XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption
XPost: alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc
XPost: alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.poli
ics.socialism.mao
XPost: alt.politics.trump, alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy
XPost: alt.apocolypse, alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: alt.infowars, alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intellige
t-life.down-here, alt.politics.guns
XPost: alt.atheism
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 12/9/22 12:18 PM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
> On 12/9/2022 8:57 AM, !Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:20:08 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/8/2022 10:19 PM, oozing scarlet red maxipad attempted - and
>>> *failed* - to
>>> bullshit:
>>>
>>>>> What 2A does is to block a state or local government from acting even
>>>>> if a majority of people want it to do so. Since 2A is doing nothing
>>>>> positive,...
>>
>>>> Plenty of documented cases of self-defense belie that claim.
>>
>> Who is this? Is that you, Headley? I got tired of seeing your
>> vitriolic spewing, so I filtered you. I'll remove the filter if you
>> can keep a civil tone of voice. (I didn't say you had to agree with
>> me.)
>>
>> Please define the term: "documented". If, by that, you mean something
>> copied and pasted from a newspaper's blog page, I'd call that weak.
>> If the formal police report unequivocally and explicitly called it
>> "self defense", I'd likely accept that; however, that never happens.
>> Besides, I'd prefer an ajudicated finding that rigorously tested the
>> claim of "self defense".
>>
>> What I mean is to set it up as hypothesis 1 = "This is/was proven self
>> defense." and the null hypothesis = "There is not enough evidence to
>> prove self defense." Our judicial system is opposite: a person
>> affirms self defense and *that* becomes the null hypothesis (H-0). I
>> suppose that H-0 should be "not guilty" in a test of guilt; however, I
>> won't let you count it as self defense unless that is tested... and
>> our system never does that.
>>
>> It likely never will. Note that no criminal court has *ever* proven a
>> defendant "innocent"... that doesn't happen because that's H-0 and you
>> never prove H-0... you must reject it in the scientific method. (Have
>> you ever taken a class in logic, Headley?)
>
> A jury never returns a verdict of "innocent," but judges have declared
> defendants to be factually innocent before. It doesn't happen too
> often, but often enough.
>
> I accept that there are frequent enough instances of use of firearms or
> other weapons in self defense. The key point is that that was not the
> *motive* for the second amendment at all.
The NATURAL RIGHT of self defense is certainly why the the RIGHT is a
RIGHT of the people, and NOT based entirely on a militia... but rather
on the fail-over security of the people and their self defense if/when
all law and order breaks down. Your last line of defense is you and
while the Militia is mentions the RIGHT is stated clearly to be a RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms... NOT the militia so when the
militia is no longer a viable entity for defense the fail-over is that
you have arms in your hand that can use for self defense. Those "arms"
have many uses NOT only as arms for carrying into the service of the
local militia, they were and are survival and self defense tools/arms...
> The natural right to arms is
> certainly predicated in part on that possibility, but that's not why
> Patrick Henry and James Mason and other slavers pushed for adoption of
> the amendment. *They* pushed for it in order to maintain armed militias
> for slave patrols and to put down slave rebellions.
>
--
-Reality Matters-
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
