"Shall Issue" gun carry has not led to a gun holocaust. What does this teach us?

[Condescending_Robot]

So your argument is not only that the pro-gun rights crowd has the burden of proof of arguing against your purse-clutching hypotheticals, but also that “the actual events have shown that these hypotheticals did not come to pass” does not constitute that counterargument.

Yes, you’re definitely looking for a good-faith discussion here…

[Lumpy]

@ElvisL1ves

Only the fact that they are heavily trained, more aware than most of the power and responsibility they hold, and they are under close control.

Or was that a simple strawman?

No, I meant it seriously. Take away everything else police are trained in that’s non-firearms related and ask how much more competent are they solely on the subject of firearms, and police suddenly don’t look so special. Under close control? Your previous post was about the “stealth” gun misuser who suddenly shows his true colors. How do police departments guard against such specimens? Once they get out of the academy, most police will not face a department psychologist again unless an incident occurs. Police can and do commit assault and domestic violence. The idea that police are hyper-trustworthy paladins is disproved by news stories almost every week. That police are by and large mostly trustworthy is because your average middle class citizen is by and large mostly trustworthy. What you can say about a police officer is that he probably isn’t flat-out psychotic, didn’t enter the academy with a felony record, and isn’t grossly incompetent. In other words, pretty much the same as anyone who can qualify for a Shall Issue carry permit.

[Una_Persson]

Stop confusing the issue with reasoned thinking!

[XT]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Do try to read.
[/QUOTE]

I have. So…you got nuffin. Thanks for playing…we have some lovely parting gifts, such as this real straw colored ceramic dog, plus your very own board game version of the Straight Dope…

-XT

[Richard_Parker]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Nonsense. Until the recent SCOTUS decisions it was the only provision in the Bill of Rights that people like you could take away because you felt like it. Try doing that with any provision of the 1st Amendment and the courts will eat your lunch. But the 2nd? Fair game. To this day the ACLU refuses to concede that the 2nd means what it means even in light of Heller and McDonald but they will go to the mat for every other part of the Bill of Rights.

Cite?

[Scumpup]

Anti-gun types typically overestimate the general level of training and competency WRT cops and guns. Annual/semi-annual qualification in most agencies is retard easy and there is little to no mandated training after the academy. When I was a deputy sheriff I was one of the best shots on the staff; those of us at the top trained on our own time and money.

[tomndebb]

ENOUGH!

The comments on other posters rather than the issues is not appropriate and it is getting way too close to personal insults.

Stick to the facts or the logic and leave the perceived behavior or attitudes of your opponents out of this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Richard_Parker

Cite?

[

Given the reference to “a well regulated Militia” and “the security of a free State,” the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court’s 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

](http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment)

I wonder, do they disagree with any other landmark Supreme Court decision that incorporates any other part of the Bill of Rights? The answer, of course, is no.

For an organization that takes great pride in their unabashed defense of the Bill of Rights, this constitutes a serious misstep in their thinking.

[Richard_Parker]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

[URL=“http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment”]

I was looking for a cite for your claim “To this day the ACLU refuses to concede that the 2nd means what it means even in light of Heller and McDonald,” which a four-year-old citation obviously does not support. AFAIK, this current position of the national ACLU is under discussion, while affiliates are left to proceed as they please.

@Airman Doors

I wonder, do they disagree with any other landmark Supreme Court decision that incorporates any other part of the Bill of Rights? The answer, of course, is no.

Well, “landmark Supreme Court decision that incorporates any other part of the Bill of Rights” is nearly incomprehensible as a phrase. If you mean something like “important court decision stating the scope of rights under the Bill of Rights,” you’d be quite wrong. If you mean something else, I’m not sure what it is.

There are lots of rights contained in the Bill of Rights that the ACLU does not generally get involved in, because while they represent constitutional rights they are not regarded as civil liberties. Takings and the right to a civil jury, to name two examples (though both kinds cases, like the rights of gun owners, are occasionally litigated by the ACLU).

[Condescending_Robot]

@Richard_Parker

Well, “landmark Supreme Court decision that incorporates any other part of the Bill of Rights” is nearly incomprehensible as a phrase.

“Incorporation” has a specific meaning in the law; it refers to the Supreme Court holding that some provision of the Bill of Rights restrains state governments, not just the federal government.

Some landmark incorporation cases include Gitlow, incorporating free speech and press protections in 1925, and Mapp, incorporating the exclusionary rule implications of the Fourth Amendment in 1961.

Heller was definitely an incorporation case, in reference to the Second Amendment.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Nonsense. Until the recent SCOTUS decisions it was the only provision in the Bill of Rights that people like you could take away because you felt like it. Try doing that with any provision of the 1st Amendment and the courts will eat your lunch. But the 2nd? Fair game. To this day the ACLU refuses to concede that the 2nd means what it means even in light of Heller and McDonald but they will go to the mat for every other part of the Bill of Rights.

I think what Der Trihs was trying to say is that people will vote for the party that promises to let them (us) keep their (our) guns – and those politicians will pass laws that are harmful to our rights. For example, ISTM that our freedoms have been eroded by such things as the easing of rules against searching our telephone records, emails, financial records, medical records, and even what we check out from a library.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Yeah,a four-year-old citation that has been updated to include Heller and McDonald, decisions that were made more recently than four years ago, from their own website.

As for my statement, I mean exactly what I said. Every right that has been incorporated has come from a Supreme Court decision, and every one of those cases has been a “landmark” case for that very reason. I’d like to see a cite, if you can find one, where the ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court on a case that incorporated any other part of the Bill of Rights. Surely they aren’t happy with that pesky “freedom of speech” provision and think that SCOTUS decided wrongly, right? Any other example outside of the Second Amendment will do. And I wish you luck finding one, because they don’t exist. Hell, just find me one other incorporated right that they don’t support.

[Richard_Parker]

@Condescending_Robot

Heller was definitely an incorporation case, in reference to the Second Amendment.

You’ve got a bit backwards. Incorporation is application of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. *Heller *was not a case involving incorporation, as it was about application of the Second Amendment to the federal government (D.C.).

All of which is beside the point, which is that it was not clear what AD was trying to say by "“landmark Supreme Court decision that incorporates any other part of the Bill of Rights.”

[Richard_Parker]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Yeah,a four-year-old citation that has been updated to include Heller and McDonald, decisions that were made more recently than four years ago, from their own website.

You persist in being wrong, and being self-righteous about it. Check your citation again, my friend.

@Airman Doors

Just find me one other incorporated right that they don’t support.

I’m not sure what you think you mean by by “incorporated right,” and whether you think disagreeing over the scope of the right constitutes “don’t support.” If you can explain both things, I’ll be happy to help.

[tomndebb]

@Richard_Parker

. . . and being self-righteous about it.

This would come under the heading of “comments on other posters.”

Knock it off.

Everyone.

[ /Moderating ]

[Lumpy]

@Richard_Parker

You’ve got a bit backwards. Incorporation is application of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. *Heller *was not a case involving incorporation, as it was about application of the Second Amendment to the federal government (D.C.).

But McDonald , following on the Heller precedent, was about applying the 2nd Amendment to the states (of Illinois)

All of which is beside the point, which is that it was not clear what AD was trying to say by "“landmark Supreme Court decision that incorporates any other part of the Bill of Rights.”

Seemed perfectly clear to me. Anyone else confused?

[Richard_Parker]

@Lumpy

But McDonald , following on the Heller precedent, was about applying the 2nd Amendment to the states (of Illinois)

Indeed. And?

@Lumpy

Seemed perfectly clear to me. Anyone else confused?

Ok. Do you care to explain it to me, if I’m the only confused one? Is he talking about cases identifying a new right, or about cases incorporating existing rights through the 14th Amendment? If the latter, why is that subset important?

[Argent_Towers]

@Scumpup

Anti-gun types typically overestimate the general level of training and competency WRT cops and guns. Annual/semi-annual qualification in most agencies is retard easy and there is little to no mandated training after the academy. When I was a deputy sheriff I was one of the best shots on the staff; those of us at the top trained on our own time and money.

I am the only one in this room who I know of who is special enough to carry this Glock 40. I’m the onl-----BOOOOM!!!

[Richard_Parker]

Here’s some evidence supporting my recollection that there is no national ACLU policy still in force, and some state affiliates (who are what most people think of when they talk about cases the ACLU brings) have begun litigating Second Amendment cases.

[Odesio]

@Der_Trihs

No; the reason it’s so prominent is because it’s a useful distraction from rights that actually matter. Millions of gun lovers will hand away all of their other rights, betray any other person or principle they claim to care about as long as you promise them they can keep their guns. They’ll hold onto those chunks of metal with the absolute conviction that guns and only guns are what matters, that they alone safeguard freedom.

That’s an interesting thought. Maybe people should stop focusing on curtailing the proliferation of firearms and move on to something that’s actually important.