I don’t think that’s the same system DrDeth is referring to.
There is no reason to own an automatic or semi-automatic firearm. There should not be any exception to the federal firearms license requirement – that’s for starters. Firearms purchases should be registered and the identities owners should be recorded and checked in a national FBI database (thank you, Hawaii). And there should be mandatory licensing for all firearms owners. These measures have been proven successful. How about that?
Yeah, well we’re not proposing so you can stop channeling your inner Alex Jones.
Look, I know it’s heresy to suggest that the Constitution is flawed. But if it were so fucking infallible…we wouldn’t have had slavery, and we wouldn’t have had a civil war that killed 600,000 people. Let’s stop pretending that the fountain of all human liberty flows directly from the Constitution. It does not. In fact, it was an instrument of tyranny until 1863. It wasn’t the Constitution that changed; it was one group of men who were more successful at human slaughter than their Southern neighbors who changed the Constitution – and they shoved their States’ rights right up their asses and made them love it.
So now that we’ve got that out of the way…
The simple fact remains that the Constitution did have this little thing called the judiciary. And the judiciary asserted for itself the power to interpret laws, and expunge laws that it considers to be inconsistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. And somewhere along the way, chief, their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment “right” to keep and bear arms digressed from yours. It is true that you’ve had some favorable rulings the last year thanks to a now-deceased activist justice. But the highest court of the land has, at minimum, been vague and inconsistent on this so-called “right” to possess firearms. And in the meantime -just recently in fact - it has upheld the right of states to impose strict regulations on firearms, including the prohibition on some types of firearms, and including restrictions on the carry of concealed weapons – and stiff punishments for those who violate said laws. Ask former NFL star wide receiver Plaxico Burress if you doubt me on this.
No, what we want is for people to stop hiding behind cheap slippery slope arguments and other forms of lazy intellect. Essentially, we ask that gun rights cultists try to stop being binary thinkers, however hard that might prove to be.
Again, you’re wrong here on at least two fronts. Let’s itemize them:
[ol]
[li]SCOTUS has not been inconsistent. Heller and McDonald did not overturn any previous holding. Are you using words in non-standard ways again?[/li][li]SCOTUS did not recently uphold anything close to what you describe with regard to prohibitions or concealed carry. Denial of cert does not indicate SCOTUS ruling one way or another. What one of their recent cases regarding the 2nd amendment was Caetano and in that ruling they decided unanimously that arms include those that were not in existence at the founding, among other things.[/li][/ol]
For now I’d settle for correct use of the English language. A tall order to be sure.
Here’s the truth about guns:
I remember years ago that gun rights cultists used to always mention Switzerland as a shining example of gun culture done right. The problem is, Switzerland actually requires licensing of handguns. There are also limits on the number of guns someone can purchase.
The fact is, the gun rights cultists don’t want to enact meaningful legislation because they know it would work.
Mods, if you don’t get this smart ass to stop insulting me with under-handed cheap shots, let the word go forth that I’m going to unleash a torrent of insults on this guy - there will be no rules. There’s no need to question intelligence here or anyone’s ability to use the English language here. I can use it fine.
You haven’t been insulted, but feel free to report the posts if you think you have been. Maybe this is another instance of a word meaning something different for you?
Oddly, when you continue to use English words in non-standard ways, people have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. That’s why clarification is in order. For example - you chose to not respond to this question:
And now you’ve said SCOTUS has been inconsistent - where in their rulings they haven’t overturned any previous holding. From that I draw the conclusion you are using the word “inconsistent” in a non-standard way. Feel free to clarify with the definition you are using.
I’m not an gun rights cultist, so I don’t have the time to sit around memorizing highly biased interpretations of court doctrine. If you want to declare victory to make yourself feel better, you can. :rolleyes:
We can start with the mental gymnastics of the Cruikshank majority, which on the one hand seemed to argue that firearms ownership was a birthright while on the other suggesting that the Bill of Rights only forbade congress from abridging civil liberties, but then turns around and allows armed militias, essentially operating under the color of State law, to deny rights to African Americans to defend themselves. This goes back to that point I made about the Constitution not being so infallible and not being the fountain of liberty.
We could talk about how the Miller case in 1939 stresses that congress (and virtually any state authority) can prohibit firearms that aren’t necessary to defend a State. In fact it makes explicit reference to firearms rights in the collective, not in terms of individuals. This ruling incidentally conflicted with both the language of the majority in the Cruikshank ruling, which claimed on the one hand that firearms ownership was a birthright while simultaneously allowing that birthright to be nullified by a violent and racist majority. This language is also at odds with the Heller decision, which asserts that there is a fundamental right to possess firearms for self-protection.
That’s saying nothing of the cases that the Supreme Court has not ruled on, thereby affirming lower court rulings, which in turn left numerous firearms restrictions in place.
So which is it, smart ass, a collective right or an individual right?
[QUOTE=asahi]
There is no reason to own an automatic or semi-automatic firearm.
[/QUOTE]
Well, see, this is your opinion. First off, it’s a bit of a false dilemma…most people can’t own automatic weapons, since they are highly controlled. Secondly, society allows citizens to own a LOT of things that they don’t really need…at least, that other folks don’t think they need. You don’t need a humidor full of cigars, or a cabinet full of scotch (or a fridge full of Bush beer). We allow citizens to make their own decisions about those things instead of allowing guys like you to assert that ‘There is no reason to own’ blah blah blah.
There aren’t any exceptions wrt automatic weapons. There isn’t any requirement for a firearms license on other weapons basically because of folks like you. It’s funny that you say with one breath that no one should own those things, then you ‘concede’ a ‘reasonable’ position that is, in fact, just a chip away for you (and others like you)…just a step on the road to total banning. Because YOU don’t think there are any reasons to own something.
Sort of like the Prohibitionists agitating for a ban on alcohol in the US because they didn’t think anyone had any reason to own or use alcohol. 
Sounds reasonable to me…except for that little detail that it’s just a step on your path to total bannings by hook or by crook…register everyone then you know where to go when you move onto the next step. And the fact that this is the same exact tactic your side has used for decades…in fact it’s been used in other countries to do exactly what you want to do with this ‘reasonable’ ‘concession’…right?
Might have something to do with why trust is so hard to come by.
I’d actually be good with all of this. If your side would muzzle folks like you and tell them that concessions don’t equal slippery slopes, that banning of large classes of firearms are pretty much off the table, and instead we want to regulate for safety…sort of like what we do with alcohol and tobacco, and recently with pot in some places. How about that? Would you be willing to be muzzled and take complete banning of large classes of firearms completely off the table until and unless there is a referendum to take the 2nd off the table?
No one, not even its authors, said it was infallible. They set up a mechanism for amending it that only asks that a sufficiently large supermajority approve a constitutional amendment, to prove it isn’t a transient whim rammed through by a temporary 50.5% majority.
However morally repugnant slavery was, at the time of the Constitution’s ratification it was an accepted feature of society. The Constitution’s main failing w.r.t. the Civil War is that it was silent on the subject of secession, and didn’t clarify the Federal government’s authority to ban slavery in the territories.
The Constitution, and more especially the Bill of Rights, was the best that Enlightenment philosophers could come up with. It embodies the basic principle that governments are to serve people, not the other way around. It’s a covenant- the terms under which the people agreed to recognize the federal government’s authority.
Even the victorious Union accepted that the 13th Amendment was necessary to ban slavery, and the 14th to declare the freed slaves citizens of the USA. The winners didn’t just say “Fuck you, slavery is banned because we say so”.
The question IS binary if you step back and ask “Are guns in a special category because their possession upholds fundamental rights? Or are they just another thing governments can pass laws against under the general power of the state?” If gun owners seem intransigent about “reasonable” restrictions, it’s because those restrictions are inherently based on the latter supposition. Maybe the restrictions are reasonable; but they presume an authority that could impose near-total gun prohibition if that’s what a temporary majority ever decided was “reasonable”
Understood, but thanks for completely missing the point.
The failure was that it permitted it in the first place. However, the federalists didn’t want the Southern states to break away from the fledgling confederation. It’s an example of political pragmatism, which is fine. But let’s avoid Constitution worship, because for one thing, our current interpretation is based on folk lore and propaganda. But furthermore, treating the Constitution as some sort of sacred holy text prevents us from dealing objectively with the problems of today. Let’s actually debate whether it makes sense in 2016 for a civilized nation to permit weapons of mass murder freely floating about the United States.
People don’t go into night clubs or school zones and snuff out 30 to 50 people with humidors or bottles of beer. That’s a significant difference. All of that being said, there are still places in the US that heavily restrict the sale of alcohol. Ever hear of “dry counties”? There are some places where it’s easier to buy a gun than a bottle of gin.
Yet alcohol causes more deaths, including many of the deaths due to guns. And tobacco causes even more deaths, many from second hand smoke. I don’t really see the difference. Society sanctions many things that cause harm…many things that some think others don’t need or that there is no reason for them to own or possess. By doing so, society accepts that some non-zero number of people are going to die or be harmed by such sanction.
There are also places where it’s heavily restricted to buy or even own a gun. Ever heard of DC? It’s easier to buy a bottle of gin in DC than a gun. What does this prove to you?
At any rate, in the US guns are legal. How about the other question/point? Are you willing to give up on the banning of large segments of guns unless and until the 2nd is repealed in the same way the 18th was? In exchange for concessions on the other side such as those you tossed out? Or, is this basically just a step for you on the road to eventual deeper and deeper bans on large swaths of guns (such as your assertion that no one needs semi-automatics, knowing this composes a very large percentage of the guns out there)?
You can fire a pump or level action or heck, even a bolt action as fast. A revolver with a speed loader is really fast.
What exceptions are thee now? You mean someone who sells one gun in their lifetime needs to have a deal license?
What use would that be? The shooter in Orlando had all that.
all of these are useless and serve only to harass law abiding gun owners.
And, no they haven’t, not in the USA.
Neither of those have anything at all to do with my post.
and calling anyone who owns a gun a “gun cultist” is silly. I own two- a .22 rifle and my old service handgun from when I was a State Security guard. I support reasonable measures.
But I dont take seriously dudes who use terms like “gun cultists”.
Secondhand smoke kills more than five times as many as are murdered with guns. Smoking kills ten time that.
Knock it off. Stick to the actual discussion and refrain from taking personal swipes at other posters.
= = = = =
Report any post you find offensive, but do not take it upon yourself to respond with insults. Following that line of behavior will invoke sanctions on yourself.
We are not on the board 24/7 and it sometimes takes a while before we can respond.
[ /Moderating ]
I’m not a gun rights cultist either, don’t even know what that would be. Is that meant to be disparaging? I don’t really have to declare victory - the laws in the majority of states in the country and the current controlling SCOTUS opinions have done that already. The fight isn’t over though, I’m sure there are more areas to expand gun rights in. Btw, have you read Heller?
Cruikshank was before SCOTUS began on its journey of developing the current incorporation doctrine, so given Slaughterhouse essentially gutted the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment, the holding that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government and not the states was not new territory - hardly mental gymnastics. And this is a trend with your characterizations, both of SCOTUS, and of folks you seem to disagree with. Rather than actually present a position you choose caricature.
It is unfortunate that the result of Cruikshank harmed blacks and gave them less opportunity to defend themselves, but gun control was racist in its origins. It’s hard to see how you think the court has been inconsistent with regard to firearms with this example. The incorporation doctrine that later followed in the early 20th century didn’t exist when Cruikshank was decided so to say that the Cruikshank court viewed the right to arms as a natural right is only inconsistent to the extent that all future incorporation jurisprudence was inconsistent. From Heller:
(my bold)
Heller affirmed that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd amendment, but it is codified.
There is extensive discussion of militias in Miller, but simply because there was discussion of militias does not preclude the individual right nor does it foreclose it. Miller was about the type of arm, specifically a sawed off shotgun. You claim that this conflicted with Cruikshank - how so?
It certainly is not at odds with Heller. Again, the question in Miller was the type of arm. The discussion of militias was undertaken in part to determine if the arm in question was applicable to militia use. Because the defense was not present at trial, and no evidence of actual use of short barreled shotguns was presented, the court found erroneously that the type of shotgun in question wasn’t in use at the time. There is no conflict with Heller since much of the discussion in Heller was also about the types of arms that are covered. From Heller:
(my bold)
Here you display a fundamental misunderstanding of SCOTUS jurisprudence and are simply wrong. A case that is denied cert does not affirm a lower court ruling.
Notwithstanding the intelligence of my asshole, have you read Heller? It’s clearly an individual right.
So let’s gather up your errors thus far, since you seem to avoid addressing them I want to put them in a convenient place:[ul]
[li]You stated there have been compromises or offers of compromise but have failed to support this claim leaving the impression that you are using the word compromise in a non-standard way.[/li][li]In post #301 you stated separately the “gun show loophole” (sic) and universal background checks, as if these were different things[/li][li]You mistakenly claimed that denial of cert by SCOTUS is an affirmation of a lower court ruling.[/li][li]Similar to the above, you claimed that SCOTUS upheld prohibitions on some types of firearms and restrictions on concealed carry.[/li][/ul]
You were the one who said that the Court had been consistent in re the 2nd Amendment, even going so far and being so smug as to attack my use of the English language to do so. The Court has not been consistent in establishing whether firearms ownership is a birthright or a collective right of a State to defend itself (i. e. well-regulated militia). In recent years, the Court issued a decisive 5-4 majority decision in stating that handgun ownership was a basic right. This was the first time the Court had decided to take on a case involving firearms rights in 70 years. It’s also worth noting that one of the justices for the majority is no longer living. Thus, it clearly has not been consistent in that regard. Court doctrine evolves as the politics evolve. It will evolve again.
That is a completely and utterly unsubstantiated claim. There were gun control laws enacted by states and local communities as early as the turn of the 19th Century, if not earlier. The reason that there were hardly any firearms control disputes in the federal courts is that the legal battles were mostly resolved in state courts at the time. I might be wrong on this but the Cruikshank case is probably the first time that any firearms control law ever became a federal controversy. That was a case that involved racism, but gun control itself is not rooted in racism; it’s rooted in the concept of police power. The Constitution has said that states have the powers to police and provide public safety. The Constitution does not necessarily provide that power to the federal government explicitly, but given its broad powers to regulate commerce, there is at least some degree of implicit power to police the people among the states themselves. I use the word “police” much more uncomfortably and carefully as it applies to federal power, though.
Yeah, well, refer to the above.
Yes, Miller was about the type of firearm. And in that case, the Court opined that the “right” to keep and bear arms was inextricably tied to its purpose in equipping a well-regulated militia, being necessary to defend a free state.
Supreme Court majority in Miller 1939 wrote:
In SCOTUS cases that followed, justices writing for the majority and minority of the Court used similarly qualified language in reference to 2nd Amendment “rights”. In 1997, Justice Clarence Thomas tried to argue that the Miller case merely because it was not common military equipment…but that it did not otherwise define or establish the core rights under the 2nd Amendment.
So again, what we see here is inconsistency over the centuries and decades, much of it reflecting the politics and activism of the times.
I didn’t make any errors. I know the subject well. However, I am not really interested in playing lawyer anymore. We could go round and around in circles on this, spending hours Googling and pulling up Wiki quotes. I have neither the time nor the interest in such trivial exercises. You and I both know that all it would take are one or two more left-leaning justices to reverse decisions rendered by Scalia and Thomas.
I thought it was. I thought the notion was to give private gun sellers access to the same background check system that gun stores have.