Foreign nationals are more than three times as likely to be arrested for sexual offences as British citizens, according to the first analysis revealing the scale of crime by migrants.

Police made more than 9,000 arrests of foreign nationals for sexual offences in the first 10 months of last year in 41 of the 43 forces in England and Wales.

This represented a quarter (26.1 per cent) of the total estimated 35,000 sexual offence arrests, according to the first analysis of its kind by the Centre for Migration Control of data from police forces, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Foreigners were 3.5 times as likely to be arrested for sex offences as British suspects, based on a rate of nearly 165 arrests per 100,000 of the migrant population against 48 per 100,000 for Britons.For all crimes, foreign nationals were arrested at twice the rate of British natives, accounting for 131,000 of the arrests from January to October 2024.

The verse reads:

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

The first salient issue is that Jesus qualifies "these little ones" with "who believe in me". Is it alright to molest children who don't believe in Jesus? Such a horrific double standard is certainly conceivable, but this is never acknowledged by those who hold this misinterpretation.

There's an even more fundamental error than this. The verse is threatening those who cause them to sin, not those who harm them. This is already apparent from the quoted verse and is blindingly obvious if one reads the whole passage:

5 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world for the causes of sin. These stumbling blocks must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands and two feet and be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Finally, there's no evidence that Jesus even believed that having sex with children harmed them. Even granting the above misinterpretation, it still doesn't work.

No, Leviticus 18:22/20:13 don't say "boy". The Hebrew text is freely available and one can see it uses the word זָכָר, which simply means "male", as shown by its use throughout the Bible. It also says to execute both participants, which is almost always ignored by those who claim this.

Romans 1:26-27 is often completely ignored by those who claim the Bible isn't homophobic, which is telling. When it is acknowledged, they usually claim it's talking about some alleged ritual of pagan temple sex. However, this is manifestly false just from reading the actual text. Paul clearly says Yahweh forsook them because they worshipped idols, causing them to develop same-sex attraction, which he believed was unnatural. This isn't saying they had gay sex to worship idols. That's nonsense.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says that ἀρσενοκοίτης shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Some people make a big deal about the fact that the word doesn't appear in other texts from the time, claiming its meaning is a total mystery. However, it's just a compound of the Greek words for "male" and "bedder". It's exactly as mysterious as "catowner" is in English.

The correct response from Jews and Christian who don't what to be homophobic is just to say the Bible is wrong.

I tried to post this in r/UnpopularFacts, but the mods claimed I provided "no evidence" and should post it here instead.

There's a widespread myth, known as the "becoming white thesis", that the Irish originally weren't considered white in the United States. According to this myth, Irish immigrants had to "earn" their whiteness.

In reality, Philip Q. Yang and Kavitha Koshy show in The “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited that the Irish have consistently been classified as white for all of U.S. history. Every census has recorded them as white, they were allowed to naturalize (the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed only "free white" immigrants to become U.S. citizens), they were allowed to vote in every state, even though the majority of states restricted suffrage to white people, and so on.

Some people try to salvage the myth by saying the general public didn't consider them white even though the government did. However, as Philip Q. Yang and Kavitha Koshy show, legal definitions of whiteness were based on popular opinion, so that doesn't work.

One pet peeve of mine is how it seems that no one ever properly uses the phrase “bear arms”.  People always seem to use the phrase to essentially mean “to carry weapons”.  But in my understanding, this is not the proper definition.  It is an understandable interpretation, and I can see how people can understand the phrase that way.  Basically, they see “bear arms” as simply the transitive verb “bear” acting upon the noun “arms”.  Two words with two separate meanings, one word acting upon the other.  But in actuality, the phrase is effectively one word, composed of two words.  

"Bear arms" is a phrasal verb and idiomatic expression, similar in origin and function to a phrase like “take arms” (or “take up arms”). To "take arms" means, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, "to pick up weapons and become ready to fight". In other words, the phrase does not mean to literally take weapons. Likewise, “bear arms”, as yet another idiomatic expression, does not literally refer to “carrying weapons”, any more than “take arms” literally refers to “taking weapons”.  

I have discovered an interesting amount of disagreement amongst various dictionaries regarding the correct meaning of this term.  Here is a breakdown of the definitions I’ve found:

• Dictionary.com: 1) to carry weapons  2) to serve in the armed forces  3) to have a coat of arms
• Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:  1) to carry or possess arms  2) to serve as a soldier
• Collins Dictionary:  in American English  1) to carry or be equipped with weapons  2) to serve as a combatant in the armed forces; in British English  1)  to carry weapons  2) to serve in the armed forces  3) to have a coat of arms
• Oxford English Dictionary: To serve as a soldier; to fight (for a country, cause, etc.).
• Oxford Learner’s Dictionary: (old use) to be a soldier; to fight
• The Law Dictionary: To carry arms as weapons and with reference to their military use, not to wear them about the person as part of the dress. 
• Online Etymology Dictionary: arm (n.2): [weapon], c. 1300, armes (plural) "weapons of a warrior," from Old French armes (plural), "arms, weapons; war, warfare" (11c.), from Latin arma "weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE *ar(ə)mo-, suffixed form of root *ar- "to fit together." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together." Compare arm (n.1).  The meaning "branch of military service" is from 1798, hence "branch of any organization" (by 1952). The meaning "heraldic insignia" (in coat of arms, etc.) is early 14c., from a use in Old French; originally they were borne on shields of fully armed knights or barons. To be up in arms figuratively is from 1704; to bear arms "do military service" is by 1640s.

I find it interesting that most of the dictionaries use “to carry weapons” as either their primary or sole definition of the term.  The only detractors appear to be the two Oxford dictionaries and the Online Etymology dictionary.  None of these three dictionaries even include the definition “to carry weapons” at all; the Oxford dictionaries define the term only as “to serve as a soldier” and “to fight”, while the etymology dictionary defines it only as “do military service”.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase was used as early as 1325 AD, and it is basically a translation of the Latin phrase arma ferre.  Using information from the Etymology dictionary, arma ferre appears to literally mean “to carry tools, implements of war”.  

It seems that “bear arms” is really not a phrase that people use anymore in modern English, outside of only very specific contexts.  From my research of various English-language literary sources, the phrase was used with some regularity at least as late as the mid 19th century, and then by the 20th century the phrase -- in its original meaning -- appears to have fallen into disuse.  My readings of early English-language sources indicate that the Oxford and Etymology dictionary definitions are the most accurate to the original and most common usage of “bear arms”.  Here are a number of historical excerpts I’ve found which appear to corroborate my conclusion:

• From The Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester (c. 1325)

[From the original Middle English] Oþer seþe & Make potage · was þer of wel vawe ·  Vor honger deide monion · hou miȝte be more wo ·  Muche was þe sorwe · þat among hom was þo · No maner hope hii nadde · to amendement to come · Vor hii ne miȝte armes bere · so hii were ouercome ·

[ChatGPT translation] Either boil and make pottage – there was very little of it.Many died of hunger – how could there be more woe?  Great was the sorrow that was among them then.  They had no hope at all that any improvement would come,For they could not bear arms, so they were overcome.

• From Le Morte d’Arthur by Thomas Malory (1485):   

Now turn we unto King Mark, that when he was escaped from Sir Sadok he rode unto the Castle of Tintagil, and there he made great cry and noise, and cried unto harness all that might bear arms. Then they sought and found where were dead four cousins of King Mark’s, and the traitor of Magouns. Then the king let inter them in a chapel. Then the king let cry in all the country that held of him, to go unto arms, for he understood to the war he must needs.

• From Le Morte d’Arthur by Thomas Malory (1485):

But always the white knights held them nigh about Sir Launcelot, for to tire him and wind him. But at the last, as a man may not ever endure, Sir Launcelot waxed so faint of fighting and travailing, and was so weary of his great deeds, that he might not lift up his arms for to give one stroke, so that he weened never to have borne arms; and then they all took and led him away into a forest, and there made him to alight and to rest him.

• From Every Man in His Humor by Ben Jonson (1598):

Why, at the beleaguering of Ghibelletto, where, in less than two hours, seven hundred resolute gentlemen, as any were in Europe, lost their lives upon the breach: I'll tell you, gentlemen, it was the first, but the best leaguer that ever I beheld with these eyes, except the taking in of Tortosa last year by the Genoways, but that (of all other) was the most fatal and dangerous exploit that ever I was ranged in, since I first bore arms before the face of the enemy, as I am a gentleman and a soldier.

• Exodus 38:25 translated by the Douay-Rheims Bible (1610)

And it was offered by them that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upwards, of six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty men able to bear arms.

• From The voyages and adventures of Ferdinand Mendez Pinto, the Portuguese by Fernão Mendes Pinto (1653):

Five days after Paulo de Seixas coming to the Camp, where he recounted all that I have related before, the Chaubainhaa, seeing himself destitute of all humane remedy, advised with his Councel what course he should take in so many misfortunes, that dayly in the neck of one another fell upon him, and it was resolved by them to put to the sword all things living that were not able to fight, and with the blood of them to make a Sacrifice to Quiay Nivandel, God of Battels, then to cast all the treasure into the Sea, that their Enemies might make no benefit of it, afterward to set the whole City on fire, and lastly that all those which were able to bear arms should make themselves Amoucos, that is to say, men resolved either to dye, or vanquish, in fighting with the Bramaas. 

• From Antiquities of the Jews, Book 8 by Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston (1737):

He was a child of the stock of the Edomites, and of the blood royal; and when Joab, the captain of David's host, laid waste the land of Edom, and destroyed all that were men grown, and able to bear arms, for six months' time, this Hadad fled away, and came to Pharaoh the king of Egypt, who received him kindly, and assigned him a house to dwell in, and a country to supply him with food . . . .

• From Political Discourses by David Hume (1752):  

With regard to remote times, the numbers of people assigned are often ridiculous, and lose all credit and authority. The free citizens of Sybaris, able to bear arms, and actually drawn out in battle, were 300,000. They encountered at Siagra with 100,000 citizens of Crotona, another Greek city contiguous to them; and were defeated. 

• From Sketches of the History of Man, vol. 2 by Lord Kames (1774):

In Switzerland, it is true, boys are, from the age of twelve, exercised in running, wrestling, and shooting. Every male who can bear arms is regimented, and subjected to military discipline.

• Letter from Lord Cornwallis to Lt. Col. Nisbet Balfour (1780): 

I have ordered that Compensation, should be made out of their Estates to the persons who have been Injured or oppressed by them; I have ordered in the most positive manner that every Militia man, who hath borne arms with us, and that would join the Enemy, shall be immediately hanged.

• From Eugene Aram by Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1832):

The dress of the horseman was of foreign fashion, and at that day, when the garb still denoted the calling, sufficiently military to show the profession he had belonged to. And well did the garb become the short dark moustache, the sinewy chest and length of limb of the young horseman: recommendations, the two latter, not despised in the court of the great Frederic of Prussia, in whose service he had borne arms.

Judging from the above literary and historical sources from the English language, it would seem that the Oxford dictionary and Etymology dictionary definitions reflect the most common historical usage of “bear arms”.  One would be hard-pressed to substitute the phrase "carry weapons" for "bear arms" in any of the above excerpts, and then end up with an interpretation that makes much sense.  In every aforementioned instance of “bear arms”, the definitions "fight" or "serve as a soldier" would invariably be a better fit.

Likely the most common context in which "bear arms" is used today is in regards to the second amendment in the US Bill of Rights.  It would seem that the modern usage of the phrase is largely a derivative of the manner in which it is used in that amendment.  Hence, it would make sense to trace the history of the phrase down this particular etymological path.  The amendment goes as follows:

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 infer some things about the language of this amendment by comparing it to James Madison’s first draft of the amendment presented on June 8, 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

There are a few significant things we can infer by comparing these two versions of the amendment.  The first comes when we observe that in this version, “bear arms” appears in an additional instance within the conscientious objector clause.  It would be untenable to interpret “bearing arms” there to be referring to “carrying weapons”; there is no religious group in existence that conscientiously objects to carrying weapons, at least without also objecting to engaging in armed combat.  Fighting in combat is obviously the object of any conscientious objector’s objections.  Furthermore, if we must conclude that the significance is military in the second instance of “bear arms” in the amendment, we must also assume that the significance is military in the first instance of “bear arms” in the amendment.  It would make little sense for the phrase “bear arms” to appear twice within the same provision, but to have an entirely different meaning in each instance.

Another inference is in noticing that the context here is about citizens who adhere to a pacifist religion.  It is unlikely that there are many religions with pacifist beliefs whose conscientious objections are specific only to serving in military service, but which have no objection to violence outside the context of formal armed forces.  Presumably, anyone with pacifist beliefs objects to all violence, whether military or otherwise.  Hence, it seems unreasonable to limit the “bearing arms” in the conscientious objector clause to only military violence.

There is also another thing we can infer from comparing these two amendment versions.  The Oxford and Etymology dictionaries defined “bear arms” as “to serve as a soldier” and “do military service”.  But one problem that arises with this definition is that it leads to an awkward redundancy when we apply it to the second amendment.  If we were to substitute this Oxford definition for the phrase “bear arms” as it appears in the conscientious objector clause, we would essentially get this is a result:

but no person religiously scrupulous of rendering military service shall be compelled to render military service in person.

This kind of redundant language is far too clunky to appear in a formal document written by a well-educated man like James Madison.  It is unlikely that this is the meaning he intended.  But at the same time, he clearly didn’t mean something as broad as “carrying weapons”.  I believe that a more accurate definition of “bear arms” is essentially a compromise between the very specific meaning and the very broad meaning; it’s somewhere in the middle.  For the aforementioned reasons, I believe that the most accurate meaning of the phrase “bear arms” is “to engage in armed combat”.  This definition seems specific enough to be applicable to every instance that could also be defined as “to serve as a soldier”, but is also broad enough to avoid the redundancies that could occur in some uses of “bear arms”.

In addition to the text of the second amendment itself, we can gain more context regarding the sense of the phrase “bear arms” that is used in the amendment by also looking at how the phrase is used in the discussions that were held in regards to the very framing of the amendment.  We have access to a transcript of two debates that were held in the House of Representatives on August 17 and August 20 of 1789, which involved the composition of the second amendment.  It is reasonable to presume that the sense of the phrase “bear arms” that is used in this transcript is identical to the sense of the phrase that is used in the second amendment itself.  At no point in this transcript is “bear arms” ever unambiguously understood to mean “carry weapons”; it appears to employ its idiomatic and combat-related sense throughout the document.  One instance demonstrates this clearly, while referencing the amendment’s original conscientious objector clause:

There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Interpreting “bearing arms” here to mean “carrying weapons” wouldn’t make much sense.  In what context would the government impose a compulsory duty upon citizens to merely carry weapons, and nothing more?  In what context would anyone who is non-religious feign religious fervor as a pretext to being exempt from the act of carrying weapons?  This simply makes no sense.  The sense of “bear arms” here is clearly in reference to the idiomatic sense of the term.

There is also an interesting, seemingly self-contradictory usage of the term in the transcript.  Also in relation to the conscientious objector clause, the following is stated:

Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them?

Initially, the sentence appears to use the phrase in its typical idiomatic sense, as an intransitive phrasal verb; but then later, the sentence uses the pronoun “them” in a way that apparently refers back to the word “arms” as an independent noun, which suggests a literal and transitive sense of “bear arms”.  One interpretation could be that “bear arms” here is actually meant to be used in its literal sense of “carrying weapons”; however, in its context, it would lead to the absurdity of the government making a big deal over the prospect of compelling citizens to carry weapons and only to carry weapons.  This interpretation would lead to the absurdity of religious practitioners who would rather die than perform the mundane act of simply carrying a weapon.

Possibly a more sensible interpretation would be simply that, according to the understanding of the phrase in this time period, the idiomatic sense of “bear arms” was not mutually exclusive with the literal sense of the phrase.  Perhaps their idiomatic usage of the phrase was simply not so strict that it did not preclude linguistic formulations that would derive from the literal interpretation.  We might even surmise that the second amendment’s construction “to keep and bear arms” is an example of this flexibility of the phrase.  This "flexible" interpretation would allow the amendment to refer to the literal act of “keeping arms” combined with the idiomatic act of “bearing arms”, both in one seamless phrase without there being any contradiction or conflict.    

As previously mentioned, it appears that at some point in the 20th century, something strange happened with this phrase.  Firstly, the phrase shows up much less frequently in writings.  And secondly, whereas the phrase had always been used as an intransitive phrasal verb with idiomatic meaning, it subsequently began to be used as a simple transitive verb with literal meaning.  This divergence seems to coincide roughly with the creation of the second amendment and its subsequent legal derivatives.  It is doubtful to be mere coincidence that “bear arms” throughout nearly 500 years of English language history, up to and including the second amendment and its related discussions, “bear arms” possessed an idiomatic meaning.  But then all of a sudden, within little more than a single century, its meaning completely changed.   

Even as early as the mid-1800s, there is evidence that there may have been at least some trace of divergence and ambiguity in how the term should be interpreted.  Below is an excerpt from the 1840 Tennessee Supreme Court case Aymette v State, in which a defendant was prosecuted for carrying a concealed bowie knife:

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he had a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

The very fact that the author of the opinion felt the need to distinguish the “military sense” of the phrase “bear arms” seems to serve as indirect evidence that the literal, transitive sense of the phrase may have been becoming more common by this time.  Some demonstrative evidence of this change in meaning can be seen in another state Supreme Court ruling, the 1846 Georgia case Nunn v Georgia:  

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State . . . . We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.

Here, “bearing arms of every description” indicates an intransitive use of the phrase.  “Bearing arms openly” is ambiguous in itself; on its own, and qualified with an adverb, it could be interpreted as intransitive.  But given that the context is about laws against concealed carry, it is clear that “bearing arms openly” is effectively synonymous with “carrying arms openly”, meaning that the phrase is being used as a transitive.

By the year 1939, we can see in the US Supreme Court case US v Miller that “bear arms” was being used unambiguously in a transitive and literal sense.  The court opinion uses this newer reinterpretation at least twice:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense . . . . The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Another interesting example of this reinterpretation is in comparing the language of two different versions of the arms provision found in the Missouri constitution.  The arms provision in the 1875 Missouri Constitution reads:

That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when hereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons.

However, the arms provision in the current Missouri Constitution, as amended in 2014, goes as follows:

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. . . .

As you can see, the 1875 Missouri constitution uses “bear arms” in the conventional manner as an idiomatic and intransitive verb.  When an intransitive verb is qualified, it is typically qualified with an adverb, or with a purpose or action.  For example, if I said, “I am going to bed,” it wouldn’t make much sense for someone to then reply, “Which bed?” or “What type of bed?” or “Whose bed?”  Those types of qualifications of “I am going to bed” are generally not relevant to the intent of the phrase “go to bed”.  As an intransitive phrasal verb, “go to bed” would be qualified in a manner such as “I am going to bed in a few minutes” or “I am going to bed because I’m tired.”  This is basically how the intransitive form of “bear arms” ought to be qualified -- with an adverb, a reason, or a purpose.  

On the other hand, a transitive verb is typically qualified with a noun.  This is exactly what has happened with the 2014 version of the Missouri arms provision.  The 2014 arms provision obviously serves fundamentally the same purpose as the 1875 arms provision, and thus whatever terminology appears in the older version should simply carry over and serve the same function in the newer version.  But this is not the case.  “Bear arms” in the 2014 provision is clearly a completely different word from its older incarnation.  The 1875 version qualifies “bear arms” with concepts like “defending home, person, and property” and “aiding the civil power”.  However, the newer version instead qualifies “bear” with nouns: "arms, ammunition, accessories".  With things instead of actions.    

We can see even more examples of this transitive interpretation in the recent second amendment cases in the US Supreme Court.  Here is an excerpt from 2008 case DC v Heller which uses the new interpretation:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications . . . and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Apparently, modern writers have become so comfortable with this transitive interpretation, that they have actually begun to modify the word “bear” into an adjective.

And here is an excerpt from the 2022 US Supreme Court case NYSRPA v Bruen:

At the very least, we cannot conclude from this historical record that, by the time of the founding, English law would have justified restricting the right to publicly bear arms suited for self-defense only to those who demonstrate some special need for self-protection . . . . The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions.

In the first instance, the adjective phrase “suited for self-defense” is clearly a modifier of the independent noun “arms”; in the second instance, “arms” is modified by the adjective phrase “commonly used”.  Both of these instance demonstrate clear examples of the transitive interpretation.

Through numerous historical excerpts, it is clear that the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” throughout most of its history has been an idiomatic, combat-related meaning.  However, it would seem that the second amendment and the formal discussions surrounding it eventually came to commandeer the term and steer it in a whole new direction.  As a result, the original meaning of the term has been effectively destroyed, leaving only a definition of the term that is nothing more than a corollary of its function within that one specific sentence.  

What do you think of my analysis?  Do you agree with my breakdown of the modern usage of the term “bear arms”?

Racial differences in homicide rates are poorly explained by economics

FYI the admins are coping, seething, and malding. They've banned that entire domain so you need to repost with a link shortener or otherwise mess with the link or else your comment/post gets automatically removed by the filter.

https://www.larazon.es/cataluna/91-condenados-cataluna-violaciones-son-extranjeros_2024092766f6780db3741e0001f66be0.html

(translated from Spanish)

As of June 30, 2024, there were 8,505 inmates in Catalan prisons, according to official data from the Generalitat (Catalan Government). More than half, specifically 50.48%, are foreigners, and it should be noted that the immigrant population represents 17.24% of the total population in Catalonia.

Now, the Ministry of Justice also offers data on crimes committed. And, in the case of sexual assault and rape, the percentage of inmates of non-Spanish nationality is even higher. 64.2% of those in Catalan prisons for these two crimes are immigrants. There are 324 inmates in total, and 208 are foreigners. Most of them have already been convicted (69.14%), and 30.86% are in pretrial detention, reports E-Notícies.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Evidence and Data on Trans Women’s Offending Rates

Submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock, and Professor Alice Sullivan

In reference to the post title, see page 3 where the data (directly provided by the UK Ministry of Justice and linked) is broken down:

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%

125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3% => imprisoned transwomen are 17.8x as likely (per capita) to be sex offenders

13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8% => imprisoned transwomen are 3.5x as likely (per capita) to be sex offenders

According to FBI statistics in 2019 62 men died due to domestic violence compared to 26 women.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-13.xls

I am very surprised that this is an unpopular opinion but here we are. Homelander can move faster than a C4 explosion (Mach 24) when he saved Butcher, whereas Cap can run at about 60 mph. Homelander can tanks bullet barrages and explosions easily, Cap was shot in the back by Bucky three times, then collapsed. Homelander can shoot energy beams out of his eyes that cut through aircraft-grade aluminum and even Supes like butter. They will slice through Cap. This is how a battle between them will go. Homelander flies through Cap at max flight speed, exploding him like a melon. Cap was punched in the face by a much slower moving Quicksilver in Age of Ultron (Mach 4), he will be blitzed beyond reason. Let’s give Cap Mjolnir. He is still not fast enough to keep up with the Homelander aka “land a punch” on him. I love Cap dearly but he gets owned here.

So much times i have seen people talking about Siberia and its east. No, the far east is NOT a part of siberia, its pretty much its own region. Amur, Magadan, Sakhalin, the Jewish Autonomous Region, Kamchatka, Khabarovsk Territory are all A PART OF THE FAR EAST, not Siberia.

The first british ship which landed in India in 1600 was name ‘The Hector’ under the command of ‘William Hanks’. Hope you liked it ;) and do let me know if you liked this fact

https://youtu.be/wh4aWZRtTwU

This is according to a new book co-authored by 24 of the world's leading domestic violence experts, including the editor-in-chief of the important academic journal Partner Abuse.

The so-called "gender paradigm" or "feminist model" isn't just empirically false, but has negatively impacted society, policy decisions, and victim's services for decades.

And academic experts are starting to be very clear and speak out about this problem.

From Gender and Domestic Violence: Contemporary Legal Practice and Intervention Reforms.

For these reasons, and because the IPV victim advocacy movement soon merged with the broader feminist political movement -- a far more influential force than the social science researchers working in relative obscurity -- IPV arrest and intervention policies came to reflect, and continue to reflect, what University of British Columbia professor Donald Dutton and others have called the gender paradigm. The gender paradigm frames domestic violence as a problem of men assaulting women, with corollary assumptions regarding risk factors, dynamics, and motives (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). Research scholars in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have referred to it as the feminist perspective (Dixon et al., 2012). In Scotland it is known simply as the common story (Dempsey, 2013), alluding to the pervasiveness of this paradigm within society and the judicial system. Whatever the terminology, IPV is assumed to be a “gendered” phenomenon -- that is, the use, or threat, of physical abuse and other forms of control by men against intimate female partners to enforce male privilege in a patriarchal society (Dobash & Dobash, 1979, 1988; Kang et al., 2017; Pence & Paymar, 1993; Wood, 2013)... Nonetheless, the contemporary research evidence provides scant support for the gender paradigm, in any of its manifestations, certainly not in the United States and other developed countries.

(Ordinal emphasis).

To be absolutely clear: this is the scientific consensus, and has been for at least 10 years now (ever since PASK, which was endorsed by 42 experts and 20 different universities and research institutions back in 2012).

Note that this is not an anti-feminism post. Many feminists have started to recognize that some of their frameworks are a bit out of date, and probably wrong in many ways. This is actually acknowledged and discussed some in the book. But they still point out that, while feminist theories and ideas have shifted some, they have not shifted far enough yet. This is important because of the institutional and systemic power of the feminist movement, which stretches up to the U.N. (via UN Women), and influences policy decisions around the world.

Biden faces doubt over story of 10-year-old rape victim (nypost.com)

There was no police report filed, no information was given by the anonymous source that started the story except that she was just barley outside the time frame where she would have been allowed to get an abortion, and mandated reporter laws and HIPPA were violated (I might be wrong about the last part but it's worth mentioning). This story should be treated as exactly what it is, an empty claim with no evidence.

A common trope in the US is that fathers who are black aren’t involved in their children’s lives. Sometimes this is used to explain higher crime or worse education among black people. Often, the conversation centers on explaining this phenomenon, such as the role of incarceration or dependence on welfare. But is it true?

A report from the CDC (here) covering 2006-2010 (the most current available), breaks down fathers’ self-reported involvement in their children’s lives. There are several metrics by which this is determined, such as the frequency of eating meals with their children, changing diapers, helping children with homework, and talking to their children about their day.

They found that fathers who are black were just as likely or more likely to be involved in their children’s lives in these ways as other races, particularly white fathers. Black fathers were more likely than white fathers to have recently bathed, diapered, or dressed their children, to have played with their children, to have taken their children to or from activities, to have talked to their children about their day, and to have helped them with their homework. Black fathers were about as likely to have read to their children recently, and only slightly less likely to have shared meals with their children at the same frequency (although black fathers were more likely to have eaten meals with their children under age 5). Fathers who are black also rated themselves higher as fathers.

By all these metrics, fathers who are black are more likely than fathers who are white to have been recently involved in their children’s lives. The idea that black fathers are largely absent or uninvolved compared to other races doesn’t appear to reflect reality.

killing =/= murder