So good of you to clear this up, perhaps you should write a letter to the Supreme Court. You know, because they are doing it wrong. Unfortunately your opinion on the matter is worth as much as mine. You understand that your interpretation would allow the mentally ill, 4 year olds, current prisoners of the state, and foreign invaders the right to keep and bear arms, right? Are you okay with that? I’m not.
Yes - courts can make bad decisions. Your solution is to do what?
You still haven’t defined how you are using the term ‘illegitimate’. Can you define how you are using it, without using that word? What is the consequence of doing something that is illegitimate? Is that like being uncouth? Are they subject to ridicule? I’m not following to what end determining something to be illegitimate serves.
Cross your fingers for Peruta v. County of San Diego, Richards v. Prieto, and Woolard.
Those are the folks working within the system.
What is your alternative? Foolish rants not based in reality that have no persuasive value? Gun rights advocates will not win or persuade others if their arguments are grounded in 2nd amendment absolutism. Heller, McDonald, and Moore were won by working within the legal system. Those are actual results. What could you possibly gain by alienating everyone who does not already agree with you? This is not a winning strategey. As many in CA who are involved with the litigation of these issues say, this is chess not checkers.
We’ve had threads before when Kachalsky was up for cert and many people in favor of strict gun control agreed that discretionary issue was not consistent with equal protection. Gun rights as a civil right is a winning issue. Incrementalism works within the court system. Shouting that congress people should be in prison and are disobeying the constitution gets you absolutely nowhere. Feel free to continue but like I said before, you make my side look bad.
The Second Amendment, in two clauses bearing no very clear relationship to each other, is really the most ambiguous element of the Constitution. Blaylock seems to think it is the least.
Given a fair reading, I think Heller pretty clearly resolved much of the ambiguity. There are things that Heller did not address that will be and is being litigated.
Further analysis in Moore and in the recent case People v. Aguilar are a step in this clarification.
But that all took, and takes, interpretations of the 2nd Amendment by court decisions. Blaylock seems to think the courts have no business even discussing it, beyond the minimum necessary to strike down any and all gun-control legislation.
Sorry, I had just watched Elysium and illegal aliens and the franchise were at the forefront of my mind.
I now see that pkbites might have meant the Mexican citizen’s right to try and affect the horrible gun laws in Mexico where only criminals seem to be well armed despite very strict gun regulations.
Its not an accurate word but yes, we’re talking about the same thing. I’d just like to point out that they don’t actually silence the shot because most rounds have a sonic boom that a suppressor will not silence. The only way to approach the level of suppression you see in the movies is to have subsonic 22lr rounds.
Rifles are several times the speed of sound.
I’ve seen subsonic rounds in .45 acp and seem too loud to be effectively “silenced” they can just be suppressed enough that you can fire them indoors without blowing out your eardrums.
Wow, you’re like the Elvis_lives of the gun rights side. Your positions are more than a little bit extreme and are demostrably incorrect.
No right is absolute. The first amendment is at least as clear as the second amendment and we have all sorts of abridgements of the first amendment right.
Knowing that you live in California, I feel your pain. I lived in LA for a while and the only people with guns were cops and robbers, sometimes you couldn’t really tell which group you wanted to run into in a dark alley.
The sort of things that can happen at the state level in California simply cannot happen at the federal level. You simply cannot get enough senators to pull that off.
I don’t think they’ll keep losing forever but they are going to keep losing for a while, at least in the courts.
I don’t think they will ever have the sort of victory they dream of at the federal level. You simply cannot get that sort of legislation past the senate… EVER!!!
The AWB of 1994 was probably then high water mark of gun regulations.
To the people turning in the guns it is, isn’t it?
Yeah I don’t think you’re going to make a lot of hay over that.
Newotwn was different. It was a unique opportunity to get some meaningful gun regulation and instead you guts went for an ineffective AWB.
There was one silver lining in Newtown. The Republicans stopped trying to portray teachers as parasites that put their own financial interests ahead of the welfare of the children. And all it took was teachers practically throwing themselves in front of bullets to try and protect their tiny little students to get the Republicans to reconsider whether teachers were bloodsucking leeches.
We should really keep these sort of accusations in the pit. I don’t know if you’re accusing me of trolling or lying but you are accusing me of believing something other than what I post.
Really? please cite.
Its clear that gun control in the past was largely used to suppress minorities by taking away their ability to defend themselves from outfits like the Ku Klux Klan (although we seem to disagree about reasons for the Gun Control Act of 1968).
I’ve quoted the Washington Post article several times in favor of liecnsing and registration but I don’t think that LBJ had a history of gun control advocacy before the kennedy assassination. Did he?
The gun control side has basically surrendered their efforts to ban handguns (which are used in most gun murders) and have resigned themselves to trying to address the less than 3% of gun mruders committed by rifles (of which assault weapons are a small subset).
They then changed the rules so that another revolt could not occur.
What other revolt might occur? is there some backroom machinations going on to revert the NRA to a conservation organization and abandon it’s political arm and defense of the RKBA?
Also, from The Changing Politics of Gun Control the second linked source above:
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
The gun control side has basically surrendered their efforts to ban handguns (which are used in most gun murders) and have resigned themselves to trying to address the less than 3% of gun mruders committed by rifles (of which assault weapons are a small subset).
[/quote]
I think expanded background checks or a registration scheme are more productive avenues, and remain equally puzzled by the fixation on semi-automatic rifles.
If you can’t understand a simple, common English word, being used in proper context, then I cannot help you there.
That’s how we’ve lost as much as we have of our right to keep and bear arms, through incrementalism. The legislature passes “reasonable” new restrictions, and get the courts to go along with them. We’re at a point, now, that nobody would have dared to claim as “reasonable” a hundred years ago. But as every new step fails to produce the result that it was claimed to be intended to produce, we get a new step, stripping away the right just a little bit more, with the promise that this time, it will make us safer. And, as with every previous step, it only has the opposite effect.
Surely, you’ve heard the cliché that defines insanity as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result. I think the cliché applies equally to gun control itself, and to going along with those who will employ incrementalism to strip of of our rights a little at a time.
try to define it in a way that makes sense based on how you are using it. I challenge you. You can’t do it in a way that isn’t tautological. Seriously. Define the term and explain how legislators are acting illegitimately.
at this point I’m not sure if you are a robot or a parrot. This has nothing to do with what you are responding to. Incrementalism in the courts works and is working in favor of gun rights. See Heller, McDonald, and Moore. That approach is successful. Yours is not. Is the point to expand gun rights or to shout other people down?