sxsw-car-drives-into-festival-crowd-2-fatalities'>http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25334106/sxsw-car-drives-into-festival-crowd-2-fatalities</a>

This was a shooting right? When did I say other deaths aren't as important? Guns can cause more damage in less time than knives, swords or whatever other object you are referring to. Apples and oranges to compare the two.

---

This was a shooting right? When did I say other deaths aren't as important? Guns can cause more damage in less time than knives, swords or whatever other object you are referring to. Apples and oranges to compare the two.

 

Not to mention bomb making is already illegal.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

United States vs. Miller states otherwise:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

 

However, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court says "you can have a gun".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o..._v._Heller

 

These cases and the original wording of the Second Amendment are the basis for my prior statement.

 

The actual text, rather than what some partisan judges say, is the basis for mine.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Not to mention bomb making is already illegal.  

 

Yeah, and how did that work out in Oklahoma City and Boston?


 

Laws can only prevent honest people from possessing things.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

This was a shooting right? When did I say other deaths aren't as important? Guns can cause more damage in less time than knives, swords or whatever other object you are referring to. Apples and oranges to compare the two.

 

You specified "gun deaths" rather than all deaths.


 

And a bomb can cause more damage in less time than a gun. So can a car driven into a crowd.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Yeah, and how did that work out in Oklahoma City and Boston?


 

Laws can only prevent honest people from possessing things.

 

So the only thing that would stop a bad guy with a bomb, is a good guy with a bomb?


Besides, bombings aren't nearly as frequent as shootings, now are they?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You specified "gun deaths" rather than all deaths.


 

And a bomb can cause more damage in less time than a gun. So can a car driven into a crowd.

 

Yes, because this was about a guy shooting people in a theater.  We can have a separate thread about knives and bombs if you like.

 

No one believes stricter gun laws will eliminate shootings.  What many do believe is it can reduce the numbers of these events occurring.  Just like it has been reduced in Australia.  Or just like other countries who have stricter gun laws have less gun related deaths.  

---

Yeah, and how did that work out in Oklahoma City and Boston?


 

Laws can only prevent honest people from possessing things.

 

It didn't.  But we also don't have a lot of bombings so....  Maybe, just maybe those laws help reduce the number of bombings?  Naw, that's crazy talk.

---

The actual text, rather than what some partisan judges say, is the basis for mine.

But not for laws and the interpenetration there of. 

---

But not for laws and the interpenetration there of. 

 

If the text of a law is not taken literally then it's subject to the whims of the people applying it.


 

Which, admittedly, is what we have now.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

If the text of a law is not taken literally then it's subject to the whims of the people applying it.


 

Which, admittedly, is what we have now.

The purpose of the supreme court is to interpret law and the constitution. That is what they have done. 

---

If the text of a law is not taken literally then it's subject to the whims of the people applying it.


Which, admittedly, is what we have now.

So we may as well get an English teacher to administer laws as words are more important than intentions...


Crikey, must be awful to only see in black and white. Or maybe it makes life simple?

---

So we may as well get an English teacher to administer laws as words are more important than intentions...


Crikey, must be awful to only see in black and white. Or maybe it makes life simple?

It's far more complex when the words don't matter.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato