Guns bad...case closed

[Hermit]

I've got better things to do.

You think that making assertions without factual support is a better thing to do than to back them up? Figures.

Suffice it to say that the term has been in use as I've described since at least the 17th century.

Well, it suffices as an illustration of an assertion bereft of any support whatsoever. I agree that the term "natural born citizen" has been used, but you have provided zero checkable references for your interpretation of what it means. Vague references to British tradition and "everybody knew what it meant at the time" count for nothing, and the very wording of the US Constitution is of no help to you whatsoever. So, no, what you say does not suffice.

[Seth]

I've got better things to do.

You think that making assertions without factual support is a better thing to do than to back them up? Figures.

It's not an assertion, it's a fact, and one that has been well understood since the 17th century at least, as you would know if you bothered to look it up.

Suffice it to say that the term has been in use as I've described since at least the 17th century.

Well, it suffices as an illustration of an assertion bereft of any support whatsoever. I agree that the term "natural born citizen" has been used, but you have provided zero checkable references for your interpretation of what it means. Vague references to British tradition and "everybody knew what it meant at the time" count for nothing, and the very wording of the US Constitution is of no help to you whatsoever. So, no, what you say does not suffice.[/quote]

Your deliberate ignorance is not my problem. Go do your own homework. Here's a cite for you to begin with, for what it's worth: Wikipedia.

[Hermit]

I've got better things to do.

You think that making assertions without factual support is a better thing to do than to back them up? Figures.

It's not an assertion, it's a fact, and one that has been well understood since the 17th century at least, as you would know if you bothered to look it up.

I did read the Wikipedia article on the natural born citizenship clause a few days ago. It contains not as much as an allusion to a requirement that both parents of a person born on US soil must be US citizens at the time that person is born in order to be allowed to become president of the USA. Your bald assertion remains just that: a bald assertion.

[Seth]

I've got better things to do.

You think that making assertions without factual support is a better thing to do than to back them up? Figures.

It's not an assertion, it's a fact, and one that has been well understood since the 17th century at least, as you would know if you bothered to look it up.

I did read the Wikipedia article on the natural born citizenship clause a few days ago. It contains not as much as an allusion to a requirement that both parents of a person born on US soil must be US citizens at the time that person is born in order to be allowed to become president of the USA. Your bald assertion remains just that: a bald assertion.

Nor does it authoritatively state that it is NOT a requirement by citing any authority.

On the other hand, the prime authority, Vattel's "Law of Nations" makes it clear that "natural born" citizenship was expressly excluded if either parent was not a subject of the Crown, among other twists and turns of rather byzantine English common law. In every case, reference to the citizenship of a child born outside of the dominion of the Crown, the most basic requirement for citizenship, or for that matter to be eligible for naturalization by Parliament, was conditioned on BOTH PARENTS being subjects of the Crown, not to mention the restrictions on the reasons that the parents were outside the dominion of the Crown that controlled the citizenship of the child. One such exception was for Ambassadors and the other was for soldiers who were assigned outside of English dominion during long wars who might have their English-citizen wives with them, as was not uncommon at the time.

Nowhere is there any mention of a child born of one British parent and a foreigner being entitled to British citizenship AT ALL, even through naturalization, which was reserved for children of British subjects who happened to be born outside of the Crown's domain.

[mistermack]

Columbus police officer injures 4-year-old while shooting at dog.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... oting.html

See, real life doesn't follow Seth's fantasies about empowered citizens taking out the bad guy.
In real life, it's the wrong person getting killed, for ridiculous reasons, by people who would tell you that they are highly trained and responsible gun-users.

And of course, the American idea of good guys and bad guys comes from shitty movies anyway, where the goodies are all devastatingly good, and brilliant shots, and the bad guys are incredibly bad, and couldn't hit a barn door.

[Seth]

Columbus police officer injures 4-year-old while shooting at dog.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... oting.html

See, real life doesn't follow Seth's fantasies about empowered citizens taking out the bad guy.
In real life, it's the wrong person getting killed, for ridiculous reasons, by people who would tell you that they are highly trained and responsible gun-users.

And of course, the American idea of good guys and bad guys comes from shitty movies anyway, where the goodies are all devastatingly good, and brilliant shots, and the bad guys are incredibly bad, and couldn't hit a barn door.

Shit happens.

Still, two and a half million times a year American citizens use their guns for lawful self defense properly.

Your bitching is exactly like calling for the banning of all cars and pint beer glasses because some small number of them are used wrongfully. That's idiotic, but then from you it's also unsurprising.

[mistermack]

Shit happens.

Still, two and a half million times a year American citizens use their guns for lawful self defense properly.

No they don't, you dumb cunt.

[Seth]

Shit happens.

Still, two and a half million times a year American citizens use their guns for lawful self defense properly.

No they don't, you dumb cunt.

Yes, they do.

Feel free to provide critically-robust scientific evidence that they don't however.

[LucidFlight]

That's two and a half million American lives saved every year, thanks to guns. Just think about that.

[Seth]

That's two and a half million American lives saved every year, thanks to guns. Just think about that.

Not necessarily "lives saved" because not every attempt at criminal victimization is an attempt to kill the victim. Most of the time it's more "people saved from criminal victimization", which is just as important.

[rainbow]

That's two and a half million American lives saved every year, thanks to guns. Just think about that.

Imagine how many lives could be saved if they all carried Bazookas?

[mistermack]

According to US dog-lovers, police shootings of dogs is growing exponentially.
It started with a few cases, and sort of took off.

But if it's ok for a cop to kill a dog that he assumes is going to attack, then it's ok for everybody.
Concealed carriers everywhere can plug any mutt that isn't on a lead. Which, if it wasn't for the innocent people getting killed, would be a good thing.
(the dog in my link WAS on a chain, according to a report)

So guns aren't ALL bad. Just mostly.

[Tero]

Yeah, we have had open carry of lethal dogs for a long time! About time they get some control.

[laklak]

G'won, shoot my dog one more time, muthafucker. I dare you...

Seriously, though, this dog shooting bullshit needs to stop. There have been cases where cops chased a suspect into someone's yard and shot the dog that was there because the dog was aggressive. That's what the fucking dog is THERE for, you stupid fucking fascist cunt. Somebody comes running through my backyard, at night, and they'll be lucky if it's only the dogs they're dealing with and not an armed Lak. I KEEEL you.

[Tero]

You have to train your dog to grabany intruder by the pants leg. The cops, out of shape, can then show up and keep a couple of guns aimed at criminal and dog. While animal holders are called.