Probably not a good comparison for you either, what with “free speech zones” (in other words, outright bans on exercising the first amendment in certain areas not designated as such) and prayer opening government meetings in a lot of places. We torture the plain meaning of Constitutional amendments to death all the time, and by “we” I mean any possible side of any political debate.
Moving the goalposts much?
In that respect, also similar would be groceries and the amount of emissions of my lawnmower. Similar enough as a rhetorical device but not so much when it comes to constitutional analysis. Is it your intention to argue that the level of scrutiny placed on restrictions applied to firearms should be the same as those placed on alcohol, or that parallels between alcohol restrictions can and/or should be drawn to firearms?
If so that’s fine with me but I wont engage in that discussion. I think it’s sufficiently obvious why the comparison doesn’t hold up to scrutiny but if you think it does I don’t have the patience to explain it to you. I’m not aware of any comparison to alcohol restrictions in any of the post Heller gun cases, but there are references to the 1st amendment. From fifth circuit court of appeals in NRA vs. BATFE (pdf):
This case has petitioned for cert but I’m unaware of the status.
It’s good that we cleared up that misunderstanding then.
Generally I’d be fine if the level of scrutiny applied to gun laws mirrored those applied to laws implicating the 1st amendment. Would you?
As an aside, free speech zones seem pretty dumb, but I haven’t followed the relevant case law on it. Is there any that’s interesting? I couldn’t give two shits about prayer opening meetings. I think it’s an ill conceived practice in general but it’s not an issue I’m passionate about.
Which goal posts were that? Not mine surely.
“Which goal posts were that? Not mine surely.”
It would be more accurate to say that you moved **Lumpy’s **goalposts for him. When I responded to his argument, you switched it to “fundamental consititutional right”, which was nowhere in the argument I was addressing with him, and is basically irrelevent.
Provisionally. I personally believe free speech is significantly more crucial than gun ownership (largely because my position on most gun law is partially informed by “guns are relatively easy to manufacture”). In either case, my interest is in regulating actions that present a clear danger to the liberty and life of others–whether that’s shouting fire in a crowded theater or leaving loaded weaponry unsecured.
A lot of one’s position on second amendment jurisprudence consists in how one reads “infringed”. For example, I don’t find “required training for a reasonable rate provided by the government” to be an infringement on my right, merely attaching a reasonable duty to go with the exercise of that right–similarly to how my right to free speech carries a legal duty to not commit slander, fraud, or libel.
No, and that’s the problem. The state of First Amendment jurisprudence in this country is about as bad as Second Amendment jurisprudence in the 1990s, in that the courts are letting a lot of bad actions slide (like “free speech zones”).
Easy to say, perhaps, if it’s not your ox being gored. I see more totalitarianism threat from Christian theocrats than I have ever seen from communists, just based on who has more votes and more spots to talk without rebuttal in the media.
If you told them that they could push a button and make guns illegal, do you think they would push it?
If you told them they could push it without any politcal consequences to themselves, do you think they would push it?
I am starting to suspect that the only thing that keeps them from trying to ban guns are political reality and politcal aspirations.
For me, the bigger issue of principal is that banning particular types of guns provide no benefit in return for the infringement of the right. At least the people who are pushing for a total ban can make a plausible argument that enough suicides would be prevented that it might be worth it. Banning particular types of weapons is stupid and wastes political capital. Gun control folks should be virulently opposed to stupid things like assault weapons bans and gun rights folks should encourage people like Feinstein to waste all the gun control politcal capital on stupid shit like an AWB.
And do you thin the proportional size of racists among gun owners would be larger than the proportional size of racists in the general population?
I don’t think you can associate racism with gun ownership the same way taht you can associate racism with the the Republican party. With Republicans you can say that not all Republicans are racists but racists tend to be Republicans because thats where they feel most comfortable and welcome. The same cannot be said of the racists among gun owner.
Sure there are some racists that will oppose anything Obama does. So there are some racists that suddenly decided that gun rights are super duper important but I don’t think there are a lot of of gun owners that suddenly decided to start being racist.
When it comes to government action and the law, nothing is “quite similar” to a constitutional right except other constitutional rights. Alcohol regulation doesn’t have to pass constitutional muster the same way that gun regulation does.
I agree. The NRA might insist tathat ht the second amendment right protects all your other rights but historically, the NRA has exercised their first amendment right to protect the second amendment right far more frequently than they have used the second amendment right to protect the first amendment right.
Hell, Damuri, given the moral grounding for my belief in gun ownership rights, if the button in question erased all guns and gun-related knowledge from existence, I’D give serious thought to pushing it.
I think it’s foolish to try and establish proportionate sizes of groups of folks to label them racist without strong evidence. Race baiting and calls of racism is political bomb throwing and serves no purpose other than to inflame. Unless actual racism is occurring, accusations of such or casual allusions to racism diminish instances of actual racism.
Incidentally - responding to this again. A person who meets this criteria would have to be someone who is first in favor of gun control, then because Obama is in favor of gun control and he’s black, now that same person is opposed to gun control. You would expect this same person to once again support gun control when it’s proposed by a non-black guy? That seems silly but I grant that such a person or group of persons may exist.
Gun regulation has passed constitutional muster.
You can see people taking this stance with regard to almost literally every other policy position Obama’s taken, so I don’t see why you’d think it was that silly.
(examples: Obama’s deficit and executive-orders-per-time-period are both lower than Bush’s, but many people who approved of Bush disapprove of Obama’s deficits and executive order counts)
Touché. I would hope gun rights advocates were more adamant in their support than people and politicians trying to score political points, but I concede the hypocrisy you note is readily apparent.
If you read the post carefully, the button just makes guns illegal so law abiding citizens can’t have them. This was in response to the notion that these folks don’t want to ban guns.
Some has, some hasn’t (see Heller) but each bit of regulation must pass that test. This is not true of alcohol.
It’s a ridiculous premise on its face. No sane person thinks that just “making guns illegal” will solve all the problems we have with guns and the gun culture in this country – that’s what makes it (as I said) simplistic; and no one has suggested that as a solution, not the least of which being the aforementioned Obama, Clinton and Biden.
It’s somewhat said that that’s the best you could come up with to try to tag them as “anti-gun” as opposed to “anti gun-violence” as I said.
Who said that ANYONE believes that making guns illegal will solve ALL the problems with guns? but many people want to ban all guns anyway.
Several people on this board have said that banning all guns would be a “good start”
And IIRC, Obama and biden both supported a ban on “assault weapons”. How is banning a small subset of guns any more effective than banning ALL guns?
So I guess I’m saying that these people who would have banned a small subset of guns that are responsible for little of our gun violence would ban all guns if they thought they could get away with it despite the fact that they preface every speech on gun control by saying “I support the second amendment, I even use guns myself” (or words to that effect).
They supported an AWB that has no measurable effect on gun violence so I don’t see why its so crazy to say they are anti-gun rather than merely anti-gun violence. So yes I think they are anti-gun and not merely anti-gun violence.
Gun-grabbing prosecutors are going after yet another man for standing his ground. A 17-year old black teen refused to turn down his music; if that doesn’t justify homicide, what does?
The same website mentions a Michigan woman who fired her weapon after McDonald’s mixed up her burger order.
God bless America! Aren’t guns wonderful?
Now see, if only the McDonald’s had been a gun-free zone, this wouldn’t have happened.
It strikes me as not only true but obvious that the current idiocy with stand-your-ground laws being used for all manner of assault on otherwise law-abiding people (or even otherwise not-engaging-in-deadly-threats people) is going to swing public opinion to the negative regarding guns even faster than mass shooting tragedies.
People can and will understand that someone who is mentally unwell will find a way to commit mass murder in one way or another. It’s still a problem, and we as a nation need to do more to stop it, but it’s not necessarily specifically a GUN problem so much as a gun is the first thing someone like that reaches for (even if, objectively, a car or a propane tank could do as much damage).
There is NO understanding a situation where people use a law intended to specifically re-authorize deadly force in self-defense as a blanket authorization to make/find trouble and then open fire if it doesn’t go well. ESPECIALLY when the most publicized mishaps show a strong racial bias both in targeting and in initial prosecution.
And there’s especially no understanding when otherwise apparently intelligent guns-rights advocates ignore or pass over incidents of that nature instead of condemning them, and the foolish legal structures that enable them, in the strongest possible terms. Stand your ground laws, as currently implemented in this society, are a net detriment because they are written in such a way that racist, violent fuckwads are attempting to use them as cover for instigating racist, violent fuckwaddery.
And failing, for the most part. Violent fuckwadders are for the most part being charged with, and convicted of, various degrees of manslaughter or murder, just like before the s.y.g. laws. I don’t know how many such people genuinely thought their actions were absolved under the new laws or if it’s just a case of defendants trying any legal tactic they hope might fly, but the law is doing what it’s supposed to. If there really are dimwits out there who think the new laws let them be Wyatt Earp, hopefully a few well-publicized convictions will get the message out.
I disagree. The fact that, thus far, the law seems to be enabling somewhat more violent fuckwaddery than usual, ESPECIALLY with the racial overtones, indicates to me that the laws serve no useful purpose.
Of course, I thought that before the first one was passed. Castle Doctrine and self-defense as a defense to homicide cover all applicable cases–one SHOULD have a duty to de-escalate as plausible and retreat when not inside one’s own home, IMHO, regardless of what one is or is not armed with.
I don’t have a strong anti-gun agenda, and do respect the millions of conscientious gun owners. But I do get tired of arguments that are flat-out WRONG.
No. Easy availability of guns DOES increase successful suicides, spur-of-the-moment homicides, and mass murders. Weapons like knives just don’t lend themselves to easy or mass killing. Weapons like bombs are much less usable for several reasons.