If guns are outlawed. only my in-laws will have guns. and of course “the man”
“Smear the queer” was a horribly wrong alternate name for “kill the man with the ball”, a children’s football game! What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying you wanted a gun because other kids roughed you up playing football?
Can you define your terms “huge portion” and “these days”?
The stats are available to which I linked. You indicated 5-4 decisions that included Kennedy in the majority as the focus. If you’d like to argue that Kennedy was the deciding vote in 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0 cases, go right ahead but that’s a very strange way to characterize those other cases.
Separately, the 26% was referenced because you indicated this figure was “huge”. I notice you haven’t clarified how you define those terms. Would you like to? The other figures I referenced, 19%, etc. were to elucidate a more precise picture of the decisions than the one you characterized. Since the population you indicated was total court cases, I think the way I framed it is reasonable. Feel free to elaborate.
That some decisions are 9-0 or 8-1 etc. seems uninteresting to me. To presume they are all relevant to understanding the court’s “idealogical” division would be to assume that all cases are ideological. Do you?
A few years ago, I did an analysis of all 5-4 decisions over a several-year period, and posted it here at SDMB. I noted how consistent the alignments were. Now your study of 2014 cases finds that Breyer is in the 5 of 5-4’s as often as Kennedy. That’s different from my result and suggests that either Kennedy has moved towards the “liberals” or some other re-alignment has occurred. Or that SCOTUS is hearing different kinds of cases. In any case, I stand corrected.
I place “liberals” above in quotes, not to scare anyone, but out of ignorance. I know almost nothing about the Court, beyond the study I mentioned above and the usual layman’s clicking on Wikipedia. IIRC in my study, Kennedy was the Justice who seemed to migrate between two well-defined groups of 4. If that makes him a “centrist” by definition, fine; but I’m not qualified to say what the term “centrist” even means in such a context. Again, I apologize to anyone who got scared.
Another reason I often put “centrist” in quotation marks is that I’m afraid the term gives legitimacy to bat-shit idealogy. Once there was a “left” and a “right” and “centrist” referred to moderates in between. “Leftists” (on political or economic issues*) are thin on the ground these days (with the notable exception of Bernie Sanders) and the Democratic Party is dominated, on economic and political issues, by what was called “centrist thought” in most of the 20th century. This has led to a shift in terminology: Today “left” is often used to mean what was once “centrist,”, “centrist” means “right-wing,” right-wing" means “batshit crazy.” My quotation marks are an effort to resist that.
(* - There has been a liberalization in social issues of no interest to the plutocrats, like marijuana or gay marriage. For this reason there is often confusion here at SDMB about America’s stark shift to the right.)
But all of this is an irrelevant hijack to the essential point I tried to make in this thread.
IMO, 5-4 Supreme Court decisions (regardless of which side Kennedy was on :rolleyes: ) should not be treated as the authoritative Final Word on what Yahweh* had in mind with his apparent desire to arm Americans with guns.
Many of the great SCOTUS decisions, e.g. Brown vs Board of Education, were decided by 9-0 votes and are widely admired and considered especially compelling because of that unanimity. Do you disagree? Obviously, a 5-4 vote is just as legally binding in the short term, but to infer from such a vote a conclusion like
“Oh! Thank Heavens! We finally know what the Founding Fathers had in mind.”
seems quite silly.
-
- No, I don’t have a cite for gun nuts who have said in so many words that Yahweh wrote the Second Amendment. But there are Americans who have described guns as “a god-Given right” and “a universal human right” so I don’t think the sarcasm is wholly out-of-place.
So then we shouldn’t argue that the Constitution supports gay marriage because the SCOTUS decision supporting it was 5-4?
Ah… Miller is gay so while I don’t know if he’s ever been on the receiving end of anti-gay violence I’m pretty sure he has some experience with homophobia.
Also, while hopefully he won’t object to my putting words in his mouth, I suspect he’d feel far safer from anti-gay violence in Toronto, Montreal, or New York, than he would in Texas, Wyoming, or other places with vastly less gun control.
Finally, “smear the queer” was, as already noted earlier, a badly named children’s game where the purpose was to tackle the guy with the ball. I’ll admit to participating in it and quite literally didn’t at the time even know the word “queer” was an anti-gay pejorative. This may be hard for younger folks to believe but frankly those of us who were children in the 70s and early 80s used all sorts of insults regularly without any idea what they meant. I probably used the word “fag” and “pussy” hundreds of times before learning what they actually meant. I don’t mean it as an excuse but an explanation.
It was not to be confused with “fag bashing” though it obviously was based on homophobia.
Since the Constitution doesn’t mention gay rights it would indeed be silly to say it supports gay rights.
Gosh, you know better than I do what the term meant where I grew up, even though you weren’t there. You are so smart!
Fine with me. I’ve always thought many of the “Constitution supports XX” inferences were silly. Include the 7-2 Roe -v- Wade decision if you wish. I support abortion rights but not because I think “the Constitution says so.”
Roe was 7-2. Planned Parenthood v. Casey was 5-4 which is the controlling abortion jurisprudence.
Like it or not, judicial review has, since 1802, defined what the Constitution says. Of course we can disagree with the Supreme Court, but we cannot say that such and such isn’t really what the Constitution says because it was only a 5-4 vote.
You have a particular problem with your position because the Second Amendment is pretty clear. Yes, you have a dependent, explanatory militia clause, but an independent clause that discusses a right “of the people” to keep and bear arms.
There is FAR, FAR, more support in the plain text of the constitution for an individual right to keep and carry guns than there is for gay marriage or legal abortions.
Apparently that wasn’t what the phrase meant anywhere that anyone grew up.
The mention of abortion in this thread is, I think, a way to make a good analogy.
Abortion is to the left what guns are to the right - a absolute sacrosanct right that they will fight tooth and nail to protect. Any “common sense” regulations are seen as an attempt to take the right away completely and will be used to whip up the fiery passions of supporters by opportunistic politicians.
Any regulation of one these is seen by supporters as being only a “first step”. They know that their opponents will never be willing to stop there; and any loss of that right, no matter how slight, will never be regained. The goal posts will then be moved, and further “obvious” regulations will be called for.
Look at partial birth abortions. Wouldn’t it be “common sense” to ban these? If you argue against keeping these legal, then you should understand the mentality of those who want to prevent any further gun regulations no matter how “common sense” they may seem to you.
I agree fully. Take laws proposing a 24 hour waiting period to get an abortion or to buy a gun, respectively. Both are very reasonable restrictions in and of themselves. But gun supporters and abortion supporters fight them tooth and nail because they are rightfully seen as what they are: a first step towards prohibition.
Ted Cruz won’t stop at a 24 hour waiting period for an abortion, and Dianne Feinstein won’t stop at a 24 hour waiting period for guns. These “common sense” laws are ineffective and are only the first jab in a 15 round fight. Why concede them?
A waiting period for people who already have guns is nonsensical. There is no analogy to abortion. I am opposed to a waiting period for abortion as well.
I’m on the fence for waiting periods for first time gun buyers.
Which is still enough that if any crazed wacko wants to get his hands on guns, he can do it. Certainly if terrorists want to get their hands on guns, they can.
Even Michael Moore was forced to concede this after looking into it. Guns are pretty common in Canada. You can buy them at Canadian Tire, and until recently, Wal-Mart. We just had a brand-new Cabelas open up near us, and it has a HUGE gun section, including military-style rifles and case after case of handguns. They also sell ammo in large quantity military style ammo boxes.
For an example of what you can get here, have a look at Cabela’s Canadian online store:
For example, the Robinson XCRL would push all your ‘scary weapon’ buttons. Available in 7.62 NATO, folding stock, etc.
To buy this gun, you need to have first taken a firearms safety course and received your firearms purchase license. But once you have that, you can buy as many long guns as you want, including tactical rifles, and you don’t even have to register them.
So if guns are the problem, why aren’t Canadians dropping in the streets?
Yep. She already got a *10-day waiting period for the delivery of any firearm
- in CA. Has done exactly squat.
The gun control side of the debate has all but given up on handguns. There once was a time when they realized that handguns (and not black tacticool rifles) were the real problem. In fact the brady campaign used to be called “the National Council to Control Handguns” and “the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence”
The Heller decision pretty much destroyed any hopes of banning handguns. But if you were going to ban anything, handguns would be a more sensible choice than tacticool rifles.
A handgun registry might make sense (a variant of the licensing and registration scheme would only affect handguns and leave rifles alone).
Nothing in its language even implies that.
“Let’s face it, the real problem is handguns”
Really? I thought the problem was people getting injured or killed.