I do not find this sort of gibberish profound. If you wish to insert a smart-assed comment rather than participate in the discussion, we have been known to allow that. However, we much prefer that the comment be meaningful (or, at least, mildly humorous).
[ /Moderating ]
Let me go into a bit more detail, since I see since your own post was confusing so is my terse reply. You are wrong in how you are (mis)characterizing the training. I’m not making any sort of statement about whether such training would or wouldn’t increase/decrease the number of deaths assuming we had universal OPEN carry, but my WAG is the numbers wouldn’t really be affected much. The reason is that open carry is already legal in many states, including my own. I’ve rarely seen anyone openly carrying a gun (outside of a firing range) on their person except military and law enforcement, despite the fact that you could do so (within some legal limitations that you learn about in the carry conceal classes). If they made the same laws federal (which is what I mean by ‘universal’ btw), I don’t think it would really change the number of gun deaths substantially, since today the number from people legally carrying either openly or concealed is miniscule.
Hopefully this makes more sense to anyone following along. My actual issue with your post was simply your mischaracterization of the carry conceal training, which is a lot more rigorous and delves into all of the actual legal issues and responsibilities of carrying a firearm concealed in the US, as well as the ramifications of using one. It, of course, also delves into many aspects of gun safety as well as testing the person going through the course on basically all of this plus their ability to actually handle and use a firearm.
Be advised that many posters on those forums are “sovereign citizen” types, and not your typical NRA members. Don’t let your view of typical law abiding people who carry be skewed by those you encounter on those boards. Mostly they are not the same.
HERE is another gun rights case to keep an eye on.
Regarding the subject of the OP, all states have a form of public carry in one form or another, in almost all states it’s rather easy to exercise that right. Many of those states also have legal open carry. Hawaii is just being a dick as it has a form of legal public carry but just won’t let anyone exercise it. But pretty much everywhere else in the U.S. it’s already going on. So nothing for you antis to get re-crazy about. You lost this issue a long, long time ago.
No one should be allowed to have a hand gun, semi-automatic, or high capacity weapon.the only thing permitted would be one rifle or shot gun that hold 5 or less rounds for hunting. Violators should be immediately executed.
I assume that you are not aware that several states have constitutional carry.
Twelve states, comprising about 8% of the US population, allow their residents to carry concealed without getting a permit.
And yet, somehow, those people manage to go through their daily routines without stumbling into murder.
(post shortened)
The entire U.S. Bill of (Individual) Rights are the rights of individuals. That is why it was created. To protect the rights of individuals. Not to protect the rights of a government agency or the rights of a government militia.
Maybe it’s because you do not understand what the term open-carry means? Every rifle, shotgun, and handgun hunter carries openly. Should I assume that you are trying to abolish hunting?
What is this “U.S. Bill of (Individual) Rights” of which you speak? It can’t be the United States Bill of Rights (i.e. the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) since that document is not exclusively concerned with individual rights, as a reading can casually demonstrate.
Well, in some places it’s not murder if you baited someone into fighting you and then shot them. So you need to look at a different metric (preferably not one from such a biased source as that you linked to - an organisation started by the guy who wrote the book “more guns: less crime”). More guns equals more killing. Bottom line.
“In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides, but an Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.”
Have you read Heller? That’s not what Scalia said at all. He said that the prefatory clause informs the operative clause when there is an ambiguity, but does not otherwise restrict an unambiguous directive.
Imagine: “As reading books is important to the well being of the populace, the right of the people to free eyeglasses shall not be infringed.”
Would anyone say that only literate people are entitled to free eyeglasses? Of course not. The prefatory clause explains the reason, but the operative clause makes no restriction for that sole purpose.
In any event, let’s suppose that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was for militia purposes only and nothing else. If the federal government bans citizens from possessing firearms (or at least those types of firearms ordinarily borne by citizens) then has it not per se destroyed the militia? How can I appear ready and trained for militia service if the government deprives me of the arms needed to be a good militiaman?
At least it would not be by firing squad.
There are plenty of times for “but” qualifiers.
“We do not condone voter fraud, but the voter-ID law will disenfranchise more legit voters than stymie illegitimate voters.”
“We do not support Saddam, but going to war in Iraq to overthrow him is the wrong decision.”
“We support our men and women in uniform, but spending $700 billion a year on defense is too much.”
Any Constitutional right comes with such a tradeoff.
We would love to tell those KKK assholes to not march on the streets, but…
We would love to send those Westboro Baptists to jail, but…
We want to forbid people yelling “faggot” at gay couples, but…
We are sympathetic to those family members who have to see the murderer of their loved one go free because the police violated the defendant’s privacy, but
That jury made a dumbass decision by letting the defendant go, but…
We understand he was guilty and his slick lawyer got him off, but…
If he was forced to testify, he would have gotten tripped up in his lies, but…
We think that serial killer should be drawn and quartered, but …
All constitutional guarantees are infringements upon what transient majority opinions would like to impose.
And there is no clearer example of judicial activism, interpreting the wording to mean what you want to, than that. The writers stated the purpose directly; Scalia found a way to ignore it and invent some other purpose instead.
You surely know you’re combining military and non-military weapons, and military service and civilian life, in your hypothetical, don’t you? Unfortunately, if you specify, it all falls apart on you.
And often with each other, requiring dividing lines to be drawn, and courts to “make law” in doing so.
Except for one right which shall not be infringed. That one is an absolute, and all other rights must bow to it. :rolleyes:
Those are phrases that are not uttered in that fashion, certainly not unprompted.
What you are saying in each of those is that you are claiming to hold to a certain principle that you are about to give an exception to, and that is not how those actually play out.
The second part of the phrase is said, and the first part is accused.
“We think that voter-ID law will disenfranchise more legit voters than stymie illegitimate voters.” “That means you condone voter fraud.” “No I don’t.”
“going to war in Iraq to overthrow him[Saddam] is the wrong decision.” “That means you support Saddam.” “No I don’t”
“spending $700 billion a year on defense is too much.” “That means you don’t support our men and women in uniform.” “No I don’t.” (er,
“Yes I do.” maybe, double negative and all)
See, those phrases you tacked on there at the beginning are the accusations that are leveled due to someone’s position, not positions the speaker is contradicting.
This is different when, unprompted, someone begins a phrase with “I’m not a racist, but…” This means that they are fully aware that what they are about to say contradicts the first part of the phrase, the part where they claimed to not be a racist.
And back to the phrase in question "We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, but … " means that they do not intend to address or to take seriously the problem of gun violence.
The funny thing about that is nobody is complaining about all those convicted felons whose right is infringed.
Even funnier is gun owners who call themselves and eachother “law-abiding”. Are you telling me you never broke a law? If not, then you are a liar. I realize that discussions have context, but in any discussion it is more important that words have meanings.
The principle is articulated in the constitution, as well as subsequent jurisprudence around the issue. The existence of a “but” in the phrasing isn’t an indication of lack of principle. The article doesn’t quite capture the context of the opinion with that phrasing. Here is from the actual opinion:
Essentially, the court is aware of gun violence, but in their view the constitution and current interpretations of it compel the result. This is very similar to the language in Heller:
This opinion follows much of the form of Heller so this similarity is no surprise.
Lack of evidence to support this assertion notwithstanding, the opinion here addresses this line of argument:
Actually, Heller contemplates carry outside the home. All from Heller (my bold in each):
Heller addressed restrictions in the home because that was the issue at hand. However, in the opinion it is clear that the court also recognized the natural extension of this outside the home. They call the self defense right “most acute” inside the home, meaning it exists, though less acutely outside the home. In other sections describing the two separate rights to keep and to bear, the opinion states that “bear” means to carry, and that the 2nd guarantees an individual the right to carry weapons in case of certain kinds of confrontation. Your interpretation of Scalia’s wildest dreams isn’t accurate.
There’s also this bit that gun control folks like to quote:
If schools and government buildings are sensitive places, that necessarily implies that there are non-sensitive places (to be litigated later, I’m sure). Those places presumably should not be able to restrict carry.
As for a reaction - Do you think the court should interpret laws as a reaction to current events? I don’t. That seems to be outcome based jurisprudence. The court in this case, and in Heller recognized this with the “but” construction you objected to in your first post. They say yes there are issues with guns and crime - but the constitution sets the parameters in which the law can act.
There are essentially 2 lines of attack on this decision:
[ol]
[li]Heller was wrongly decided and should be overruled or the constitution should be amended and/or until that time it should be ignored[/li][li]The 2nd amendment and current jurisprudence doesn’t apply outside the home[/li][/ol]
I think for the most part you are taking the 1st approach - do I have that right? Is there another line of attack on this opinion in Young?