- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 24,388
- Reaction score
- 21,095
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I knew that about you and could have written your post for you.
And?
You’ve never told us where your news comes from. How about it!
I knew that about you and could have written your post for you.
Originally you asserted that 'states that didn’t mandate them [masks] ha[d] no more deaths per capita' than states that did, without any citation. The reality is that masked did help. But don't listen to me. Listen to the Mayo Clinic.That is just 3 states and California is far more spread out than Florida plus Florida has many more elderly people because they are a retirement state.
All claims. If masks worked the states that mandated should have had dramatically less deaths but they do not in spite of your cherry picking.Originally you asserted that 'states that didn’t mandate them [masks] ha[d] no more deaths per capita' than states that did, without any citation. The reality is that masked did help. But don't listen to me. Listen to the Mayo Clinic.
Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.
Sigh. You made the initial assertion, which is false and unsupported.Then prove me wrong. You can't. Crime using the banned weapons fell during the decade they were banned.
Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of nonbanned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.
Show your work.All claims. If masks worked the states that mandated should have had dramatically less deaths but they do not in spite of your cherry picking.
I showed it many times months ago.Show your work.
His statement doesn't say what you claimed it does. His statement was his own opinion.I provided you with direct access to his statement. You not wanting to read is your problem.
So if all of those things are available in other weapons, a ban on that style (which reduced crime with that style of weapon during the decade it was banned) shouldn't be an issue.
I doubt it.I showed it many times months ago.
Oh I did and I am on my cell phone now and just found a site that shows masks increase infections and deaths. I don’t know how to link it from a cell phone.I doubt it.
I was thinking about what he wroteWhich Walmart shooter and based on what?
I was thinking about what he wrote
Walmart shooter left 'death note,' bought gun day of killing - WBBJ TV
CHESAPEAKE, Va. (AP) — The Walmart supervisor who shot and killed six co-workers in Virginia left behind what he called a “death note” in which he blames others for mocking him, and police said Friday that he bought the gun the day of the shooting. Flowers and balloons have been placed near the...www.wbbjtv.com
No, and I don't mean to come across as argumentative. Those around him noticed him being mean spirited and I don't doubt for a minute that he worried at least some. Calling attention to someone like that can't be easy, least of all because we don't expect something like that to happen near us.Did you expect that a (suicide?) note placed on his phone the day of the shooting was going to be found and flagged?
BTW, he wasn’t a gun owner until the day of his murders and suicide.
No, and I don't mean to come across as argumentative. Those around him noticed him being mean spirited and I don't doubt for a minute that he worried at least some. Calling attention to someone like that can't be easy, least of all because we don't expect something like that to happen near us.
The following isn't quite as eventful and the investigation hasn't completed but it shows that it can happen near you.
Police respond to shooting at north Jackson Walmart - WBBJ TV
JACKSON, Tennessee -- We spoke to a Jackson Police Department Lieutenant on the scene who confirmed there was a shooting at the store.www.wbbjtv.com
Perhaps we could make it easier to hear someone crying for help?It shouldn’t be “easy” to get someone’s 2A rights removed.
All claims. If masks worked the states that mandated should have had dramatically less deaths but they do not in spite of your cherry picking.
Is this some sort of word jumble?Yes, living in fear of something nobody i actually proposing must be tough.
Nobody talks more about ”gun grabbers” than gun nuts. They need to fear of imaginary “gun grabbers” to feed their fear and paranoia.
Machine guns are fully automatic weapons, and pretty much banned already.Home defense? So the random shot that tears through the wall of your kids bedroom is appropriate.
Removing a weapon is not disarming the populace, how's your machine gun working?
Strange because it has happened in this very thread and all you wanted to do was complain about trump.Then you haven't looked. I consistently support the 2nd, regardless of party...as I view and it's interpretation as a single voter.
Not "only" when Trump does it, but when he does it, and his supporters ignore it, then I call out the hypocrisy.
The structure of text of the 2nd Amendment is what is known an "absolute construction". An absolute construction is a secondary clause in a sentence that modifies the whole meaning of the main clause. This is a type of grammar originating from Latin. The absolute construction can form the first or last part of a sentence. Such clauses are not linked grammatically to the main clause, but are linked thematically. In Latin, in which many of the writers of the Constitution, particularly Virginians such as Jefferson were very well versed, an absolute construction is known as an"ablative absolute". In Latin, the ablative absolute explains the reason for the independent clause that follows in the sentence. The two parts form one single thought. So it's telling us the reason why the founding fathers felt it was necessary to state the stricture; “... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So the more expected or modern language of of that clause might read as; “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People who advocate an “originalist” approach to the Constitution need to understand the precise meaning of the words and grammar the writers of that document used in the 18th century. The two parts of the sentence cannot be separated, as they all too often are.That’s where “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is stated. The better question is: why not focus on that?
The structure of text of the 2nd Amendment is what is known an "absolute construction". An absolute construction is a secondary clause in a sentence that modifies the whole meaning of the main clause. This is a type of grammar originating from Latin. The absolute construction can form the first or last part of a sentence. Such clauses are not linked grammatically to the main clause, but are linked thematically. In Latin, in which many of the writers of the Constitution, particularly Virginians such as Jefferson were very well versed, an absolute construction is known as an"ablative absolute". In Latin, the ablative absolute explains the reason for the independent clause that follows in the sentence. The two parts form one single thought. So it's telling us the reason why the founding fathers felt it was necessary to state the stricture; “... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So the more expected or modern language of of that clause might read as; “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People who advocate an “originalist” approach to the Constitution need to understand the precise meaning of the words and grammar the writers of that document used in the 18th century. The two parts of the sentence cannot be separated, as they all too often are.
Yes it does if your going to claim that it represented an individual right rather than a collective right.That doesn't change who is in possession of the right.
Yes it does if your going to claim that it represented an individual right rather than a collective right.
The structure of text of the 2nd Amendment is what is known an "absolute construction". An absolute construction is a secondary clause in a sentence that modifies the whole meaning of the main clause. This is a type of grammar originating from Latin. The absolute construction can form the first or last part of a sentence. Such clauses are not linked grammatically to the main clause, but are linked thematically. In Latin, in which many of the writers of the Constitution, particularly Virginians such as Jefferson were very well versed, an absolute construction is known as an"ablative absolute". In Latin, the ablative absolute explains the reason for the independent clause that follows in the sentence. The two parts form one single thought. So it's telling us the reason why the founding fathers felt it was necessary to state the stricture; “... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So the more expected or modern language of of that clause might read as; “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People who advocate an “originalist” approach to the Constitution need to understand the precise meaning of the words and grammar the writers of that document used in the 18th century. The two parts of the sentence cannot be separated, as they all too often are.
Funny how the people who actually helped with the writing of constitution disagree with you.Yes it does if your going to claim that it represented an individual right rather than a collective right.