Source: dictionary.com

The abolitionists most definitely defended the rights of the slaves, verbally, politically and physically. Yes, iverglas, "assert a right means something." But that doesn't mean that you know what that something is. And it certainly doesn't mean that your bald assertion has any authority.

Next time you want to lecture someone on the English language (or law or science or logic,... or... anything, really), please consult a competent authority.

And about your imaginary trickery, when will you learn, iverglas? My technique for tricking you consists entirely of speaking the truth with integrity. That may seem devious to you, but so be it.

Here's another of my "tricks"--I not only got the dictionary to agree with me, I got no less than John Adams, the second President of the United States of America, to use my flawed language (long before I was born, no less!):



Source: http://www.jstor.org/pss/360453

Debating you is soooooooo boring, iverglas. This whole BS examination of the nuances of the language, nuances about which you are clearly quite ignorant, is a diversion. The big focus of contention is a snippet of a sentence in a throwaway point--it is a detail unnecessary, not only to the main argument, but to the throwaway point itself.

But you thought that you saw an argument you could win. You thought you had found a technical detail where you could prevail. And so that became the entirety of the debate, in spite of the fact that you hold opposing views on more substantive issues. And you didn't even go through sufficient due diligence to discover that you were objectively wrong in your minuscule, inconsequential, diversionary point.

Yeah, you demonstrated some things, iverglas. You demonstrated your ignorance. You demonstrated your pettiness. You demonstrated your willingness to waste time and avoid the actual point. You demonstrated your ability to condescend up. You demonstrated your own pathetic skill at "this sleight-of-word crap." And you're correct--your desperate flailing and sputtering are indeed sad.

You lose.

Again.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. The abolitionists were asserting the rights of others, as do practically all parents at some time or another. I assert the rights of gays to equal protection of the laws. I assert the rights of children and women to not be abused. I assert the rights of Mexican immigrants, legal and otherwise, not to be abused. I assert the rights of animals not to be abused.



I totally agree. Of course from my perspective that totally refutes the social construct theory. It is true, as you say, that society can fail to recognize "that right"--that legitimate claim. That would be impossible if rights were social constructs; social constructs are defined by society, and thus society cannot be wrong by definition.

The creator of a construct is correct 100% of the time. For example, if TP7(x) is a function that is defined by TPaine7 thus:

TP7(x) = pi*x^e

then the fact that TP7(x) = pi*x^e is not subject to dispute by anyone who is not TPaine7. He is correct by definition, since he is the definer. The function is a TPaine7 construct.



You are absolutely correct; it is "still a violation of {your} self-ownership" regardless of society's beliefs, physical power or even actions. In other words, rights transcend anything that society does or does not do, and thus cannot possibly be constructs of society.

All that society constructs are approximations to the correct view of rights. Similarly, all that science constructs are approximations to the correct view of reality. Aristotle's approximation was superseded by Galileo's was superseded by Newton's was superseded by Einstein's and Heisenberg's will be superseded by... will be superseded by...

It is quite possible that succeeding generations of humans will have more correct views of rights than we do, just as it is that they will have more accurate views of reality. That does not mean that rights are societal constructs any more than reality is a scientific construct.

It is quite possible that this is true. In fact, I will stipulate that guns flow from areas of liberal gun regulation to places of unconstitutional gun restriction. I will stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that the math is correct. That is well beside my point.

How is that for not denying the "science"?

However, I believe that using reliable sources is a tenet of science, and any vaguely reasonable person can see that advocacy groups are not reliable, unbiased sources. Failure to see that is a failure of SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. Anyone, from Brown, Harvard, Yale, Oxford, MIT, or anywhere else who uncritically cited Phillip Morris as an authority on the health effects of cigarettes (excepting, of course, an admission against interest like "even Phillip Morris admits that...") would be met with skepticism, and not just by me. You would be standing right beside me. You have two "scientific" faces.

You see my skepticism about MAIG as nonsense, yet you hold substantially identical views about the NRA. This is more than a failure to understand the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, it is a failure of character.

One last time--would you uncritically accept a source that cited the NRA thus?:



Yes or no.

If you lack the integrity to address this issue, your professed knowledge of statistics, science or any other subject is quite irrelevant to the trustworthiness of your assertions.

Sometimes students who can’t learn in other ways can be lead through example. You seem to have a ember of human decency left—what else would explain your conceding that a Bible College attending, sophomoric nonsense writing chap like myself sounded like the Canadian Supreme Court? After all, the Canadian Supreme Court is a legitimate Court, a Court worth quoting, a Court about whose opinions you actually care.

I would like to believe that, in spite of the fact that that revelation undercut your claims about my argument in the OP, you were more interested in the truth than in insulting me. And your interest in the truth, no matter how slight and fleeting--and assuming I’m not misreading the situation--is quite a revelation to me. That would imply that you haven’t given your entire soul to the Field.

I have to respect that (or that possibility), I have no choice.

So in the interest of fanning your ember of human decency into a flame, I offer you the following example of how to act when you are caught in a conflict with the truth.






Notice that it was you, iverglas, who implied that Eleanor Roosevelt signed the document. I was talking about “some document signed by dictators, warlords and Canadians.” You asked me into which of those categories Eleanor Roosevelt fell—clearly implying that Eleanor Roosevelt signed the document.

I took the intentional or unintentional bait and bought into your implication, almost without thinking:




You capitalized fully on my mistake:



I responded by resisting your attempt to change the subject:



But in another subthread, when you pressed your advantage, I frankly admitted my mistake. That’s right, MY mistake. I didn’t wiggle or try to put any of the blame on you. I just admitted my mistake, as off subject and absent-minded as it was:









That, as I tried to explain to you then, is integrity.

Compare and contrast your performance above.

any more than the ivory tower can. You won't be able to fool anyone with your sophistry--at least not anyone who had a chance of understanding to start with.

The fact is, iverglas, that you and your interlocutor were totally agreed on what "it" meant:



Anyone who is fluent in English--really anyone who speaks or reads English--can see what "it" means, but just for you I'll substitute the antecedent:



That is not a misrepresentation of what you said, iverglas. You know it, I know it, and every moderately intelligent reader knows it. And any moderately intelligent person who reads the thread in question or my summation of it in this thread can see that your antecedent carried through to the statement you are flailing and sputtering in a vain attempt to disavow.



Anyone who can read English sees that I did quote you directly in this thread, at length. I did not make up a sentence, iverglas, I placed the antecedent according to the well established rules of the language. If you are literate and mildly intelligent, you can understand that. I don't believe that even you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.

You may think Americans (and others reading this) are all fools, but you are wrong. We see through you.



It doesn't need to be in the same set of quotation marks, iverglas. It is not a misrepresentation in the slightest degree. You should know that iverglas' special rules of English grammar that apply when she needs to get out of a tight spot is an even sillier work of bullshit than iverglas' homemade definition of "inalienable" that conveniently supports her ignorant legal theories.




Two points, iverglas. First, I leave it to the reader to find, if she can, any SUBSTANTIVE AND RELEVANT difference between what you are pretending was the antecedent (what you put in front of the "is" and the Fifth Amendment) and what I correctly identified as the antecedent. Even (or especially) when combined with your desperate spin.

Second, your antecedent doesn't make sense in context:



That, to quote Your Sophistry, is a nonsense.

...

You got busted speaking a little too clearly. You flailed. You sputtered. You spun desperately.

Now you've lost.

Again.

Get over it.

there is an ugly but true accusation against a named person--iverglas.

Here is the conversation











So what is "it"--the "it" that you two have been discussing? There is only one possible antecedent to "it" in the last few posts--



Substituting the antecedent into your post 31 yields:



Own your statement, iverglas. And stop pretending that I am accusing anyone else but you.

(as long as you can safely retreat.)

I am a felon. I steal things to buy drugs. Or I break and enter to raid panty drawers. Or I rape and kill women. Or I torture people and kill them for a hobby. (Which of these is actually true is none of your concern.)

I come from a disadvantaged background and never had much of a chance. Or I'm a spoiled rich brat who loves getting away with things--like a starlet who shoplifts, but with a little more edge. Or I'm an otherwise average guy who likes the thrill and power of crime.

Anyway, I like to break into houses. I have my reasons. I carry a weapon, a gun or a knife, or perhaps a bat. If I'm breaking into a elderly person's home, I may just carry my fists. Old people are easy.

I just heard a legal theory. It says that if I break into your home (to steal, rape, torture or kill--you know, do my thing--you must retreat if you safely can. You see, as the theory goes, my right to life--as I offer you a deadly threat in your own home--trumps your right to live peaceably... in your own home.

I like that theory. It can lead to some amusing results. You see the other day, I broke into a woman's home in the early afternoon. I know her schedule; she should have been at work, but she wasn't. Her car wasn't in the driveway either--maybe it was at the shop.

Anyway, the woman was just stepping out of the shower as I entered and she ran out the back door when she saw my knife. It was hysterical watching her run down the street naked. I felt safe knowing that if she'd shot me, she would have been up on charges, and that in any event guns are hard to get and require permits and cannot be at the ready for people like me. I was able to scoop up all her jewelry and split long before the cops arrived.

I am so glad that I live in one of the more refined parts of America (or in a totally refined country). And the juries here are so civilized. Most of them think a person who would dare to shoot at me is just as bad or worse than me. All the guys I met in prison agree that we live in a great place. And, to a man, we are against allowing members of the public access to guns. Hell, I like the British system. Even most police should be unarmed.

Enlightened legal theory is great. In legal terms, it says that your right to be anywhere--including your own home--doesn't trump my right to safety as I offer you a deadly threat. In practical terms, it means that I have more rights than all of you straight, uptight, "law abiding" suckers. I can go anywhere I please--including your bedroom--and I can force you to vacate by threatening you. You cannot stand your ground anywhere on earth as long as you can safely flee. You are obliged to flee and call the police. As long as I time my crimes and don't corner you, I should have a good work experience.

Ok, enough of my thoughts. What do you think of this enlightened legal theory? I hope most of you are civilized.






For the really slow people out there, I am not actually a felon.

Let's see if you can separate the wheat from the partially digested chaff.

Four of these quotes are from respected legal authorities who actually know or knew what they were talking about. One is from a blowhard sophist and is not worth a teaspoon of BS. (Real BS has a legitimate purpose—it can help plants grow.)




Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc.







Can you tell which quote is worthless and based in profound ignorance?

The meaning of “unalienable rights” has generated some recent interest on this forum, so I thought I would post on the subject—I’ve been meaning to post on it for some time anyway. This subject tends to come up in debates about gun rights, and I think it is important.

What are unalienable rights? What did the term “unalienable rights” mean at the founding?

The strongest possible evidence regarding the meaning of a founding document arises from the document itself (properly understood in its historical context, of course). Let’s take a look at the relevant passage.

The Declaration of Independence:



One approach would be to consult an authoritative legal dictionary, look up “unalienable” and draw a conclusion. Let’s try that:



Following the crumbs leads to



(Both definitions are from Dictionary.com. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ina... . Interestingly enough, I went to findlaw.com to see how they defined “unalienable” and discovered that they use the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law too).

Based on this definition, we would conclude that an unalienable right is a right that cannot be transferred to another entity.

What would that mean? Let’s look at an example. Life is an unalienable right, according to the Declaration of Independence. The fact that a man’s life is his unalienable (birth)right means that no entity—whether government, corporation or a fellow human being—can legitimately and lawfully take possession of his life. That is true whether by theft—as the slavers did when they stole people—or by his actual consent.

Why would someone consent to have another own his life? In ancient times, people sold themselves into slavery in order to save their children from starvation, to pay off debts and for other reasons.

In modern times there are still people who—for their own personal reasons—commit themselves to others as slaves or property. A man may surrender himself to a dominatrix, for example. He may sign a contract. He may obey her every command. He may swear by all that he holds dear to be her property forever.

Under US legal theory, however, his oath and signed contract have no legal authority. Their arrangement is all well and good, so long as he consents to serve her. The moment that he changes his mind, the contract and oath are void. They cannot be enforced in any American court.

Does the modern definition of “unalienable rights” mean that there is no possible way that he can be separated from his right to life? Actually no. There is nothing in the definition—“not alienable” or not capable of being “changed over to another's ownership” that implies that it forever belongs him. The fact that ownership of his life cannot be transferred does not mean that it cannot be forfeited. He can forfeit his life by committing a crime so horrible—let’s say genocide on a Hitlerean scale—that it merits death. He would then have no right to live—not because it had been “changed over to another’s ownership” or alienated, but because it had been forfeited.

So using a modern dictionary, we conclude that an unalienable right is a right that:

1. Cannot be legitimately taken
   
2. Cannot be legitimately alienated—sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another entity
   
3. May be forfeited by the owner.
   

Our third conclusion is vulnerable, though based in common sense, and should be substantiated by more explicit evidence.

Even our first two conclusions must remain tentative, since we have other serious issues to address. First, there is more in another founding document—the Constitution—that bears on this subject. We also need to remember that we have relied entirely on a modern dictionary and have not considered how the term was used in the founding era. Legal language, too, can change over time.

What else do the founding documents—in this case the Constitution—have to say about unalienable rights?





The government may deprive a person of life or liberty—even though they are unalienable rights—after due process of law. Intuitively, that harmonizes perfectly with our third conclusion. Let’s step through how this would work.

(The second coming of) Adolph Hitler is born with the full rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that every human being enjoys. Unfortunately, like his namesake, he chooses to lead one of the greatest genocides in human history. He is accused and brought up on charges. During that trial (also known as due process of law) he is presumed innocent—up until the verdict is reached. Being presumed innocent, he is presumed to still enjoy the right to life.

When the verdict is reached, however, Hitler is no longer presumed innocent. The only remaining issue is what rights are forfeit as a result of his crimes, and for what duration. Let us say that—in perfect harmony with the US Constitution—the judge rules that his life is forfeit for the obvious duration of forever.

Now the state—whether that term means Ohio, Oregon or the USA—can justly execute Hitler. They can deprive him of his life. Please note carefully that they are not depriving him of his right to life. That would be impossible. His right to life cannot be taken away by the state. The state can recognize a forfeiture and act accordingly, but it cannot decide on its own to take the right of life away from a person who legitimately holds that right.

Here is the sequence of events.

1. Hitler was born with unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
   
2. Hitler forfeited his life—his right to life, his right to live, his birthright of life—by committing genocide
   
3. The state held a trial—due process of law—during which it established the fact that Hitler had forfeited his life by committing genocide
   
4. Recognizing the fact that Hitler had forfeited his life, the state elected to execute him
   

If the state deprived someone of his life while that person still had a right to life, that deprivation would be a human rights violation. By the same token, if the state imprisoned someone thus depriving her of her right to travel freely in any state of the US while she still had the right to travel freely, that would be a human rights violation. Therefore, before the state can deprive a person of their life or of part of their liberty it must establish that the person has already forfeited her life or a part of her liberty by committing a crime.

It is perfectly legal to deprive someone of something that is not their right. That is true not only of the state but of appropriate private parties. For example, the man who breaks off his arrangement with his dominatrix does her no (legal) injustice. She does not—and cannot—legally own him. Similarly, a woman who breaks off sexual relations with a man does him no (legal) injustice. He does not—and cannot—legally own her body. Life and the liberty of bodily integrity are unalienable rights.

This all makes sense and harmonizes with the Constitution, but we still have a serious hurdle left. We haven’t established that our understanding agrees with the term “unalienable rights” as used in the founding era.

Let’s get a little closer to the founding:



http://books.google.com/books?id=CYZOAAAAY...

That sounds familiar. “Incapable of being transferred” means the exact same thing as the modern law dictionary’s incapable of being “changed over to another's ownership.” The meaning hasn’t changed. Nothing about this definition implies that unalienable rights cannot be forfeited.

Ok, that’s what they thought about natural or unalienable rights in 1897 (and possibly 1856). Now let’s look at a contemporary of the founders—the most respected and most cited legal authority of the era.

Blackstone (1827):



http://books.google.com/books?id=lxBo6zahh...

Blackstone says explicitly what the Declaration and the Constitution say implicitly: Unalienable or natural rights can neither be given nor taken, strengthened or weakened by government, but they can be can be forfeited. The government has the legitimate power to recognize the forfeiture and to act accordingly. This is very clear to any knowledgeable person who thoughtfully reads the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our understanding of “unalienable rights” is on solid footing indeed. It is supported by internal and external, current and founding era legal authorities. (It is also supported by US Supreme Court cases, but this OP is long enough already.)

Our understanding, though well supported, is controversial. So let’s look at an alternate understanding.

On Inalienable Rights (http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law111/A... ) by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D, has recently been brought to my attention as a representative statement of an opposing view.

I can’t quote more than a few paragraphs, so I will summarize his key arguments by paragraph. (You can follow the link above to check my summation.)







We are not taking away their liberty—we are taking away only a portion of their liberty. True they cannot travel freely across the US or decide when to go outside. But they can twiddle their thumbs or hum a bar of music. They can pray. They can meditate.

This leads to another fact that is being overlooked. Even if bound like a mummy, a person still has some control over himself. It is impossible to TOTALLY remove a human being’s liberty short of killing her or rendering her unconscious. Remember that, it will come up again.

As to executed prisoners, yes, we most definitely are taking away their lives. I can’t argue with Adler there.



Indeed, from Adler’s POV, this is true. I was heartened to see that he was smart enough to see it. Most people (unfortunately not all—there has been one outlier) I have debated have seen this point. Actually, the question of execution—and the Constitution’s treatment of it—is totally incompatible with Adler’s position.

At least he is intelligent enough to see it and honest enough to admit it.



Adler is conflating partial loss of liberty with full loss of liberty. As I pointed out above, full loss of liberty is impossible for conscious, living prisoners. The judge hasn’t sentenced them to full loss of liberty nor could she. But the liberty that they have lost was not in their possession—they had forfeited part of their right to liberty before being deprived of it.



Here Adler’s conflation reaches full bloom. The right to the liberty that was forfeit does not remain in existence for the duration of the sentence. If the state imprisoned a man and thereby deprived him of an unalienable right he still retained, that would constitute a human rights violation. It is only because he forfeited the right that they can justly deprive him of it. And remember, the right forfeited is NOT the full right of liberty. Once again, it is impossible to FULLY deprive someone of his liberty short of death or a forced coma or other forced unconsciousness.

By conflating a full loss of liberty with the partial loss of liberty to which people are (and actually can be) sentenced, Adler allows the specter of personal slavery to the warden to be raised with apparent plausibility. The plausibility is only apparent.

Addler’s next sentence is interesting—personal slavery to the warden “would be a violation of the human right to the status of a free man.” I was under the impression that prisoners were not “free men”—even if they are not personal property of the warden.

It is true that if a prisoner lost his full right to liberty, he would have no rights to be violated by anyone taking possession of his body or doing anything whatsoever to him. But no one is, or ever can be under US law, sentenced to full loss of liberty. Not only is it practically impossible, approaching it would violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection against “cruel and unusual punishments”—a protection that operates before and after due process of law.



This is a bald assertion, not backed by any clear logic . Adler is, among other things, assuming his conclusions.



The death penalty does not take away the right to life. The state cannot take away the right to life, it can only take away life. If the state is operating legitimately, it can only take away life from someone who has already forfeited their life and any and all rights to it. To take the life of someone who has not forfeited that life is a human rights violation.



These are a lot of unsupported assumptions that have no support in the legal term “unalienable rights” or even in “inalienable rights.” The last sentence is totally gratuitous. “What cannot be taken away by another cannot be divested by one's self”—if that were so, people would be incapable of committing suicide or even of reject medical care that another couldn’t legally deny them, since their life is an unalienable right. Adler is assuming his conclusions and taking serious shortcuts. Usually when a person has to take such radical shortcuts and make such bald assertions, it indicates that their arguments are agenda driven.



Adler’s article takes no notice of any legal definitions or any historical uses of the terms “unalienable rights.” He defines the term “inalienable rights” as allegedly used in the Declaration of Indepenence to suit his argument. Also note that Adler’s conclusion means that the Constitution is in direct conflict with the Declaration of Independence. If life is an “unalienable right” and if that means that “it cannot be taken away by the state, nor can it be forfeited by the individual's misconduct” then the Constitution is wrong—twice!—when it says that life can be taken away “after due process of law.”

Adler doesn’t address the Constitution itself, so he is not obliged to address this inconsistency, but others who argue this position (and claim to be agreeing with the Constitution) are obliged to address it.

The theory that crime forfeits, not the criminal’s right but its full exercise is incompatible with both common sense and the Constitution. This is seen most sharply in the case of execution, but it is also clear in simple imprisonment. Every innocent person has the right not to be imprisoned. If the government imprisons an innocent person, that is a civil rights violation. That is why falsely imprisoned persons win lawsuits. To say that government can legitimately imprison a person who has a right not to be imprisoned is fascist.

Adler’s theory is illegitimate according to the founding documents.

****

What does the definition of "unalienable rights" have to do with arms rights and arms laws? The question often arises as to whether felons can legitimately be forbidden arms after their incarceration. Those who say that they cannot often take positions similar to Adler’s. But while it is true that life is an unalienable right and that self-defense and the right to effective tools of self-defense are rights that are part of that right, it does not follow that released felons have the same right to arms as others. Unalienable rights can be forfeited.

What I find offensive is that often on this board, people who despise America and her legal traditions haughtily presume to condemn us and our laws. As part of their efforts, they often attempt to teach what they don’t understand. This is one of the subjects about which I have been “taught” what seems, to me at least, to be utter nonsense.

There is a lot more evidence that I could produce; there are Supreme Court cases that clearly support this American understanding of unalienable rights—including cases bearing directly on the issue of armed felons.

But those who despise our country couldn’t care less what the Supreme Court has said—not because they can refute it logically, but because it isn’t the Supreme Court of Canada or of a European state or of Australia or New Zealand or the like. (And of course, it doesn't agree with their personal views.)

Dealing with these people, especially the appallingly ignorant and condescending ones--is draining and depressing, and I don’t always have the time or emotional energy to refute their nonsense. But I thought that someone here might find my thoughts interesting or even informative.

I would appreciate feedback. I may be confident in my conclusion—it harmonizes with current and founding era legal definitions, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and with Supreme Court cases that I haven’t bothered to cite—but I realize that I may have made errors. I am always open to considering other points of view and evaluating critiques of my positions made by intelligent people.

So what do you think?

Here's the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

I'll help out with a few highlights:











(That last bit about "allowing" ready access to firearms meaning that {the wrong type of} "people are going to die UNNECESSARILY" was handled quite ably in posts 83, 115 and 116, if I say so myself.)

Now a good sophist knows about the judicial use of hedging words, but anyone reading the thread can see who argues passionately and loudly for home invading felons--and against handicapped homeowners being "allowed" ready access to firearms. Handicapped and other vulnerable people being "allowed" ready access to firearms is bad, you see, because it endangers those dear folks most in need of protection.

Home invading felons.

And I have repeatedly asked how anyone can be "deprived" of something that is INALIENABLE. Are you considering answering?

In the civilized world, nobody has been "deprived" of rights since the death of civil death, which is not practised in any country comparable to the US apart from the US.

Where I'm at, some individuals convicted of some criminal offences are "deprived" of the ability to exercise certain aspects of certain rights. They are denied some exercises of the right to liberty: they may not move about freely on the streets, while they are confined to a correctional facility. However, they may still pick their noses whenever they like. And they may not be confined to their cells 24/7, or placed in solitary confinement, unless the state comes up wtih justification above and beyond the justification for confinement in a correctional institution.

Where I'm at, such individuals are not denied the exercise of their constitutional right to vote, since that denial was held to be an unjustified violation of a constitutional right, by my Supreme Court.

Where I'm at, such individuals are not automatically denied a licence to acquire and possess a firearm, since such a blanket denial would be an unjustified violation of a constitutional right.


No government can DEPRIVE an individual of a RIGHT. It may, where it has justification, RESTRICT THE EXERCISE of the right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

And from post 80 above:
The Telegraph was Conrad Black's flagship operation, before that unfortunate spot of bother he's suffering deprivation of liberty over now.

Hmmmmm...

Are life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness actually rights?

<edited to add post 80 quote>

So which is it? Are surveys a good way to get evidence about human behavior or not?

Or am I to assume that you were present at a few thousand sexual assaults and know personally that they actually took place? Am I to assume that you know that in each of these thousands of cases there was corroborating evidence beyond reasonable (not ivergasian) doubt? Or is it that women don't lie about sexual abuse to, among other things get full custody?

When women and girls (boy and men don't count, I know) report rapes, at least to the places you get your numbers from, are they run through a gauntlet of cross examination like the one in Kleck's survey? Are the ones that don't pass muster dismissed and eliminated from your thousands? Or are you counting girls and women outside America?

Let me be perfectly clear, not for you but for those who might be fooled by a hysterically outraged response. I am not denying that thousands of rapes take place in America every few weeks. (I am not saying that they do, either. I am not familiar enough with the survey methodology to know for sure.) But I have had intimate conversations with multiple women about their experiences, and I believed them.)

The fact is that surveys are a good methodology to find out about human behavior. I have never witnessed a defensive gun use that certainly prevented death. I have never witnessed a rape or child molestation. But I am not simple minded enough to conclude that neither one takes place because of that fact, or that they don't happen often.

Yes I know that I, along with 90% of the men (and apparently women) in this place are raving women haters. I would tell you what to do with that opinion, Your Sophistry, but I won't lower myself.

So rant, rave, whine to the mods, demand my tombstone, throw dirt into the air, or find some minor real or imagined mistake in my post. But don't you dare address the actual points I made.

The evidence:

1) Opposition to concealed carry is focused on people without disqualifying convictions or mental issues--the people who aren't criminal or insane.
2) Places like DC, Chicago or New York that charge exorbitant fees and make it hard to have weapons in the home do so to keep sane and innocent people from having guns to protect themselves.
3) District attorneys, judges, and the legal system get apoplectic at the thought of a decent, non-criminal carrying a gun but shrug off a thug caught with a gun and plea bargain the gun possession away. Even if they don't, a little time in prison with his pals is more street cred to a gang-banger but would ruin an accountant's life. This amounts to disparate sentencing, like sentencing both a fish and a man to spend time underwater.
4) The politicians who resist the Constitution and refuse to allow the innocent to exercise their rights have the resources to know better. Most of them are easily intelligent enough to understand the issues (Sarah Palin is an anomaly.)
5) Nevertheless, politicians in big cities, like a certain thuggish former Chicago mayor, oppose the exercise of rights by the innocent.

What can account for all of these facts in one consistent, logical framework?

The hypothesis:

Politicians are legal crooks. While not--necessarily--breaking the law, they take advantage of the weak, the not-too-bright, and the unfortunate. They practice fraud on the voters. They hire muscle to protect themselves. Many of them flaunt the laws, knowing that their employees aren't in a position to arrest them. Many get away with whatever they can.

Street thugs do the same things, only illegally--or in ways that are more likely to lead to arrest. They too, prey on the weak, the stupid, the unfortunate. They practice fraud. The more successful ones hire muscle. They do whatever they can get away with--and occasionally more.

Many anti-gun politicians know, deep in their souls, that they are they same as the felons they legislate against, judge and campaign about getting tough on. They can't deny the kinship, the bond. Sure, they get called "Your Honor", Mr. Mayor, Senator, or Congressman, but they're just thugs with tittles.

They can't help feeling sorry for their less fortunate or gifted brethren. They know they can't legalize home invasion, rape, murder and armed robbery--that would negatively impact #1. But they can toss their brethren a bone--something to give them a safer working environment. And it has the side benefit of winning thanks from their constituents and increasing their personal political power. Win-win.

I once thought this was a cynical view and a little funny, but there should be holes in it... somewhere, shouldn't there? I'm no longer laughing.

This is a great collection of cases, thanks X_Digger.

Remember, his name was on the terror watch list. It's a simple question; a simple yes or no would be appreciated, with any explanation following--I'd like to be able to easily tally responses.

For those who say yes, here are some follow up questions:

Do you believe in equality under the law?

Do you believe that other people--sane people with clean criminal records who have reached the age of majority--should also be able to purchase guns, even if their names appear on the terrorist watch list just like Kennedy's name did? If not, why not?

Thanks.