Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: "Right To Bear Arms"  (Read 57464 times)

berate

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #130 on: April 15, 2008, 05:09:19 PM »
Thanks for putting it for us in a few words, sheraton.. :)

o l i v e r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #131 on: April 16, 2008, 10:43:05 AM »
No need to be sarcastic, berate! I think sheraton makes a very interesting comment when talking specifically about "the mother of the future king to have a child with his son" (Dodi being, as he was, an Arab, of another race). Someone's further interpretation would be appreciated..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICy-cVlDVW0&feature=related
God does not play dice with the universe.

superpartner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #132 on: April 16, 2008, 02:07:30 PM »
It's not that difficult to figure that out oliver..

slightlybehind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #133 on: April 17, 2008, 11:11:13 AM »

[...]

Yet statistics on gun-related deaths show that this Hollywood-cultivated dichotomy bears little relation to reality for most gun-related homicides, in that many homicides are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background and who are known to the victims. Almost half of all murders (two-thirds of which were committed with guns) are committed by an acquaintance or relative of the victim. More than a quarter of all women murdered were killed by boyfriends or husbands. Arguments precipitate 32% of all murders. Only 21% of murders result from the commission fo felonies such as arson, robbery, and the like... The good guy/bad guy myth evaporates when most murders are examined. 


Very good point quantum!

ex nihilo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #134 on: April 21, 2008, 02:24:12 PM »
No need to be sarcastic, berate! I think sheraton makes a very interesting comment when talking specifically about "the mother of the future king to have a child with his son" (Dodi being, as he was, an Arab, of another race). Someone's further interpretation would be appreciated..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICy-cVlDVW0&feature=related


Interesting avatar oliver :)
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

ena

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #135 on: April 25, 2008, 11:45:29 AM »

No need to be sarcastic, berate! I think sheraton makes a very interesting comment when talking specifically about "the mother of the future king to have a child with his son" (Dodi being, as he was, an Arab, of another race). Someone's further interpretation would be appreciated..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICy-cVlDVW0&feature=related


Dodi's father tells the official inquest what—and who—he believes killed the princess and his son.



He is (a) a father grieving for his son; (b) a world-class social climber robbed of ultimate legitimacy by a cruel fate; (c) a passionate whistleblower exposing an unimaginable conspiracy; or (d) a nut case — or maybe all of the above. Yesterday Mohamed Al Fayed finally took the witness stand in London to present his own theories about why Princess Diana and his son Dodi (the princess's then-boyfriend) died in a 1997 Paris car crash. Al Fayed, the 75-year-old owner of Harrods department store, had pushed for the opportunity to speak at a much delayed official inquest into the deaths so that he could accuse virtually the entire British royal family as well as then-prime minister Tony Blair of being in on a vast plot to do in the lovers because Diana was pregnant with Dodi's baby — a claim other witnesses have said is impossible — and they planned to marry. The main villain, according to Al Fayed, is Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth's 86-year-old husband. "It is time to send him back to Germany, from where he comes," Al Fayed told the court. "You want to have his original name? It ends with Frankenstein." (In case your royal history is rusty, Philip's actual family is the Danish and German house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.) Al Fayed accused Philip of being both a racist and a Nazi who masterminded the conspiracy in his role as head of "that Dracula family" — meaning the Windsors, not the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgs. The goal was not only to get rid of Diana but also to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, "his crocodile wife" in Al Fayed's account. Charles and Camilla did indeed marry in 2005. "He's happy with that," Al Fayed said.

alman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #136 on: April 28, 2008, 01:19:58 PM »
I'd be interested to read more on...

upgrade

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #137 on: April 28, 2008, 03:02:19 PM »

[...]

Yet statistics on gun-related deaths show that this Hollywood-cultivated dichotomy bears little relation to reality for most gun-related homicides, in that many homicides are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background and who are known to the victims. Almost half of all murders (two-thirds of which were committed with guns) are committed by an acquaintance or relative of the victim. More than a quarter of all women murdered were killed by boyfriends or husbands. Arguments precipitate 32% of all murders. Only 21% of murders result from the commission fo felonies such as arson, robbery, and the like... The good guy/bad guy myth evaporates when most murders are examined. 


Very good point quantum!

Yeah, real good point.  Talk about generalizations and kludging numbers together to further muddy up what meaningful information there may have been in the unnamed and probably unrepresentative statistical study. 

If this is what passes as a "good point" for a lawyer, this law school bit is going to be a breeze. =)

brace

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #138 on: April 29, 2008, 12:43:19 PM »
No need to get overexcited about the "right to bear arms." You have to remember that in Western democracies (especially America) the police maintains the public order with an iron hand. Just beacause you have a gun it does not mean that you will use it -- in fact, the majority of people get a gun "for the fun of it," as an insurance that were they attacked they'd be able to get back to the attacker. However, the possibility of being attacked in middle class neighborhoods is minimal and these people almost never put their guns to use. It is not like in some countries where there are virtually no laws and people set the record straight themselves. It is in these countries that the right to bear arms would prove detrimental. For instance, it is well-known that in ex-communist countries journalists are beaten randomly when they publish discrediting articles about a political figure of their country. Not to mention that even politicians themselves have been treated like * & ^ % in these countries (Russia, for instance). Intelligence services' agents have beaten political adversaries of their superiors so bad that they have nearly died; or their houses have come under heavy gun fire. Assassination attemps towards high level government figures are random even after so many years of trying to establish democratic societies.

localrealist

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #139 on: May 07, 2008, 04:08:39 PM »
Interesting POV, brace!