🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@justaboutnormal

> Constitutional scholars have debated the intent of these words for years.

Not any constitutional scholars who deserve to be called that... The founding fathers explicitly explained what they meant, and the courts of the time have made more than enough rulings to make clear exactly what the initial interpretation was.

> Regardless we have a major problem in the US that other countries with stricter gun laws do not have. That is incontrovertible.

Nah there are tons of ways you could phrase that, you are assuming a cause-effect relationship when the data suggests there either is none, or it is the inverse of what you apply.

For example you could also have said:

"Regardless we have a major problem in the US that other countries with better access to mental health do not have. That is incontrovertible."

Replace "access to mental health" with "access to welfare", "less medical debt" or a thousand other correlations you could cherry pick that all have the potential to be the true root cause.. Most of the data strongly implies that it most certainly is not the guns.

> We must amend the second amendment.

I agree, but I would reword it to take out the "well regulated militia" example (as it seems to confuse anti-gun people) and very clearly state no class or type of gun shall be banned... though I'm sure thats the opposite direction you wanted to go.

But hey as long as your trying to do it through the proper legal route of changing an amendment I will give you credit there.

@thatguyoverthere

Id say even extremely violent people should have a path to get their rights back, the key shoukd be recovery and eventually entering society again... that said they may have to jump through a lot of hoops to get there since thry woukd have to show quite clearly they have been reabilitated.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@thatguyoverthere

Yup in fact criminals already have big barriers (and i think its ok to make access to criminal records easier).

So by its very nature one would expect good guys with guns to far outweight bad guys with guns from the start. Which implies most of the protection from guns is going to be against unarmed people.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@pj

If you want criteria on who can or cant own a gun get support for a new amendment. At the moment it clearly states "shall lot be infringed".

It has been shown in no uncertain terms that the 2A intended to include all people. You want to change it thats fine go through the propernlegal channels.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

guns arent to protect yourself from a bad person with guns... not sure why you keep repeating something that everyone has told you isnt the case or what is being argued...

We have access to guns to protect you from bad people with knives, or fists, or a penis and muscles they intend to use to force you into submission and rape you... Guns are the great equalizer and to use them against other guns is not remotely the point, yet somehow anti-gun people keep repeating the same nonsense like a broken record to disagree with an argument no one ever said.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@hasmis This is a perfect example of how uneducated you are on the topic... wow...

A HDD is a measure of the amount of energy it would take to keep a space warm... Lower HDD represents **hotter** weather..

Literally what you posted is proof of global warming, but because you completely misunderstood the graph you thought you were cherry picking something that debunked global warming... funny that.

It is so bizarre to see someone actively cherry pick to support an absurd scientific conclusion and even when they realize they were reading the chart upside down and proves they were wrong you will, I am certain, continue to try to justify your nonsense.

@thatguyoverthere

Yea its an invalid argument in so many ways.. for one its just not relevant, and for another the founding fathers were rather explicit the constitution intended "we the people" to mean everyone.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@thatguyoverthere

We dont need a definition for people, we all know what a person is and the founding fathers made it very clear they intended that word to include all people.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@pj

QOTO is a place for **respectful** debate... lets not do that please.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @lmrocha @mike805

No one aside from a few rich people with a handful of antiques, owns any automatic weapons... they are virtually non-existant and contribute to effectively 0 crimes due to their rarity and being illegal to produce new ones or sell new ones made after the 70s.

@pj

It was not narrow, at least not in the constitution. the founding fathers made rather clear, at least many of them, that they wanted many to have equal rights but sadly the states in many cases, and people, just werent ready for it. So it had to be explicitly added as an amendment.

The quotes from the founding fathers during and after the writing of the constitution was quite clear that their definition of People was in fact extraordinarily broad for the time period and very much they wanted to include blacks in that definition (and likely other minorities).

Some quotes:

“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” – George Washington, 1786

"Article the Sixth. There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude in the said territory" -- James Madison, at the constitutional convention address prohibition against slavery as an article.

“We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” – James Madison (also at the constitutional convention)

“Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country." -- George Mason

“The omitting the Word [slave] will be regarded as an Endeavor to conceal a principle of which we are ashamed.” – John Dickinson, draft of notes for a speech at the Constitutional Convention

“Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in…abhorrence.” – John Adams, 1819

@lmrocha @thatguyoverthere @mike805

@lmrocha

I woukd argue licenses and insurance shouldnt be allowed in their current form either... but arguing one thing is valid simply because some other thing exists is pretty weak argument IMO

@thatguyoverthere @mike805

@lmrocha

I explained in a great deal of detail exactly why its invalid (unlike with granger causality it is very hard to rule out or normalize for confounding properties).. randomized fail when you are trying to decipher large graphical models betause you dont have independent propabilities dominating the graph. We use granger causality for this sort of stuff for very good reason.

@icedquinn @mike805

@lmrocha

Didnt you read the part i repeated like 10 times now where i pointed out you must comparr the effects on gun laws using causality tests like granger causality?

You said you understood statistics but if you keep getting this really basic point confused i dont think you have enough expiernce (or maybe are too biased) to really analyze the situation. That said id be willing to help, can you tell me how you would repjrase the question to say the same thing using valid ststistical analysis using granger causality? If you are confused id be happy to help explain it but im not sure yojr trying to learn here, maybe im misreading you though, i do want to give you the benefit of the doubt this is a good faith discussion.

@mike805

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

Surr thry do, thry explicitly state the right shall not be infringed. Pretty clear that means all people.

@lmrocha

It also isnt a mstter of fact. You have some guns explicitly engineered for sport and in competitions and is not designed to kill as a primary purpose.

@mike805