NationStates Jolt Archive

I am thoroughly convinced that anyone who says "our people would NEVER do that" needs to be made aware of two names. The first is Milgram. The second is Zimbardo.

What I find amazing about Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment is that it was originally supposed to last 14 days. He had to cancel it after 6, out of extreme fear ofr the lives and safety of his test subjects

SIX DAYS

There's a fair amount of controversy on the Zimbardo experiment however, especially as to the fact that it can't truly be reproduced in its entirety.

Also, a little known fact is that some of the guards (perhaps a minority) were actually kinder to the prisoners and did favors for the prisoners.

That's incorrect. To not prove a point is not to disprove the same point.

I would have to go back and review my textbook to understand this. Logic has never been my specialty, nor argument. I'll just take your word for it rather than my memory.

If you don't have a law degree, you are a paralegal not a lawyer.

I have a law degree. I do not, however, ever get hired except by other lawyers as a consultant on cases, and those are few and far between.

Your argument was ripped to shreds by several posters, and until you do something about that you have zero credibility. Neither 10,000 posts to your name, nor a seat on the Supreme Court would make any difference.

I have not the time to go back and look through the pages of posting that have appeared while I have been fulfilling real obligations. I really could care less about my credibility. I have ideas, I put them out, and people can take them or not. In this case I happen to feel particularly strongly about my point, but it still doesn't push me towards making it more clear or arguing it when interest has obviously flagged. I have other forums on which to post and spread my ideas, which is my only intention in posting here.

This is that part people always skip.

Well, ultimately, that's for the Supreme COurt to decide. Assuming there still is one. :p

Well, ultimately, that's for the Supreme COurt to decide. Assuming there still is one. :p

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court, in hearing recent arguments, is inclined to believe that the Second Amendment refers to individual rights.

Once that's settled, you'll be stuck with me carrying a gun wherever and whenever I please.

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court, in hearing recent arguments, is inclined to believe that the Second Amendment refers to individual rights.

Once that's settled, you'll be stuck with me carrying a gun wherever and whenever I please.

What the hell are you babbling about?

What the hell are you babbling about?

The topic of the thread. What does the Second Amendment mean?

The current Supreme Court heard arguments recently, and hinted broadly that they believe it's an individual right.

You carry a weasel, I'll carry a gun.

Of course, the bad guys may not be expecting a thrown attack weasel...

What the hell are you babbling about?

I think he thinks you want to take his guns.

Of course, the bad guys may not be expecting a thrown attack weasel...

I have a laser scope on mine.

I think he thinks you want to take his guns.

Well, I want his weasels.

Why not weasels with guns?

:eek:

:D

Well, I want his weasels.

That sounded dirty somehow.

I think he thinks you want to take his guns.

Why in the blue hell would he think that?

Well, I want his weasels.

I don't blame you. Those things are extremely well trained.

The topic of the thread. What does the Second Amendment mean?

The current Supreme Court heard arguments recently, and hinted broadly that they believe it's an individual right.

You carry a weasel, I'll carry a gun.

Of course, the bad guys may not be expecting a thrown attack weasel...

Apparently you've never seen my weasel gun. :p

Why in the blue hell would he think that?

*shrugs* That's just what the post looks like.

Why not weasels with guns?

:eek:

:D

Weasels with weasel guns that shoot armed weasels. *nod*

Weasels with weasel guns that shoot armed weasels. *nod*

Do the armed projectile weasels have weasel guns with smaller weasels?

Do the armed projectile weasels have weasel guns with smaller weasels?

Imagine russian nesting dolls except that they want to hurt you and have the power to do so. ...and teeth.

Imagine russian nesting dolls except that they want to hurt you and have the power to do so. ...and teeth.

Your weasels are communist? :eek:

Your weasels are communist? :eek:

Oh, definitely. I don't have to pay them as much and they work better as a team. *nod*

Oh, definitely. I don't have to pay them as much and they work better as a team. *nod*

And they're more hungry!

That sounded dirty somehow.

That's the subtlety of Lunatic Goofballs.

That's the subtlety of Lunatic Goofballs.

I was quoting you!

I was quoting you!

Lunatic rubs off on people - he can start something, and you can't wash it off...

Lunatic rubs off on people - he can start something, and you can't wash it off...

Ewww....

I grow on you. Like fungus. :)

Your weasels are communist? :eek:

In Soviet Russia, the weasels throw YOU!

In Soviet Russia, the weasels throw YOU!

The 1980's called. They want their lame, overused joke back. :p

In Soviet Russia, the weasels throw YOU!

The 1980's called. They want their lame, overused joke back. :p

The 1970's called. They said "you can keep it."

;) (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1398456)

In order to really understand what the 2nd Amendment implies, it may be helpful to break it down in terms of propositional logic. With a bit of convoluted language, I think we can do it.

"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."

We can presume that it would be accurate to translate this sentence the following way (in fact, someone did earlier and no one objected):

"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."

Or this way:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State."

As you can see, we have a claim of causality here. In order to interpret this into propositional logic, we must formulate it into a counter-factual like so:

"If it were not the case that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, then it would not be the case that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

So here we have "If not A, then not B," where "a well regulated...free state" is A, and "the right of the people...infringed" is B. Our statement is "If it is not the case that A, then it is not the case that B," or "If not A, then not B." (I hope at least some people are following me.)

Now things get interesting. It could be argued that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state in mondern times. If we mean a militia to be a group of people that is not included in the military which arms itself, then it seems that the security of the state does not hinge upon this at all. The military is the organization that is responsible for the security of the state. Militias comprised of the civilian citizenry (in the US) have little to no bearing on any wars or foreign affairs.

So if my above assertion is true, then we've satisfied the 'not A' part of our modus ponens. My claim is that it is not the case that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, so it is not the case that A. As we can now see, the 2nd Amendment laid out the logical statement, "If not A, then not B." We have 'not A,' so it logically follows that 'not B,' or spelled out, that the right of the people to bear Arms can indeed be infringed.

To sum up: Since it is not the case that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the 2nd Amendment makes no provision that the government cannot infringe upon our right to bear arms.

*bows*

Nothing? Nothing on this?



...Damn. That took a long time. ;)

I have a question. Why is gun ownership such an important issue? I mean why do people WANT to own guns so badly????

They can be a useful tool?

I have a question. Why is gun ownership such an important issue? I mean why do people WANT to own guns so badly????

Because paranoia is this country's national pastime.

Because paranoia is this country's national pastime.

Gun ownership /= paranoia

I am a proud owner of a gun: http://www.ginklai.net/images/galerija/2268_glock_27_40s_w_1.jpg

By no means did I purchase the gun out of paranoia. I lived in Detroit for a good 16 years, and experienced some pretty nasty things. I purchased a gun to protect myself in the event where I may need it.

Because paranoia is this country's national pastime.

Wait, I own a firearm because I 'm paranoid? Damn. I thought I owned a firearm because I like to target shoot. Thanks for setting me straight. :rolleyes:

Gun ownership /= paranoia

I am a proud owner of a gun: http://www.ginklai.net/images/galerija/2268_glock_27_40s_w_1.jpg

By no means did I purchase the gun out of paranoia. I lived in Detroit for a good 16 years, and experienced some pretty nasty things. I purchased a gun to protect myself in the event where I may need it.

Nice tactical tupperware. Personally, I have a Mattel gun.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

The Second Amendment is not the source of our right to bear arms.

Our right to arm ourselves HOWEVER WE WISH comes from the mere fact of our existence as human beings.

And since the whole point of an armed populace is to enable the citizenry to mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever become necessary, ANY government restriction whatsoever on civilian weapons ownership is absurd and illegitimate.

Nothing? Nothing on this?

You completely ignored the modifier "free".

Defending a FREE state may at times involve attacking the CURRENT state--in other words, domestic revolt.

*goes home, grabs two friends, a dog, and a cooler with beer*
Okay....I'm in a militia now. No taky mez gunz k?

You completely ignored the modifier "free".

Defending a FREE state may at times involve attacking the CURRENT state--in other words, domestic revolt.

What a foul load of shit.

What would the framers of the Constitution have known about revolt against an existing government?

I mean, the only time any of them had even fired a gun was in that war, I forget what kind of war it was...

*goes home, grabs two friends, a dog, and a cooler with beer*
Okay....I'm in a militia now. No taky mez gunz k?

Since you have the beer, you be the medic.

You know, for sterilizing instruments or whatever.

But what's the dog for, cleaning mines or something?

Since you have the beer, you be the medic.

You know, for sterilizing instruments or whatever.

But what's the dog for, cleaning mines or something?

The dog hauls the cooler (I'm assuming the cooler's on wheels, correct).

:D

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.


Could also very easily be taken to mean:
In order to ensure that the Military is not used to control the populace through fear and force, all citizens have the right to own a weapon.

Keep in mind that at the time the bill of rights was written there was almost no such thing as a standing military in the United States. The vast majority of soldiers consisted of mustered men from town militias; the armed forces were collectively known as 'Militia'.