It's like we try to look silly sometimesFeck sake. What a country.
$300... decent deal indeed.
Speaking of the mentally ill and guns...
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
Christ, it's like safestyle windows.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/07/h...7bulletproof-panels-backpacks-trnd0459PMStory
This is so far even beyond treating the symptom rather than the disease it's not even funny!
This is so far even beyond treating the symptom rather than the disease it's not even funny!
Just another day in crazyland. The Seminole Heights killer struck again, 2 streets over from my house. That's for now, 3 in October, and 1 in November. And while browsing the news, noticed another shooting, in California at an elementary school.
You have a serial killer in the area, does the kills happened at night?
Sacramento: Gunman goes on rampage shooting passerby and shot up a school!
http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-norcal-elementary-school-shooting-20171114-story.html
Psychos with Guns!
http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-norcal-elementary-school-shooting-20171114-story.html
Psychos with Guns!
4 simple and logical steps to start
1) Allow FBI a national gun database that all guns must be registered to.
2) Remove all loopholes regarding private person-to-person gun sales to enforce background check on every sale.
3) Ensure updated reporting of criminal violations and mental health issues.
4) Implement better tracking of bullet sales to fall into 1-2-3 to make it easier to ensure no one is slipping through the cracks
1) Allow FBI a national gun database that all guns must be registered to.
2) Remove all loopholes regarding private person-to-person gun sales to enforce background check on every sale.
3) Ensure updated reporting of criminal violations and mental health issues.
4) Implement better tracking of bullet sales to fall into 1-2-3 to make it easier to ensure no one is slipping through the cracks
Fails at step 1. Cold dead hands blah blah blah
You’d need to add sales of bullet presses and bullet components to this as many people hand load their own cartridges.
@Carolina Red - I was wondering whether your views on guns/control had changed at all over the last few years?
I can't remember the exact positions but I remember arguing with you about the issue when you first joined, do you think you've altered your stance at all?
I can't remember the exact positions but I remember arguing with you about the issue when you first joined, do you think you've altered your stance at all?
I’d be lying if I said no.
I still stand by my argument that the Bill of Rights is viewed separately from the rest of the Constitution, which means arguments about repealing 2A are a waste of time and political energy... but that stems from my background in studying constitutional law and the arguments and documents created by the Framers behind its creation.
Even back then, I was for some aspects of gun control and agreed with Dwazza on several aspects of the Canadian system.
I would say now I’ve become much more open to a new Assault Weapons Ban and would even consent to turning in my own AR if the government would institute an Australian style gun buyback system.
For the record after 3000 deaths due to touchscreens in cars being distracting and naming and shaming the worst offenders. It is being investigated. This was on CBS news tonight.
So if enough people are killed by anything other than guns something is going to be done. If it's guns..... well 2nd amendment.
So if enough people are killed by anything other than guns something is going to be done. If it's guns..... well 2nd amendment.
Interesting, thanks.
Re the inability to repeal the 2A, there must surely be some way to achieve that if the political and public will was sufficient?
Say in some wonderful alternate dimension the House and Senate were all left leaning and the polls showed overwhelming support for the move, would it still be impossible?
Is there a mechanism for it?
- Yes. The Amendment Process could go into action and someone propose an amendment to repeal and then it go down one of the handful of avenues that amendments can go down for ratification.
Realistically?
- I’ve seen the 18th and 21st amendments brought up before, where the 18th instituted Prohibition and the 21st ended it. I think it’s important to note that the 18th took away a right, while the 21st reaffirmed it, and that the 18th is well outside the Bill of Rights. Which, when viewing the background of the Bill of Rights you find that it is created as an affirmation of Rights that exist with or without the presence of government and that they’re only being listed because the new US gov’t is codifying which Rights those are at the demand of the Anti-Federalists.
Alexander Hamilton on the Bill of Rights in Federalist #84...
His concerns are how we get the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights...
Basically, since it is impossible to list all of our natural rights (with or without gov’t existence), just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon by the U.S. Congress
Last edited:
This is the problem with having such a rigid Constitution system. Their motives were obviously good and they were trying to protect the rights of the people but by making things so inflexible and unable to adapt to changing times you're left in a situation where an obvious solution to an enormous problem that claims the lives of around 15,000 people every year cannot be carried out because of document that is over 200 years old.
While that is the case with amending the 2nd Amendment, it doesn’t preclude you from operating within the boundaries of the Constitution to enact laws for public safety, as long as they do not attempt to remove a natural right completely. (E.g. freedom of speech not protecting shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater.)
Very true, and sensible steps could still be taken that would be of great help, but politics trumps public interest and the gun lobby keep filling the pockets of the right people.
Yep, there's a lot to like about the US Constitution and within it there's a fair bit of foresight, but it's nevertheless ridiculous to expect a bunch of people who lived in the 1700s to be able to foresee what weaponry would exist today. A country that isn't willing to amend a 200+ year old document is going to find itself meeting some serious difficulties in a modern world.
I can obviously understand the wariness of certain Americans when it comes to getting rid of an enshrined right in the constitution, because if a government is willing to rid them of one right then they may also go further...but plenty of the US gun nuts have shown a fair bit of contempt for freedom of the press during Trump's reign, and I suspect their desire to keep guns is much less on constitutional lines and more due to the fact that they just really want to have guns. Even though it's obviously counter-intuitive for the average citizen to be able to carry a weapon in the modern age.
That is very much the unfortunate reality at the moment.
@Cheesy - to my understanding of the Bill of Rights, it has little to do with willingness to amend, but instead centers on ability/authority to amend (as stated above). It is worth noting that the argument I’ve presented above precludes “gun nuts” and “Trumpites” from removing the Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Assembly just as much as it prevents anything else (2nd Amendment included), no matter how willing they might be to do it.
Maybe in the distant future there will be enough left-leaning SC justices to overturn Heller.
Wouldn’t that take a state intentionally passing a law it knows has been deemed unconstitutional by the Heller decision in order to bring a constitutional case before the SCOTUS?
Yep.
It's more complicated as all judges like to stick to stare decisis unless a more compelling case can be made.
Yep. That plus a legislature most likely being cautious about passing a law known to already be considered unconstitutional really makes things difficult.
Reminds me of an accidental discharge from a few years ago by a cop teaching gun safety
Or passing a law that it knows will at least be questioned in the court system.
On one of those Doomsday Prepper shows a guy was teaching his kids safety and how to use firearms then managed to shoot himself. Teaching by negative example I guess.
Went to shooting range on holiday, what a joke. I wasn't in a tourist area so walked in with a friend and said to the owner I'd never shot a gun before, do you do like a first time in the shooting range deal?
Guy gives me a waiver form, a 9mm pistol, 50 bullets and the headset, says here you go, range is just through that door on the left. I had to remind him again, I don't even know how you load this thing? Maybe you want to give me some sort of safety briefing?
Crazy Americans. I wasn't even allowed to buy fireworks whilst I was there but could easily pick up a gun.
Guy gives me a waiver form, a 9mm pistol, 50 bullets and the headset, says here you go, range is just through that door on the left. I had to remind him again, I don't even know how you load this thing? Maybe you want to give me some sort of safety briefing?
Crazy Americans. I wasn't even allowed to buy fireworks whilst I was there but could easily pick up a gun.
Is it compulsory to be a complete fecking moron to own a gun in America?
It was a 5-4 decision anyway (just like Citizens United).
Correct me if I'm wrong here @Carolina Red but having the same text in the constitution for centuries doesn't necessarily make it inflexible or unable to adapt. What it really comes down to is the willingness of the judicial branch to interpret the text in a contemporal way that allows to adapt with the development of the society as opposed to originalists (like Scalia or now Gorsuch IIRC) who believe that the consitution should mean the same thing as it did when it was written.
Now logically originalists must either think that context isn't that important or that the time when the constitution was written was somehow a unique set of time in history of mankind that makes it legit to interpret something that by nature is very abstract (and therefore also open to an evolving view of justice) in it's light. Don't find that very convincing myself.
I’d say that’s pretty accurate.
The “strict” vs “loose” interpretation argument has been ongoing since the document’s ratification.
Will the NRA now run ads touting the need for good guys with guns to stop good guys with guns?
Curious to know if the full context is captured in the article.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ntally-shoots-himself-and-his-wife-in-church/
“Good Guy with a Gun” Accidentally Shoots Himself and His Wife in Church
---
He and his wife, both in their 80s, were accidentally shot when he pulled the trigger to demonstrate how a safety works.
He put the magazine back in, apparently loaded a round in the chamber, and returned the gun to its holster, [Tellico Plains Police Chief Russ] Parks said.
“Somebody else walked up and said, ‘Can I see it?'” Parks said. “He pulled it back out and said, ‘With this loaded indicator, I can tell that it’s not loaded.'”
He pulled the trigger.
“Evidently he just forgot that he re-chambered the weapon,” Parks said.
---
Curious to know if the full context is captured in the article.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ntally-shoots-himself-and-his-wife-in-church/
“Good Guy with a Gun” Accidentally Shoots Himself and His Wife in Church
---
He and his wife, both in their 80s, were accidentally shot when he pulled the trigger to demonstrate how a safety works.
He put the magazine back in, apparently loaded a round in the chamber, and returned the gun to its holster, [Tellico Plains Police Chief Russ] Parks said.
“Somebody else walked up and said, ‘Can I see it?'” Parks said. “He pulled it back out and said, ‘With this loaded indicator, I can tell that it’s not loaded.'”
He pulled the trigger.
“Evidently he just forgot that he re-chambered the weapon,” Parks said.
---
House passes 'unthinkable' NRA-backed bill lifting local gun restrictions
Ex-congresswoman Gabby Giffords attacks the bill, which passed by 231 to 197 and removes states’ power to control who can carry concealed, loaded handguns:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-backed-bill-to-remove-local-gun-restrictions
Ex-congresswoman Gabby Giffords attacks the bill, which passed by 231 to 197 and removes states’ power to control who can carry concealed, loaded handguns:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-backed-bill-to-remove-local-gun-restrictions
Lol I hope I graduate before I'm shot.
Ah America the most backwards thinking, first world nation on earth.