I don’t get what he said because he brought zero facts or reasoning, just bizarre insulting screeds that he apparently cut-and-pasted from elsewhere.
You at least brought some facts & figures. Sadly, they’re not super-relevant to what I was saying, which is that a clear, sometimes overwhelming, majority of people want certain laws, and a tiny minority of people, including you, are blocking them. It’s a tyranny of the extreme gun lobby. Your views are far outside the mainstream, but you inflict them on the rest of us, based on an interpretation of the second amendment so flawed that your own interpretation essentially nullifies the amendment, by ignoring half of its text.
What a silly question: the authority of the state to regulate business. Surely you didn’t need to ask that.
No it isn’t. Religious institutions can be regulated as long as the regulations aren’t unduly burdensome and aren’t singling out religion for poor treatment. Treating them the same as other locations is religion-blind and has traditionally been allowed.
I’ll concede that our extremist right-wing supreme court has been busy dismantling protections for the public and twisting the Constitution into unrecognizeable shapes that support the tyranny of the extreme minority. So my understanding of the Constitution isn’t currently in effect. We have Harlan Crow et al to thank for that.
Taking the word infringement literally, making the prospective gun owner wait until some specified minimum age, to buy a gun they wish to keep and bear, is another huge infringement.
Now, infants, AKA those under 21, had no eighteenth century standing to sue for violations of rights. So I don’t seriously say the second amendment applies to them. But it does if you take the word infringement out of the historical context.
If you really look at original intent, it only had to do with militias. The states refusing to ratify the Constitution unless there was a Bill of Rights were worrying about a tyrannical standing army, not concealed carry. Bad Supreme Court decisions based on historical ignorance won’t change this.
The founders were elitist enough that the May-issue system in New York, pre-Brunen, where a police officer could discuss with you why you need a gun before approving (or, less likely, disapproving) a permit, was more in their way of their way of thinking. We perhaps agree that what was struck down is better, or at least less-bad, than what NY is trying to replace it with.
Consider:
Want to argue over guns and crime? Gun control cities like Honolulu and Boston and NYC have low homicide, and I believe suicide, but I admit to counter examples (El Paso). So there is a lot to debate, but I think it more intellectually honest to drop the second amendment bit.
The invocation of the constitution often is like an appeal to a secular Bible. And like the Bible, it is routinely wretched out of context. As here, since the 2nd amendment was an endorsement of the value of militias.
Why not? They may not have been able to instruct counsel personally, but the law allowed for an adult to sue on their behalf.
Are you saying that a 20 year old living on his own in 1795 would not have had any recourse if agents of the federal government searched his dwelling place without a warrant? That he wouldn’t have been able to cite the 4th Amendment?
Except the state has specifically chosen 2 types of “businesses” that they cannot even define as “sensitive places”. it’s somewhat akin to a bill of attainder. By your standard the state could rule that no business could allow arms in, nullifying the courts decision that citizens have the right to bear arms in public.
Just be honest. States like New York are thumbing their nose at a settled SCOTUS decision. The court ruled citizens have the right to bear arms in public and the state is doing everything to neuter that right with rules and regulations that will only affect those that obey rules and regulations. SCOTUS needs to grow a pair and rule these restrictions unlawful instead of waiting for recent challenges of those new restrictions to go through the courts.
The Supreme Court is an appellate court and literally cannot rule on the Constitutionality of laws until a challenge is brought before them. Your grasp upon legal practice is even more tenuous than your sense of civil ethics.
No, they have already made a ruling. That ruling needs to be enforced and they have the power to have the ruling as ruled be enforced. By your standard every SCOTUS ruling could be ignored and nulified during an endless maze of appeals to the ignoring of the ruling. So much for being a nation of laws.
It’s exactly what democracy becomes sometimes. It is why our founders wisely established a republican form of government and created a constitution as the foundation of law and not the political whims of the masses. You don’t agree because you are aligned with what you classify as the majority. Our structure is not always one of majority rule, thankfully.
Only rich people can file for bankruptcy while they are still rich and remain rich when it is all over with. So, I don’t put a lot of stock in bankruptcy as a measuring stick for the financial health of corporate entities. Exhibit A: Donald Trump
Yes, the age old mantra of elitist rule: “You commoners are ignorant and are a complete disaster when governing yourselves. Only WE know what’s best for you, so WE, the elite minority, can decide what is good for you.” Keep in mind that many of the elite who structured that idea into the American way of governing owned slaves and had indentured servants. They exploited the poor, weak and powerless.
First, no it’s not; that’s an inaccurate description of the pitfalls of democracy. Second, listen to yourself. You’re suggesting that when the overwhelming majority of people want to put regulations on guns in accordance with the first clause in the second amendment, that’s “mob rule” against the tiny number of people who don’t want those regulations----led by an industry group trying to maximize its profits.
As not about the NRA, hidden by What Exit?, Modnote apparently missed!
New York had a good system that made it one of the safest states when it comes to gun deaths (I don’t limit to homicide becuase of being almost as strongly against practically all suicides). Calm citizens, with reasonable self-advocacy skill, could get firearms, but the application and interview process took a month or two. This prevented impulsive gun buys for suicides and crimes of passion. Now NY is trying to find a way to avoid the kind of violent death stats typically seen in states with weak gun regulations. It’s difficult for them, and I sympathize. I wish my own legislature cared that much about human life.
While their new approach is imperfect, NY isn’t necessarily thumbing their nose with the checkerboard approach to where guns are allowed. I find it similar to what the Supreme Court does by disallowing guns on their own grounds.
If anyone here accuses you of conservatism, I’m going to say – Not Guilty!
One thought I have frequently had for the past two years is the irony of the fact that the framers of the Constitution were so afraid of the tyranny of the majority that we are now living under the tyranny of the (very loud) minority.
This is not true, as only a very small % of gun owners belong to the NRA.
Such as? Cite?
Yes, there is quite a bit of support for moderate gun control, of the sort that Biden recently pushed thru Congress. The NRA fights some of those reasonable laws, but not all, AFAIK.
I do not care for the NRA, but I also do not care for crazy out and out gun ban laws, such as were attempted in DC, Chicago and San Francisco. Moderation, please.