I have questions for 2A absolutists

[[DHT]Osiris]

You are being extremely dishonest now. None of those amendments are prefaced with something similar to the phrase, A WELL REGULATED MILITIA before discussing the rights of the people. In fact your examples clearly state who the right refers to, the people, a person, Congress, and lastly a militia.

Thanks for proving my point.

Alright, let's run down the list according to your opinions of specificity.

1A:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly freedom of speech is only relevant to the religious expression, else why would that be brought up as the initial indicator in the amendment, agreed?

4A:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Good one, unreasonable search and seizures are perfectly acceptable for any businesses, since they aren't people. Warrant-less searches are also fine.

14A Sec1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Great one, restriction of states depriving life, liberty, etc to persons only extends to citizens, since citizens is what was referenced at the beginning.

Shall we continue?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Training isn't the differentiator and you know this. There is a difference between a professional soldier, someone who's profession is soldiering vs someone who practices being a soldier. That's like saying someone who plays college basketball is a professional basketball player.

US Army and Nat Guard are soldiers first, job second. If you refute that, I'm sure there's more than a few military folks hanging around to let you know how 'college' they are.

 

[ivwshane]

Alright, let's run down the list according to your opinions of specificity.

1A:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly freedom of speech is only relevant to the religious expression, else why would that be brought up as the initial indicator in the amendment, agreed?

4A:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Good one, unreasonable search and seizures are perfectly acceptable for any businesses, since they aren't people. Warrant-less searches are also fine.

14A Sec1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Great one, restriction of states depriving life, liberty, etc to persons only extends to citizens, since citizens is what was referenced at the beginning.

Shall we continue?

You aren't making any sense but you are doubling down on stupidity. Feel free to continue.

 

[ivwshane]

US Army and Nat Guard are soldiers first, job second. If you refute that, I'm sure there's more than a few military folks hanging around to let you know how 'college' they are.

Lol no. If you are in the army you are a professional soldier first. If you are in the national guard you are a soldier second to what ever you do besides the one weekend a month you are training.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You aren't making any sense but you are doubling down on stupidity. Feel free to continue.

Right, so you no longer have anything to contribute? Nothing to say about how incoherent your argument is, and how flawed your logic is regarding the wording of the 2A?

Lol no. If you are in the army you are a professional soldier first. If you are in the national guard you are a soldier second to what ever you do besides the one weekend a month you are training.

Sorry, from what position of authority are you speaking from here? Are you a prior with particularly low opinions of the nat guard? Care to comment on the fact that almost half the troops sent to the ME in the last 20y are national guard? Or that 20% of our casualties there have been from national guard?

You started this thread with some fairly simple questions, that I've tried to answer. Each time I have, your argument has devolved further. Are you actually interested in a discussion, or did you start this thread to pick a fight with someone?

 

[glenn1]

I'm all for it, let's remove all federal gun control laws and allow the state's to ban guns. The federal government can still put in place things like background checks.

As for your question regarding "people", what part are you having trouble with? Do you not understand what a militia is and how it differs from a military? As was mentioned, the national guard is essentially the current day militia. They are not professional soldiers, they have day jobs other than being a soldier, they meet regularly to train.

Ask yourself this, if you own a gun does that mean you are in a militia? Of curse it doesn't.

No one made that argument about "owning a gun means you're in a militia." To be fair you should likewise recognize that when written, the militia basically did consist of every white male capable of bearing arms and most everyone did own arms back then so "people vs. militia" was a distinction without a difference. Obviously gun ownership demographics have changed since then and gun ownership has gone from very widely held (perhaps near universal) to much more selective.

However if we examine the 2A using a logical understanding of language rather than motivated/wishful thinking, the use of the word "the people" carries the implicit concept that citizens would own and bear the arms, and those armed citizens then in turn compose any militia. If the intent was to limit "bearing arms" to only militias the authors could have easily specified this.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Is not:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The reason for the addition of the language about militias in the prefatory clause wasn't meant to restrict individual citizens from owning/bearing arms. Rather it was a concession to the reality of southern states who routinely used their "militias" to serve as search parties for escaped slaves. One supposes that given the kerfuffle the otherwise simple language has caused over the years, the framers should have split the 2A into two bits (one enshrining the rights of militias to exist, another to enshrine the right of the people to keep and bear arms) but obviously they did not. That still doesn't mean we need to create imagined rationales to bypass a core plank of the Bill of RIghts. Enshrining 2A as a "group right" only exerciseable via collective militias makes zero sense any more than saying the 1A right of freedom of speech is a "group right" where exercising it has a prerequisite that you belong to a journalist collective. Or that "the people" refers to the state for whom the right is protecting instead of individuals since 1A uses the same "the people" language and 10A used "states".

 

[zinfamous]

Gun buybacks often backfire. Gun buybacks will take pretty much any gun off the street. I personally know people that brought old crappy hunting rifles in, got their $500 gift card, and then went handgun shopping.

I'm familiar with this criticism and I tend to accept it...but I've never seen an actual analysis of the percentage of such old guns being used to buy new guns. I've seen a couple of photos of individual old-ass broken guns being turned in at these events, that tend to buy lots of guns, but haven't seen any data showing how many of the guns purchased at these events are simply used for "free money." ...let alone free money to buy more guns.

Is there any data that shows actual numbers? I'm especially interested in real support for the argument that these people, generally not tracked after the event, using that money to buy more guns.

Again, I think this is valid criticism for the gun buyback program, but until now I've only seen a handful of anecdotal events that are often repeated again and again in various articles that are explicitly written to defeat the programs--the same photo of one old dude turning in his pile of old guns, again and again as if the one event is somehow many unique events, and therefore representative of the program. Also no idea what the old man actually did with his new free money, other than mere speculation

 

[glenn1]

I'm familiar with this criticism and I tend to accept it...but I've never seen an actual analysis of the percentage of such old guns being used to buy new guns. I've seen a couple of photos of individual old-ass broken guns being turned in at these events, that tend to buy lots of guns, but haven't seen any data showing how many of the guns purchased at these events are simply used for "free money." ...let alone free money to buy more guns.

Is there any data that shows actual numbers? I'm especially interested in real support for the argument that these people, generally not tracked after the event, using that money to buy more guns.

Again, I think this is valid criticism for the gun buyback program, but until now I've only seen a handful of anecdotal events that are often repeated again and again in various articles that are explicitly written to defeat the programs--the same photo of one old dude turning in his pile of old guns, again and again as if the one event is somehow many unique events, and therefore representative of the program. Also no idea what the old man actually did with his new free money, other than mere speculation

Well then just use some common sense. If you owned an item and the government comes up with a "buyback offer" for the type of item you have, you have a choice to make. If not interested in selling obviously you just ignore the offer, otherwise you will probably research what the fair market value of that item was. Here are the possibilities:

1. The government offers the buyback for less than the market value of that item, in which case you would refuse the buyback and sell it in the open market for more. Or just keep it until you want/need to sell it.

2. The government is offering reasonably fair market value, in which case you might accept the offer or might not, depending on your previous level of desire to no longer own the item.

3. The government offers above market value, in which case you not only sell your item but attempt to buy more at market value for arbitrage and sell them to government for a profit.


In many cases the government just creates a "cash for clunkers" situation where those who were otherwise fine with their items saw an opportunity to sell their used merchandise and use the proceeds to upgrade. Sure you'll get the occasional divorcee who found their ex's firearm after they moved out (or their dead parent's, etc.) and will jump at the opportunity to sell it to the police for $50 to rid themselves of the "headache" but most gun buybacks just wind up buying weapons that wouldn't be used for crimes anyway.

 

[zinfamous]

Well then just use some common sense.

I'm going to stop you right there because:

1: that's not how this works
2: has nothing to do with my question.

Obviously, "common sense" isn't universal. If I'm asking for someone to provide actual data on a belief that hey have held for years, which is observably based on simple, anecdotal speculation (what for them is "common sense"), then challenging that belief with actual data should not only be easy, but quite necessary.

Challenging belief is the essence of proper debate, honest opinion and policy-forming, and completely necessary for the progress of society.

Don't ever think that responding to a request for data to support "common sense," by advising to apply more "common sense" is going to be accepted by an honest person. That's damn ignorant.

More and more, I find that the right is never interested in data or any kind of actual evidence that fundamentally supports their belief system, or, "common sense." Why is this?

 

[glenn1]

I'm going to stop you right there because:

1: that's not how this works
2: has nothing to do with my question.

Obviously, "common sense" isn't universal. If I'm asking for someone to provide actual data on a belief that hey have held for years, which is observably based on simple, anecdotal speculation (what for them is "common sense"), then challenging that belief with actual data should not only be easy, but quite necessary.

Challenging belief is the essence of proper debate, honest opinion and policy-forming, and completely necessary for the progress of society.

Don't ever think that responding to a request for data to support "common sense," by advising to apply more "common sense" is going to be accepted by an honest person. That's damn ignorant.

More and more, I find that the right is never interested in data or any kind of actual evidence that fundamentally supports their belief system, or, "common sense." Why is this?

So you're asking for data that almost certainly doesn't exist - what research study is going to ask "so you just sold a weapon in a gun buyback, what are you going to do with the proceeds?" If you want to adjust your query then research does exist that will probably be useful to you.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...llin/c4c0d7d1a3cc3155dd3ca78a5d79a88babf275a0

Summary:

Gun buyback programs have become widespread in the United States. This paper offers a model of gun demand in which people make decisions about gun ownership as they would any other durable consumer good. Two insights are generated. First, if the buyback program is unanticipated and never-to-be-repeated, then the buyback program will reduce gun holdings only temporarily, by affecting the timing of consumption. Second, a repeated buyback program, formally analyzed as a permanent buyback program, will actually raise gun holdings, since it permanently lowers ownership costs. Current, repeated buybacks will therefore have the opposite effect of what buyback proponents intend.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm going to stop you right there because:

1: that's not how this works
2: has nothing to do with my question.

Obviously, "common sense" isn't universal. If I'm asking for someone to provide actual data on a belief that hey have held for years, which is observably based on simple, anecdotal speculation (what for them is "common sense"), then challenging that belief with actual data should not only be easy, but quite necessary.

Challenging belief is the essence of proper debate, honest opinion and policy-forming, and completely necessary for the progress of society.

Don't ever think that responding to a request for data to support "common sense," by advising to apply more "common sense" is going to be accepted by an honest person. That's damn ignorant.

More and more, I find that the right is never interested in data or any kind of actual evidence that fundamentally supports their belief system, or, "common sense." Why is this?

Logically, most people who participate in a buyback probably have no interest in owning a gun, so they probably won't use the funds to buy another. Most people who would use the buyback money to fund another purchase are probably well-to-do, or poor with money choices I suppose. You'll probably have some percentage that will sell a gun worth ~$100 for $500 then rebuy another, better gun instead, but I don't know how statistically significant that would be, nor could I find any data on it.

The data I did find however was that while people deed indeed make use of it, it made no statistical significance on gun-related violent crime rates. That's kinda my irk on the whole idea, that my tax money is going toward something that serves no purpose. I'd just rather they not, in the same way I'd prefer to not pay highway workers to stand around doing nothing, or <insert your favored example of wasted taxpayer dollars>.

 

[glenn1]

Logically, most people who participate in a buyback probably have no interest in owning a gun, so they probably won't use the funds to buy another. Most people who would use the buyback money to fund another purchase are probably well-to-do, or poor with money choices I suppose. You'll probably have some percentage that will sell a gun worth ~$100 for $500 then rebuy another, better gun instead, but I don't know how statistically significant that would be, nor could I find any data on it.

The data I did find however was that while people deed indeed make use of it, it made no statistical significance on gun-related violent crime rates. That's kinda my irk on the whole idea, that my tax money is going toward something that serves no purpose. I'd just rather they not, in the same way I'd prefer to not pay highway workers to stand around doing nothing, or <insert your favored example of wasted taxpayer dollars>.

Problem is that any 'evidence' you're going to find is going to be anecdotal anyway since even if you did research studies there's little means of validating participant's voluntary disclosures about what they "plan" to do with the money. An environment where a gun buyback is being done is probably one where the government is at best ambivalent to gun ownership if not outright hostile, and folks who did intend to use the proceeds of a gun buyback sale to upgrade to other weapons would probably be discrete about their intent. That being said there's always exceptions to every rule:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/firearms-enthusiasts-crash-gun-buyback-to-hunt-bargains

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074759034513838081

 

[zinfamous]

Logically, most people who participate in a buyback probably have no interest in owning a gun, so they probably won't use the funds to buy another. Most people who would use the buyback money to fund another purchase are probably well-to-do, or poor with money choices I suppose. You'll probably have some percentage that will sell a gun worth ~$100 for $500 then rebuy another, better gun instead, but I don't know how statistically significant that would be, nor could I find any data on it.

The data I did find however was that while people deed indeed make use of it, it made no statistical significance on gun-related violent crime rates. That's kinda my irk on the whole idea, that my tax money is going toward something that serves no purpose. I'd just rather they not, in the same way I'd prefer to not pay highway workers to stand around doing nothing, or <insert your favored example of wasted taxpayer dollars>.

see, there's the common sense issue. glenn's "common sense" tells him that such people will only ever use it to buy more guns, proving that all "liberal solutions" are stupid and should be avoided, otherwise communism.

your "common sense" tells you that such people that sell old guns would never do this, because obviously they don't want guns at all. See, "common sense."

Hence my question: as such beliefs formed on speculation-based common sense don't really mean anything when it comes to addressing policy, why do we insist on continuing down that path, not only avoiding data, but refusing to collect it? why? "Common sense" tells us that the reason for this is that a particular agenda drives this argument.

Look: Glenn is not only very angry at me for merely suggesting that we need data to support such a speculative belief, but he's also very angry at you for having a common sense that is very different from his common sense.

 

[Jhhnn]

No one made that argument about "owning a gun means you're in a militia." To be fair you should likewise recognize that when written, the militia basically did consist of every white male capable of bearing arms and most everyone did own arms back then so "people vs. militia" was a distinction without a difference. Obviously gun ownership demographics have changed since then and gun ownership has gone from very widely held (perhaps near universal) to much more selective.

That's romanticized bullshit. Few Americans owned firearms at the time of the revolution-

Spiking the Gun Myth

The notion that militias could effectively defend the country was abandoned after the war of 1812.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

see, there's the common sense issue. glenn's "common sense" tells him that such people will only ever use it to buy more guns, proving that all "liberal solutions" are stupid and should be avoided, otherwise communism.

your "common sense" tells you that such people that sell old guns would never do this, because obviously they don't want guns at all. See, "common sense."

Hence my question: as such beliefs formed on speculation-based common sense don't really mean anything when it comes to addressing policy, why do we insist on continuing down that path, not only avoiding data, but refusing to collect it? why? "Common sense" tells us that the reason for this is that a particular agenda drives this argument.

Look: Glenn is not only very angry at me for merely suggesting that we need data to support such a speculative belief, but he's also very angry at you for having a common sense that is very different from his common sense.

I think data is supremely important, in all decisions that a government should make. I'm still not sure how you'd get valid data about this but I suppose there's methods, I'm not in the surveying-people field so I don't know anything about that.

Problem is that any 'evidence' you're going to find is going to be anecdotal anyway since even if you did research studies there's little means of validating participant's voluntary disclosures about what they "plan" to do with the money. An environment where a gun buyback is being done is probably one where the government is at best ambivalent to gun ownership if not outright hostile, and folks who did intend to use the proceeds of a gun buyback sale to upgrade to other weapons would probably be discrete about their intent. That being said there's always exceptions to every rule:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/firearms-enthusiasts-crash-gun-buyback-to-hunt-bargains

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074759034513838081

Given that it's Fox, I'm inclined to just assume it's completely fabricated to stir the pot. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[glenn1]

see, there's the common sense issue. glenn's "common sense" tells him that such people will only ever use it to buy more guns, proving that all "liberal solutions" are stupid and should be avoided, otherwise communism.

your "common sense" tells you that such people that sell old guns would never do this, because obviously they don't want guns at all. See, "common sense."

Hence my question: as such beliefs formed on speculation-based common sense don't really mean anything when it comes to addressing policy, why do we insist on continuing down that path, not only avoiding data, but refusing to collect it? why? "Common sense" tells us that the reason for this is that a particular agenda drives this argument.

Look: Glenn is not only very angry at me for merely suggesting that we need data to support such a speculative belief, but he's also very angry at you for having a common sense that is very different from his common sense.

I'm not angry at all. I don't really care if you do gun buybacks. I just don't think they do what you think they do, but if you like doing things like this that are more for show then have at it. And what research that's been done finds a very mild at best correlation to changes in crime rates afterwards, basically almost at the level of statistically insignificant.

 

[Sunburn74]

Problem is that any 'evidence' you're going to find is going to be anecdotal anyway since even if you did research studies there's little means of validating participant's voluntary disclosures about what they "plan" to do with the money. An environment where a gun buyback is being done is probably one where the government is at best ambivalent to gun ownership if not outright hostile, and folks who did intend to use the proceeds of a gun buyback sale to upgrade to other weapons would probably be discrete about their intent. That being said there's always exceptions to every rule:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/firearms-enthusiasts-crash-gun-buyback-to-hunt-bargains

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074759034513838081

I think it's pretty well known that gun buybacks don't do anything to reduce gun violence. The scale of gun buybacks is very small and the funds given per gun is very small and often less than the value of the gun on the free market. You end up mostly getting a small number of older often non-working or decommissioned guns from elderly people who didn't know what to do with them anyway.

 

[glenn1]

That's romanticized bullshit. Few Americans owned firearms at the time of the revolution-

Spiking the Gun Myth

The notion that militias could effectively defend the country was abandoned after the war of 1812.

Long debunked.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

Short version:

They conclude that Bellesiles appears to have substantially misrecorded the seventeenth and eighteenth century probate data he presents. For the Providence probate data (1679-1726), Bellesiles has misclassified over 60% of the inventories he examined. He repeatedly counted women as men, counted about a hundred wills that never existed, and claimed that the inventories evaluated more than half of the guns as old or broken when fewer 1778 [Vol. 43:1777 COUNTING GUNS IN EARLY AMERICA than 10% were so listed. Nationally, for the 1765-1790 period, the average percentage of estates listing guns that Bellesiles reports (14.7%) is not mathematically possible, given the regional averages he reports and known minimum sample sizes. Last, an archive of probate inventories from San Francisco in which Bellesiles claims to have counted guns apparently does not exist. By all accounts, the entire archive before 1860 was destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake and subsequent fire of 1906. Neither part of his study of seventeenth and eighteenth-century probate data is replicable, nor is his study of probate data from the 1840s and 1850s.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That's romanticized bullshit. Few Americans owned firearms at the time of the revolution-

Spiking the Gun Myth

The notion that militias could effectively defend the country was abandoned after the war of 1812.

Well, that didn't take long to debunk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America

Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is a discredited 2000 book by historian Michael A. Bellesiles about American gun culture, an expansion of a 1996 article he published in the Journal of American History. Bellesiles, then a professor at Emory University, used fabricated research to argue that during the early period of US history, guns were uncommon during peacetime and that a culture of gun ownership did not arise until the mid-nineteenth century.

Although the book was initially awarded the prestigious Bancroft Prize, it later became the first work for which the prize was rescinded following a decision of Columbia University's Board of Trustees that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."[1]

 

[zinfamous]

Problem is that any 'evidence' you're going to find is going to be anecdotal anyway since even if you did research studies there's little means of validating participant's voluntary disclosures about what they "plan" to do with the money. An environment where a gun buyback is being done is probably one where the government is at best ambivalent to gun ownership if not outright hostile, and folks who did intend to use the proceeds of a gun buyback sale to upgrade to other weapons would probably be discrete about their intent. That being said there's always exceptions to every rule:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/firearms-enthusiasts-crash-gun-buyback-to-hunt-bargains

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074759034513838081

Look at what that one woman did! Obviously, she is all the people! Be sure to repeat this story on all affiliated outlets to ensure that the notion that these are far more than simple isolated events and represent the whole of the problem!

Glenn's mad that the data "can't be obtained." ...of course, as background checks are required to purchase new guns (right? there aren't any private sale loopholes right? right?), then there is a pretty clear route to creating, and then obtaining this data in order to answer all of these questions.

...but then the right and the jihadist NRA has run a long campaign against collecting these data for years--because that is somehow less freedom.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Problem is that any 'evidence' you're going to find is going to be anecdotal anyway since even if you did research studies there's little means of validating participant's voluntary disclosures about what they "plan" to do with the money. An environment where a gun buyback is being done is probably one where the government is at best ambivalent to gun ownership if not outright hostile, and folks who did intend to use the proceeds of a gun buyback sale to upgrade to other weapons would probably be discrete about their intent. That being said there's always exceptions to every rule:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/firearms-enthusiasts-crash-gun-buyback-to-hunt-bargains

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074759034513838081

Exactly what I said happens at these things.

There are also groups that show up just outside the buyback to see what people are turning in and make a better offer, private sale. I know that some old military guns have been saved from death this way.

 

[ivwshane]

Right, so you no longer have anything to contribute? Nothing to say about how incoherent your argument is, and how flawed your logic is regarding the wording of the 2A?

Sorry, from what position of authority are you speaking from here? Are you a prior with particularly low opinions of the nat guard? Care to comment on the fact that almost half the troops sent to the ME in the last 20y are national guard? Or that 20% of our casualties there have been from national guard?

You started this thread with some fairly simple questions, that I've tried to answer. Each time I have, your argument has devolved further. Are you actually interested in a discussion, or did you start this thread to pick a fight with someone?

You can do a Google search and choose any source you find acceptable if you don't want to take my word for it. That's what I did and that's why you are laughably wrong.

I'm sorry calling out your bull shit is so damaging to your ego that you take offense to it.

 

[Jhhnn]

[/QUOTE]

Long debunked.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

Short version:

They conclude that Bellesiles appears to have substantially misrecorded the seventeenth and eighteenth century probate data he presents. For the Providence probate data (1679-1726), Bellesiles has misclassified over 60% of the inventories he examined. He repeatedly counted women as men, counted about a hundred wills that never existed, and claimed that the inventories evaluated more than half of the guns as old or broken when fewer 1778 [Vol. 43:1777 COUNTING GUNS IN EARLY AMERICA than 10% were so listed. Nationally, for the 1765-1790 period, the average percentage of estates listing guns that Bellesiles reports (14.7%) is not mathematically possible, given the regional averages he reports and known minimum sample sizes. Last, an archive of probate inventories from San Francisco in which Bellesiles claims to have counted guns apparently does not exist. By all accounts, the entire archive before 1860 was destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake and subsequent fire of 1906. Neither part of his study of seventeenth and eighteenth-century probate data is replicable, nor is his study of probate data from the 1840s and 1850s.

Well, that didn't take long to debunk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America

Thank you, gentlemen.

 

[glenn1]

Look at what that one woman did! Obviously, she is all the people! Be sure to repeat this story on all affiliated outlets to ensure that the notion that these are far more than simple isolated events and represent the whole of the problem!

Glenn's mad that the data "can't be obtained." ...of course, as background checks are required to purchase new guns (right? there aren't any private sale loopholes right? right?), then there is a pretty clear route to creating, and then obtaining this data in order to answer all of these questions.

...but then the right and the jihadist NRA has run a long campaign against collecting these data for years--because that is somehow less freedom.

I'm unsure what you're even ranting about at this point. Nobody is 'mad.' Nobody is trying to stop you from having gun buyback programs. Nobody is saying an example that I clearly labeled as anecdotal is "all the people." No one is saying that everyone (or even most) that sell guns in backbacks use the proceeds to buy more guns.

Basically I don't give a shit what your position on the 2A is. If you live in a state that wants to ban guns or whatever else you want then I think you should have the right to do that. I just don't think that reciprocally means you can dictate to the rest of the nation that all of us need to live under your gun bans. That's the great part about federalism, you can live in a state that best reflects your ideals in everything from gun control to welfare to abortion, and if we all stop trying to screw with the ability of others to live in their states with their own different sets of rules we'd all be happier.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You can do a Google search and choose any source you find acceptable if you don't want to take my word for it. That's what I did and that's why you are laughably wrong.

I'm sorry calling out your bull shit is so damaging to your ego that you take offense to it.

A google search on what? You're being incoherent.

I haven't taken offense to anything, aside from your representation of the national guard. If that's what you mean, then it's your right to have an opinion about them, and my right to say that you're flat wrong.