Comment Re:Parameter mismatch (Score 1) 83
Just scooting this in here, Titan is a moon.
Just scooting this in here, Titan is a moon.
It's not an iron dense world, the magnetic field would be weak wouldn't it? Meaning that things are being inundated with too much solar radiation; preventing life. Or most importantly, human ability to colonize.
And what happens if there's a drop in lottery spending?
You're right that the scientific method is not moot when one is studying the issue. But that's not what's happening here. We're not sitting down with a computer, collecting or chunking raw data. We're debating an issue. It's not scientific, it's logical maybe, but not scientific.
I sincerely apologize for the confusion I seem to be giving you. But I was only commenting on the last bit of your comment involving your science professor. Your professor was right, science isn't meant to prove things. It's meant to say, here's what's happening. If what's happening doesn't match what you thought was going to, the next question is, why is this happening? Wash, rinse, repeat until you can form a hypothesis that will be correct. But science is not what's being done here.
The first option is always to break. Contrived example I think goes to you, lol.
Considering all the manner of crazy monsters that people thought existed in Europe prior to ever seeing giraffes, I'd say your biologist friend is either an anomaly or full of crap.
Osmosis Jones bro...
Why do you assume the ATF is against gun ownership?
Woah there skippy, I think you're overreacting. I'm not making an argument about whether more guns equals less violence. I'm merely pointing out that this is more akin to a debate scenario. First person merely has to present proof to support their claim, not prove the proof is proof. The person arguing against the claim must deconstruct their proof.
You can't just say, well it's statistical data so you're probably wrong and then dismiss the claim. And it isn't a scientific hypothesis, so any definition of proof per scientific terminology is moot.
No, it's just the printing press was invented 300 years prior to them. And what Gutenberg's press did was enable the Bible to be produced in the vernacular for more people. Helping to cause the Protestant Reformation. It also enabled academics to print papers, etc. Leading to the scientific revolution and Enlightenment period.
Okay, and the equating is where? I was just replying to Wild_dog!'s comment about proving something from the perspective of scientists. Which is moot really since, this is proof in the sense of debate. Where when one makes a claim, they have the burden to prove their claim. Said person provides proof or what they consider proof. The next person needs to argue against the proof as invalid or disproven. Statistical proof is still proof, otherwise it wouldn't be called statistical proof.
The Supreme Court seems to disagree with your, and I mean your, interpretation.
From wikipedia:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
TLDR, it's an individual right that does require a person to be part of a militia.
Who equated the two?
Our social and economic peers have, for the most part, ALWAYS had lower levels of violent death. Go back to pre-gun bans in the UK (early 20th century) and you'll see something like 2 murders in London to like 200 in New York over something like a 5 year period. The argument that the UK, France, Germany, etc have lower violent deaths because of lower availability of firearms is just a horrible argument.
Considering that brandishing a weapon is illegal in every state with open carry... I'm not sure how much of "visible threat" open carry can be.
The game of life is a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy.
