Author Topic: MyDavis (Read 1876 times)

Flit · « **Reply #90 on:** January 20, 2006, 07:52:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
I was waiting for you to come up with one of your hair-splitting retorts. But this won't do. mydavis categorically stated that "every single one" of the constitutional amendments had constrained the federal govt. Wonder how long it will be before the same fate befalls the second amendment!

This will never happen in the US.
If you think it will, well, fine, but I can assure you it will never happen;)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #91 on:** January 20, 2006, 10:12:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
No, I said I was waiting for a hair splitting retort - but none was forthcoming.

So I gather that since my retort passed muster as "Beet1e certified non-hair splitting", that you admit your error in choosing an amendment that has no standing in constitutional law due to its repeal.

Or is your reply noting that you were "waiting" another hair split...

use your expertise and be the judge.

Nashwan · « **Reply #92 on:** January 21, 2006, 01:03:27 AM »

Quote

and wait a minute, you actually believe that England a country of 52+ million people had only 68 gun murders last year. a rate slightly higher than 1 in 1,000,000. This would be the lowest rate ever By FAR, in the known world.

That's part of the conspiracy, is it? The press aren't reporting most of the gun murders, and the police aren't counting them?

And it's hardly the lowest rate in the world. Japan has about twice Britain's population, about half as many firearms murders a year.

Quote

That would be incredible. The rest of the known world has a rate measured in % of 100,000 normally between 5 - 9% but by your count England has a rate of gun murder of 1% per 1,000,000.
That is Awesome !!

Yes, it is pretty good.

Take for example the shooting of policemen. There have been 3 fatal shootings of police officers in Britain in the last decade. There are about 50 a year in the US. That's the advantage in making guns hard to get.

Quote

interestingly enough the incarceration rate in england is comparable every other industrialized nation, England just like the US , has problems with prison costs and overcrowding. but with the rate of crime as low as you say,
I wonder who is in englands prisons.
Oh England must be locking up criminals from the rest of the world, since it has almost no criminals of its own.

Oh, we've got plenty of criminals of our own. It's just that lacking access to firearms, they are a bit less dangerous. About 12% of the people in prison in the UK are foreign citizens.

beet1e · « **Reply #93 on:** January 21, 2006, 04:33:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So I gather that since my retort passed muster as "Beet1e certified non-hair splitting", that you admit your error in choosing an amendment that has no standing in constitutional law due to its repeal.

Or is your reply noting that you were "waiting" another hair split...

use your expertise and be the judge.

Well, even mydavis himself conceded his mistake, but still you beat this horse. OK let's forget about the 18th Amendment. Let's turn instead to the 21st Amendment. That's the one that states

Quote

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

And since alcohol is freely available in the US, I take it that the 21st Amendment has not been repealed. So please tell me, in what way does the 21st Amendment constrain the federal govt.?

Nashwan · « **Reply #94 on:** January 21, 2006, 05:09:24 AM »

What about the sixteenth amendment? Can't see how that "constrains the government".

lazs2 · « **Reply #95 on:** January 21, 2006, 10:15:56 AM »

what nashwan fails to understand or, ignores is that sociological differences and geographical ones all come into play.

I don't know if england reports their homicides accurately or not... let's say they do.

That being the case... then getting rid of guns has not changed anything. (except to increase overall crime) in 1920 when there were little or no restrictions and all the way up into the late 20th when the most deadly firearm around (the shotgun) was sold over the counter to anyone with no restrictions.... the homicide rate was the same.

that is england. in the U.S. we had less homicide in the "wild west" and had a huge upsurge when the feds started getting involved in vice (prohibiton) 1968 gun control acts made for an upsurge in crime and homicide here all the way up to about 10/100k since then we have had most all states affirm the right to carry law. the rate has been going down ever since.... amoung whites in America it is about the same as canada say and not much more than lilly white england.

lilly white socialist england keeps its subjects under a tight yoke. But now... minorities are starting to be a factor (can't keep em out forever) and as england decays... crime increases... soon there will be an increase in not only other violent crimes but homicide as well..

Americans understand that in a vibrant country crime is fluid... and that guns don't cause ir but can, on a personal level, give some protection against it.

england is in for a big shock. it's citizens have no options. more and more of it's police are being armed... more and more guns are entering the country every day.

no criminal in england can not get a firearm... there are plenty to go around... they just aren't.... right now.

American understand all this. we have lived with lots of firearms and without em. We don't want our whole country to be D.C. We see that diarming the citizens does no good.

nashwan acts like the low rate of cops being killed is because there are no guns ... that the criminals can't get em so.... everyone is safe... this is not only stupid and laughable but harmful thinking.

Does he think that a shotgun couldn't have killed a cop? that his criminals don't shoot cops because... because they can't get a gun? I know you are smarter than that..

I could get a gun in england within a week of getting off the plane. does that make you feel safe? does hiding under the bed while thugs ransack your home make you feel safe? Maybe more armed police and government forces would make you feel safe?

What gun laws anywere in the world have decreased the homicide or crime or accident rate?

lazs

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #96 on:** January 21, 2006, 01:50:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
So please tell me, in what way does the 21st Amendment constrain the federal govt.?

You resurrected the horse by bringing up an amendment that does not have any legal standing.

As for the 21st, it seems pretty clear to me that the government cannot enforce any law based upon the 18th as the 21st rendered any law based on the 18th as obsolete. That is a fairly clear limitation on government.

beet1e · « **Reply #97 on:** January 21, 2006, 05:25:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You resurrected the horse by bringing up an amendment that does not have any legal standing.

As for the 21st, it seems pretty clear to me that the government cannot enforce any law based upon the 18th as the 21st rendered any law based on the 18th as obsolete. That is a fairly clear limitation on government.

So the 21st Amendment did not constrain the federal govt., and has not been repealed.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #98 on:** January 21, 2006, 07:58:53 PM »

I guess you did not read my answer to your previous post.

By limiting the governments ability to enforce any law based on the 18th, the 21st does indeed constrain the government.

The argument you are looking for is within this thread, and it is not related to prohibition or it's repeal.

Rolex · « **Reply #99 on:** January 21, 2006, 11:36:44 PM »

Another Murders per capita source >>

beet1e · « **Reply #100 on:** January 22, 2006, 06:37:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
By limiting the governments ability to enforce any law based on the 18th, the 21st does indeed constrain the government.

No. You can't on the one hand argue that the 18th Amendment cannot be used as an example of an amendment NOT constraining the federal govt. if you then go on to add that repealing it DID constrain the federal government, as one amendment merely cancelled out another, and restored the status quo. An interesting point though - rather like saying that the abolition of the 55mph fuel saving speed limit of the 1970s constrained the powers of the various highway law enforcement services.

lazs2 · « **Reply #101 on:** January 22, 2006, 10:14:14 AM »

no... but it would prove that both were bad ideas based on the government haveing too much power and...... In my mind...

give proof that the original bill of rights was the way to go.

lazs

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #102 on:** January 22, 2006, 02:00:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
No. You can't on the one hand argue that the 18th Amendment cannot be used as an example of an amendment NOT constraining the federal govt. if you then go on to add that repealing it DID constrain the federal government, as one amendment merely cancelled out another, and restored the status quo. An interesting point though - rather like saying that the abolition of the 55mph fuel saving speed limit of the 1970s constrained the powers of the various highway law enforcement services.

As the 18th is no longer law and the 21st is law it seems fairly clear that one is in effect and the other is not.

As I do not get a ticket for driving 58 mph on the open highway and by that fact the various municipalities cannot fill their coffers with fines, your 55 mph example is on the money.

beet1e · « **Reply #103 on:** February 04, 2006, 06:15:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I guess you did not read my answer to your previous post.

By limiting the governments ability to enforce any law based on the 18th, the 21st does indeed constrain the government.

No, because according to the experts, most crime is alcohol related. The 21st allows the free supply of alcohol. Therefore, people can get more drunk, commit more crimes, and the government then has more power over these criminals when they are imprisoned for their alcohol induced wrongdoings.