People have too many rights

[tourrider]

Bill Clinton agreed with the oppression of the people.


"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" -- Bill Clinton 1993 on MTV

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans" -- Bill Clinton in 1993 from USA Today

You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." -- Bill Clinton in 1993, Philadeplphia

[TRB]

Originally Posted by RandomTask

I would have said, "Very true. If you didn't have the right to free spreech, I wouldn't have to listen to the shit coming out of your mouth...beeee-otch."

As satisfying as that may have been in the short run it was neither the proper forum for such a reply nor would it contribute to the winning of a heart and mind. Sometimes it is better to retreat and flank rather than meet an attack head on. This is especially true when there is more at stake (in this case, the feelings of the deceased's immediate family) than simply a new convert.

[TRB]

Originally Posted by PhilA

Yeah, but its a twelve year old study. On a site that appears to have been designed by a twelve year old, twelve years ago.

More current studies would carry a lot more weight. It would also appear more credible if the numbers matched: In one instance, it says "Criminal Attacks Stopped By Guns This Year: 1690504" while farther down the same page it says "Criminal Attacks Stopped By Guns This Year: 3139515."

If I'm a disbeliever and someone sent me to this site to prove a point, they'd only succeed in jading me even more.

This is not singling any one person out.

It does not matter who has the best facts. It does not matter if the facts are a year old or a hundred years old. Quoting facts and figures rarely does any good. If it did, anyone who has contributed money to The Brady Campaign would immediately demand a refund after one visit the the NRA website. There are enough figures, charts, graphs, and pictures to drown anyone in a sea of facts. So why does it not work?

Obviously we are in an emotional debate every time we meet with someone who does not understand the importance of the Second Amendment. And that is the whole problem in a nutshell. The argument is an emotional one. This is not my original idea. I read it somewhere in the last week. May have even been here. It outlines why it is such a problem for people to understand why.

There is the objective and the subjective. If someone says, "The truck is blue" that is an objective statement. If they say, "Blue is pretty" that is a subjective statement. When dealing with the objective, facts and figures, research, and relevant opinion can be used to discuss and debate with another who is objective. When something is subjective, facts have absolutely no meaning. It is all emotion. In other words, the debate boils down to blue is pretty vs. blue is ugly. No one is right.

The problem is when someone takes a subjective idea and files it away in their brain as objective. For instance, "Guns are bad". Once that happens, there is no way to objectively discuss the subject. (My dearly departed mother-in-law, sweet soul that she was often said, "I've already made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts.") Offering data is meaningless because they have already accepted the subjective as fact. The new data runs counter to the base belief and therefore must be wrong.

One way to get around this is to discuss the differences between objectivity and subjectivity. Once the discussion moves to bloodless analysis of what is and what is not fact common ground can be reached. Even those who have based their opinion on "The damage that guns do" will quickly admit to what is and what is not fact. Then the conversation can be steered back to "Guns are bad". Once this has happened it is easy to get them to accept new data is fact. All that has to be done was remove the illogical barrier.

Will this work with everyone? No. It would not have worked with my wife's mother. It will not work with anyone who trusts their feelings more than logic. But when discussing the issue with those who think a change in thinking will usually be the result. Don not push too hard. Stay cool and rational in the discussion. Don't expect a choir of angels or the sun to come up over the horizon. It may take some time for the change to occur. Instant results are not the goal. Positive results are the goal and they do not always come right away.

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by Skuggi

I have all that, and have been using it, But people do not want to learn. They do not care. They're right and that's that.
. . . . What helps is when they've been put in the situation that the police couldn't protect them.

Bingo.

One of my favorite short sayings is: "A conservative is a liberal who just got his tax bill, and a liberal is a conservative who just got arrested." (Example: Rush Limbaugh - who for years ranted the constitutional right of privacy was purely an invention of liberal, activist judges, then ran like a scalded cat to the ACLU for help in asserting violations of his constitutional right to privacy when the government wantd to subpoena his medical records in connection with his arrest on drug charges.)

A gun-rights advocate is an anti-gunner who just had to face a serious threat, alone and helpless.

The only things that flush the sticky goo of ideology from the mind-pipes are self-interest or a strong dose of fear. They work best when used together.

[Vortex]

Hopefully this is still on topic in the discussion of facts versus emotion.

Originally Posted by NorwichGrad97

"Are you a member of the militia?" was his question.

My response was, "No, I am not."

Actually, you probably are part of the "militia", at least (I believe) by the most current modern definition of the word. I wouldn't be surprised if your fellow engineer wasn't also part of the "militia", but just doesn't know it. Anyone else, please jump in if these quotes are way off base.

Originally, we have the "Militia Act of 1792". This would seem to be reasonably contemporary to what the founding fathers had envisioned and presumably more or less consistent with the wording used in the constitution. After all, it's less than ten years after the end of the Revolutionary War.

Militia Act of 1792

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.

In 1792 if you are an able-bodied male within the age range of 18 to 45, you are the "militia". Just be sure to bring your own stuff.

Militia Act of 1792

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Also, plan for a technology upgrade if your musket is nonstandard.

Militia Act of 1792

. . . . and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound;

Well let's fast forward, give or take a century or so and see what the Militia Act of 1903 has to say. This is also known as the Dick Act of 1903, named after Major General Charles Dick of the Ohio National Guard.

A Militia Nation Comes of Age

The Dick Act of 1903 . . . . recognized two classes of militia: the Organized Militia (National Guard) under federal-state control and the Unorganized Militia, the pool of 18-to-45-year-old males available for conscription.

Now some people feel that . . . .

The unorganized militia were encouraged to train for military service. The Military Appropriations Act of 1903 created the Department of Civilian Marksmanship and the Civilian Marksmanship Program which is still in existence today. The DCM/CMP's purpose is to provide military training for the conscriptable members of the civilian population.

So from reading the words, it seems that a reasonable interpretation of all this is that if you are not already serving in the Armed Forces, you are not in the National Guard and you would be subject to the draft (if there was a draft), then you are the modern (unorganized) militia. Of course I will leave it to our esteemed colleagues and Officers of the Court, to remind us that any first year law student could tell you that the words don't mean what they say. Rule10b5 - loved your case law rant, by the way. I definitely learned something.

I'm not going to claim to be particularly knowledgeable in the area of jurisprudence either. The only guiding legal principle that I am aware of, is don't confuse the law with justice. Once you get past that little sticking point, things pretty much fall into place as you might expect any system fundamentally based on the adversarial approach would function. You did it, . . . . no I didn't, . . . . I'm telling Mom!!! But I digress.

You mentioned that you're not afraid to speak your mind. Look around the internet to see if you think these citations are out of context. If not, then NorwichGrad97 let us know how your fellow engineer responds to finding out that he may actually be in the militia too.