General Discussion

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)

35. It'd be good for progressives to similarly have nuanced knowledge

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:06 PM

Dec 2012

about mental illness and the heterogeneity that exists in describing violence.

We want good laws, that focus on reducing authentic risks identified using actuarial evidence so that money and resource are used effectively with respect to reducing the occurrence of risk and efficiently with respect to the costs of the implementation of law enforcement and compliance.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Semantics for progressives (how to avoid getting side tracked) [View all] zipplewrath Dec 2012 OP

Can you help with this, as far as terminology? OneGrassRoot Dec 2012 #1

Not really zipplewrath Dec 2012 #7

I never use the word banned. OneGrassRoot Dec 2012 #9

Easy fix, if we're not presented with some workable that reduces gun violance.... daleanime Dec 2012 #2

Rights preexist our Constitution, are not granted by it, and cannot be abolished by it. nt jody Dec 2012 #5

So you say zipplewrath Dec 2012 #10

SCOTUS said that in US v Cruikshank and again in DC v Heller. jody Dec 2012 #11

Doesn't discuss the ability to be withdrawn zipplewrath Dec 2012 #14

"Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." jody Dec 2012 #15

Doesn't make it "inalienable" zipplewrath Dec 2012 #16

SCOTUS in many cases recognize enumerated in the BOR and un-enumerated rights protected by the Ninth jody Dec 2012 #17

Power of the Constitution zipplewrath Dec 2012 #18

Abolishing a right for all law-abiding citizens is distinct from limiting an individual's exercise jody Dec 2012 #19

Careful zipplewrath Dec 2012 #20

Please read #11 a preexisting right is an inalienable right as PA & VT so clearly stated. Those jody Dec 2012 #21

Can be denied zipplewrath Dec 2012 #22

Do you use "deny" in the sense of limit for all law-abiding citizens or do mean abolish or ban for jody Dec 2012 #23

Dread Scot zipplewrath Dec 2012 #24

Understand but if words on paper do not create a right, how can words on paper destroy that jody Dec 2012 #25

Deny, not destroy zipplewrath Dec 2012 #27

I believe we're cycling. Are you saying "there are constitutional methods" for denying freedom of jody Dec 2012 #29

There are and there have been restrictions on freedom of speech put in place before Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #30

Your examples limit freedom of speech but do not abolish it for all citizens. Even under martial law jody Dec 2012 #31

Yes zipplewrath Dec 2012 #36

"restricting" a right is not "abolishing" a right. The latter is the subject of this discussion. jody Dec 2012 #39

And I can completely deny you the right zipplewrath Dec 2012 #40

Good Thing we have Antonin Scalia to distort the Constitution for Us! ellisonz Dec 2012 #34

The notion of "Inherent Rights" is nonsense on stilts. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #28

Love that NRA Talking Point (TM). ellisonz Dec 2012 #33

KICK patrice Dec 2012 #3

There is no discussion going on here on DU. closeupready Dec 2012 #4

Agree no discussion but lots of calls for ban, ban, ban, . . . . . . . . . nt jody Dec 2012 #6

Yep. Screaming? Check. Hyperbole? Check. closeupready Dec 2012 #12

Feel free zipplewrath Dec 2012 #8

Right. Thanks for the thread, opening post. closeupready Dec 2012 #13

Thank you. (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #26

Simple: Everytime they throw out a talking point, hit them with a left hook. ellisonz Dec 2012 #32

It'd be good for progressives to similarly have nuanced knowledge HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #35

Good Idea zipplewrath Dec 2012 #37

I did. Days ago... please see: HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #38