[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 988: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 988: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4505: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4507: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4508: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4509: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
www.goodeatsfanpage.com • View topic - Pain

Pain

Want to talk politics? Find your threads here! (NOTE: If you started a politics thread in the general forum, it's probably here by now.)

Moderator: Chef Mongo

Pain

Postby tj » Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:21 pm

I have no idea where to post this on a food board.

The situation in Kansas with innocent people being shot by an apparent racist breaks my heart.

When will we ever learn?
tj
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:29 pm

Re: Pain

Postby carla » Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:32 pm

Sorry to be so flippant, but he sure blew his mission. Killed 2 Methodists and a Catholic...
RIP
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Pain

Postby carla » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:48 pm

Interesting. He needed an fighting, white god:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/1 ... -religion/

"Odinism"
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Pain

Postby new cook » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:46 pm

He is a sick man, and unfortunately there are many more like him.

Just a few days before he went on his idiotic, murderous rampage, I stumbled upon the white nationalist website he was known to participate in. I was trying to find out if Turks were considered to be white (had to do with a cultural question) and one of the first links that popped up took me there. Yikes! THAT is a very disturbing site populated by very disturbed people. I read things like advice to not scare off middle class whites from being open to their recruitment efforts by being upfront about their alliances with the KKK and Neo-Nazis. It also helped to confirm the sense I'd had of certain right wing extremists wanting to see the U.S. government be destroyed, as that was also explicitly stated.

About our distorted gun culture, it would help for one if we didn't have justices legislating from the bench. Funny how we're not hearing complaints about that anymore by so-called conservatives ever since the SCOTUS has become ideologically weighted toward the far right. I say so-called because true conservatives are just as appalled by this, though nowadays the reactionary wing has labeled them "RINOS" and they are oddly seen as liberal. We live in strange times.

Back to arms. For another thing, it would also help if Congress would develop the courage to stand up for this country despite the small minority of people who hold their warped interpretation of the second amendment above all other rights, Constitutional and human, as they've been brainwashed by the NRA. Of course, that means they'd have to have the balls to refuse NRA money and stand their ground against the NRA propaganda machine. This is where We The People come in, especially in light of Citizens United and the last SCOTUS decision redefining money as "free speech."

WE must vote, and we must vote in EVERY election. The only thing that can overcome the NRA's influence is massive numbers of rational voters coming out and going to the polls, demanding to be heard. Even if that means we have to take up a collection to pay for port-a-potties in places like Dade County, where bathroom facilities will be closed in polling places. (Because in the state of Florida your citizen's right to vote doesn't mean squat in comparison to your right to shoot first and ask questions later.)

If I sound angry, it's because I am. Again. I'm fed up with people who call themselves patriots but hate our government and want to see it be brought down. I'm sick of people demanding respect for their "rights" at the same time they seek to deny the rights of others and impose their worldview on the rest of us. I've had it with bozos like the guy locked in an armed standoff up in Nevada with his "militia" supporters. The hypocrite waves the American flag - the symbol of the United States of America - yet says he doesn't recognize the federal government, only the state of Nevada. He talks about his Constitutional rights, forgetting he rejected the government to which that Constitution applies. Either he and his supporters are colossally stupid or they are mentally deranged.

Justice Stevens has a very good proposal regarding the second amendment, which he states in an essay in the Washington Post. I'll go get it and post it next.
Jokes of the proper kind, properly told, can do more to enlighten questions of politics, philosophy, and literature than any number of dull arguments.
-Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-92)


(I'm trying to avoid eating mammals. Not getting silly, I've redefined bacon as a spice)
-Kinsley
User avatar
new cook
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:22 pm
Location: Surfin' USA

Re: Pain

Postby new cook » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:39 pm

From the WaPo, an excerpt from JJPS's book:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z6

Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment
By John Paul Stevens, Published: April 11

John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.

The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense. And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens. I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.

In my dissent in the McDonald case, I pointed out that the court’s decision was unique in the extent to which the court had exacted a heavy toll “in terms of state sovereignty. . . . Even apart from the States’ long history of firearms regulation and its location at the core of their police powers, this is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this Court’s meddling. Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.”

“Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.”

In response to the massacre of grammar-school students at Sandy Hook Elementary School, some legislators have advocated stringent controls on the sale of assault weapons and more complete background checks on purchasers of firearms. It is important to note that nothing in either the Heller or the McDonald opinion poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.

First, the court did not overrule Miller. Instead, it “read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” On the preceding page of its opinion, the court made it clear that even though machine guns were useful in warfare in 1939, they were not among the types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment because that protected class was limited to weapons in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Even though a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun might well be kept at home and be useful for self-defense, neither machine guns nor sawed-off shotguns satisfy the “common use” requirement.

Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court’s decision in Heller.

A second virtue of the opinion in Heller is that Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way to limit the court’s holding not only to a subset of weapons that might be used for self-defense but also to a subset of conduct that is protected. The specific holding of the case covers only the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, while a later part of the opinion adds emphasis to the narrowness of that holding by describing uses that were not protected by the common law or state practice. Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, or on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are specifically identified as permissible regulations.

Thus, Congress’s failure to enact laws that would expand the use of background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons cannot be justified by reference to the Second Amendment or to anything that the Supreme Court has said about that amendment. What the members of the five-justice majority said in those opinions is nevertheless profoundly important, because it curtails the government’s power to regulate the use of handguns that contribute to the roughly 88 firearm-related deaths that occur every day.

There is an intriguing similarity between the court’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence, which began with a misinterpretation of the 11th Amendment, and its more recent misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. The procedural amendment limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction over private actions against states eventually blossomed into a substantive rule that treats the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity as though it were part of the Constitution itself. Of course, in England common-law rules fashioned by judges may always be repealed or amended by Parliament. And when the United States became an independent nation, Congress and every state legislature had the power to accept, to reject or to modify common-law rules that prevailed prior to 1776, except, of course, any rule that might have been included in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.

As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

It is true, of course, that the public’s reaction to the massacre of schoolchildren, such as the Newtown killings, and the 2013 murder of government employees at the Navy Yard in Washington, may also introduce a strong emotional element into the debate. That aspect of the debate is, however, based entirely on facts rather than fiction. The law should encourage intelligent discussion of possible remedies for what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy.
Jokes of the proper kind, properly told, can do more to enlighten questions of politics, philosophy, and literature than any number of dull arguments.
-Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-92)


(I'm trying to avoid eating mammals. Not getting silly, I've redefined bacon as a spice)
-Kinsley
User avatar
new cook
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:22 pm
Location: Surfin' USA

Re: Pain

Postby carla » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:52 pm

I didn't have time to concentrate on this when I looked at it yesterday; thanks for posting.

I've read better articles about the history of the 2nd amendment, but this link is public:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... dment.html

April 19, 2012
The Lost Amendment
Posted by Jill Lepore

The debate over the Second Amendment has been fierce and terrible, with bad arguments on both sides, and bad will all around. It began in the nineteen-sixties, when there was a great deal of violence and much concern about it. It took another turn on Friday, when, at the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich said, “The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.”

As I wrote in this week’s New Yorker, no amendment received less attention in the courts in the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights than the Second, except the Third (which dealt with billeting soldiers in private homes). It used to be known as the “lost amendment,” because hardly anyone ever wrote about it. The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies. A milestone in its development came when Orrin Hatch, serving on Strom Thurmond’s Senate Judiciary Committee, became chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hatch commissioned a history of the Second Amendment, resulting in a 1982 report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” which concluded, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.”

During the nineteen-eighties, this interpretation, which came to be known as the individual-rights argument, gained the attention of several distinguished law-school professors, including, most notably, Sanford Levinson, whose 1989 essay, “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” was published in the Yale Law Journal. Levinson suggested that legal scholars’ long-standing inattention (“To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion,” he remarked), was probably political:

I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even ‘winning,’ interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation.

Levinson also discussed what is called an insurrectionist interpretation, in which the Second Amendment is thought to allow for a militia of armed citizens standing “ready to defend republican liberty against the depredations” of a government become tyrannical. Levinson didn’t endorse either the individual or insurrectionist views, nor did he dismiss them. Instead, he urged scholars to take them seriously. His essay was essentially a plea for reasoned debate: “Is not, after all, the possibility of serious, engaged discussion about political issues at the heart of what is most attractive in both liberal and republican versions of politics?”

The tragedies at Waco in 1993 and in Oklahoma City in 1995, both of which involved a modern militia movement, brought the insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment to the public’s attention and prompted vigorous critiques. In “To Keep and Bear Arms,” an essay published in The New York Review of Books five months after Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building, Garry Wills called Levinson’s essay, which had been embraced by the N.R.A., “frivolous,” and reported that he found “a vast outpouring of articles justifying individual gun ownership on the basis of the Second Amendment” to be muddled and tendentious. Wills also noted that, in advancing gun-rights arguments, the same people who offered the individual-rights interpretation usually also endorsed the insurrectionist one. “Only madmen, one would think, can suppose that militias have a constitutional right to levy war against the United States, which is treason by constitutional definition,” Wills wrote. “Yet the body of writers who proclaim themselves at the scholarly center of the Second Amendment’s interpretation say that a well-regulated body authorized by the government is intended to train itself for action against the government.” As to whether those who advocate these positions had been ignored, Wills wrote, “Perhaps it is the quality of their arguments that makes them hard to take seriously.”

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, American historians who disagreed with the individual and insurrectionist interpretations of the Second Amendment began to take them more seriously when it became clear that a conservative judiciary was taking them seriously, and that a test case would reach the Supreme Court. An important statement of what is generally referred to as the collective-rights interpretation—the idea that what the Second Amendment protects is the people’s collective right to keep and bear arms to form militias for the common defense—is an amicus curiae submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, signed by fifteen eminent university professors of early American history, including Pauline Maier, Fred Anderson, and Pulitzer Prizes winners Jack Rakove and Alan Taylor. It concludes,

Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this: that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was “real danger of public injury from individuals.”


The different weight the Court gave to these different interpretations is suggested by its decision in Heller. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, determined that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

How Heller will be interpreted is as yet unclear. In “Dead or Alive,” a 2008 essay in the Harvard Law Review, Reva B. Siegel instructively situated the decision within the history of originalism and reflected on the tension between conservatives’ championing of gun rights as a social issue and their condemnation of judicial activism. After Waco and Oklahoma City, the insurrectionist argument faded somewhat. But the individual-rights interpretation, as Siegel observed, prevailed not only in the courts but also in public opinion. A 2008 poll found that nearly three-quarters of American adults believe that the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to own a gun.

In his remarks before the N.R.A. last week, Gingrich offered a human-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. “A Gingrich presidency,” he said, “will submit to the United Nations a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right for every person on the planet.”

The United States has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world, twice that of the country with the second highest rate, which is Yemen. The United States also has the highest homicide rate of any affluent democracy, nearly four times higher than France or the United Kingdom, six times higher than Germany. In the United States in 2008, guns were involved in two-thirds of all murders. Of interest to many people concerned about these matters, then, is when the debate over the Second Amendment will yield to a debate about violence.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Pain

Postby okbye » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:08 pm

It's all just fluff, it won't help anything. The last school issue was with a knife. I don't think anyone died but he injured 20 people, some of them extremely badly. I can tell you from experience that just because you survive it doesn't mean your life isn't over. Sometimes surviving is worse. It's people that need to be fixed, no law is going to change anything. I don't particularly care about gun legalization either way but the waste of energy and resources chasing a solution to nothing is exasperating. Quit spending all this time arguing over a non-solution and work on thinking of something that might actually help!
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Pain

Postby Norm357 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:09 pm

new cook wrote:From the WaPo, an excerpt from JJPS's book:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z6

Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment
By John Paul Stevens, Published: April 11

John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.

The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense. And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens. I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.

In my dissent in the McDonald case, I pointed out that the court’s decision was unique in the extent to which the court had exacted a heavy toll “in terms of state sovereignty. . . . Even apart from the States’ long history of firearms regulation and its location at the core of their police powers, this is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this Court’s meddling. Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.”

“Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.”

In response to the massacre of grammar-school students at Sandy Hook Elementary School, some legislators have advocated stringent controls on the sale of assault weapons and more complete background checks on purchasers of firearms. It is important to note that nothing in either the Heller or the McDonald opinion poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.

First, the court did not overrule Miller. Instead, it “read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” On the preceding page of its opinion, the court made it clear that even though machine guns were useful in warfare in 1939, they were not among the types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment because that protected class was limited to weapons in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Even though a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun might well be kept at home and be useful for self-defense, neither machine guns nor sawed-off shotguns satisfy the “common use” requirement.

Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court’s decision in Heller.

A second virtue of the opinion in Heller is that Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way to limit the court’s holding not only to a subset of weapons that might be used for self-defense but also to a subset of conduct that is protected. The specific holding of the case covers only the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, while a later part of the opinion adds emphasis to the narrowness of that holding by describing uses that were not protected by the common law or state practice. Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, or on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are specifically identified as permissible regulations.

Thus, Congress’s failure to enact laws that would expand the use of background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons cannot be justified by reference to the Second Amendment or to anything that the Supreme Court has said about that amendment. What the members of the five-justice majority said in those opinions is nevertheless profoundly important, because it curtails the government’s power to regulate the use of handguns that contribute to the roughly 88 firearm-related deaths that occur every day.

There is an intriguing similarity between the court’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence, which began with a misinterpretation of the 11th Amendment, and its more recent misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. The procedural amendment limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction over private actions against states eventually blossomed into a substantive rule that treats the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity as though it were part of the Constitution itself. Of course, in England common-law rules fashioned by judges may always be repealed or amended by Parliament. And when the United States became an independent nation, Congress and every state legislature had the power to accept, to reject or to modify common-law rules that prevailed prior to 1776, except, of course, any rule that might have been included in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.

As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

It is true, of course, that the public’s reaction to the massacre of schoolchildren, such as the Newtown killings, and the 2013 murder of government employees at the Navy Yard in Washington, may also introduce a strong emotional element into the debate. That aspect of the debate is, however, based entirely on facts rather than fiction. The law should encourage intelligent discussion of possible remedies for what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy.



A couple of things:

This guys scares the bunnypoop out of me and he should scare you also.

This guy knows nothing about guns.

This guy completely overlooks "Shall not be infringed". The 2nd is the only Ammendment that uses those words. There is a reason for this.
Don't pity the rescue dog, adopt him. If he was human, he would be the one with stories to tell and books to write.

Any idiot can kill a shark. It takes a real man to catch one, kiss him on the head, and let him go.

Image
User avatar
Norm357
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 4909
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta GA

Re: Pain

Postby new cook » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:51 pm

Norm357 wrote:
new cook wrote:A couple of things:

This guys scares the bunnypoop out of me and he should scare you also.

This guy knows nothing about guns.

This guy completely overlooks "Shall not be infringed". The 2nd is the only Ammendment that uses those words. There is a reason for this.

Geez, Norm. TJ, Carla and I talk about a deranged white nationalist who goes out hunting for Jews, ironically murders three Christians, I talk about the popular white nationalist website (second to stormfront) where this guy hung out and where, aside from the usual talk of non-whites they hate and what they think should be done with them, they talk of destroying the U.S. government and luring middle-class whites to their cause by downplaying their KKK and neo-Nazi ties, and who support Clive Bundy and his attempt to draw the BLM into a shootout (conveniently near April 19, an important date on these haters' calendar) — and the person who scares the crap out of you is a former Supreme Court justice who suggests Congress amend the Constitution in order to allow them and localities to deal with our gun problem on a state level because the problems vary across the country and one size doesn't fit all? He scares the crap out of you more than hundreds, maybe thousands of Tim McVeigh wannabes? Really?
Jokes of the proper kind, properly told, can do more to enlighten questions of politics, philosophy, and literature than any number of dull arguments.
-Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-92)


(I'm trying to avoid eating mammals. Not getting silly, I've redefined bacon as a spice)
-Kinsley
User avatar
new cook
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:22 pm
Location: Surfin' USA

Re: Pain

Postby uncle Ted » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:18 pm

new cook wrote:a former Supreme Court justice who suggests Congress amend the Constitution

Congress doesn't amend the US Constitution, they propose amendments - which must be approved by two thirds of both Houses.
The proposed amendment then requires ratification by three-fourths of the states (38 of the 50). I was a bit surprised Congress
didn't attempt this when they had control of both houses between 2007 and 2011, but they didn't have a full 2/3rd of either house.

One could always petition their state legislature to call for a Convention of the States (aka Article V convention), the other method for
proposing amendments to the US Constitution. Any proposed amendments that come out of an Article V convention still need to
be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 of the 50), but that would be the best opportunity to finally change or eliminate
the 2nd Amendment, once and for all - Congress has proven they won't take action,..

The list of proposed amendments for the Convention of States include:
1. Term limits, including for justices.
2. Repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the election of senators to state legislatures
3. A congressional supermajority to override Supreme Court decisions (overruling what could be a stacked court)
4. Spending limit based on GDP
5. Taxation capped at 15%
6. Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights
7. Power of states to override a federal statute by a three-fifths vote.
8. Require a state-issued photo-id for federal elections


Details and background can be found in Mark Levin's book "The Liberty Amendments"
uncle Ted
Seaman Briner
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Pain

Postby Norm357 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:10 pm

Yes really.
Don't pity the rescue dog, adopt him. If he was human, he would be the one with stories to tell and books to write.

Any idiot can kill a shark. It takes a real man to catch one, kiss him on the head, and let him go.

Image
User avatar
Norm357
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 4909
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta GA

Re: Pain

Postby new cook » Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:50 pm

Norm357 wrote:Yes really.

Alrighty, then. It's clear where you're priorities are. Can't say I'm surprised.
Jokes of the proper kind, properly told, can do more to enlighten questions of politics, philosophy, and literature than any number of dull arguments.
-Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-92)


(I'm trying to avoid eating mammals. Not getting silly, I've redefined bacon as a spice)
-Kinsley
User avatar
new cook
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:22 pm
Location: Surfin' USA

Re: Pain

Postby Norm357 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:33 pm

new cook wrote:
Norm357 wrote:Yes really.

Alrighty, then. It's clear where you're priorities are. Can't say I'm surprised.


What is your implication? Are you saying that I sympathize with kkk and neo nazi types who have wet dreams about over throwing the Government?
Don't pity the rescue dog, adopt him. If he was human, he would be the one with stories to tell and books to write.

Any idiot can kill a shark. It takes a real man to catch one, kiss him on the head, and let him go.

Image
User avatar
Norm357
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 4909
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta GA

Re: Pain

Postby Norm357 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:40 pm

Carla quoted:

The tragedies at Waco in 1993 and in Oklahoma City in 1995, both of which involved a modern militia movement,


This is incorrect. Koresh was a religious nutjob with no ties to any militia movement and Mcveigh was never in a militia though he did have ties to the patriot movement that consisited of selling crap at gunshows.
Don't pity the rescue dog, adopt him. If he was human, he would be the one with stories to tell and books to write.

Any idiot can kill a shark. It takes a real man to catch one, kiss him on the head, and let him go.

Image
User avatar
Norm357
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 4909
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta GA

Re: Pain

Postby new cook » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:11 pm

No. But your love of firearms and completely out of proportion with reality level of fear of being separated from those inanimate objects supersedes any concern you might have for actual living human beings and the very real dangers — past, present, and future — posed by hate filled, trigger happy bigots who want to "cleanse" America in any way they can, whether by violence or by turning frustrated white middle class people into allies against civil rights for all.
Jokes of the proper kind, properly told, can do more to enlighten questions of politics, philosophy, and literature than any number of dull arguments.
-Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-92)


(I'm trying to avoid eating mammals. Not getting silly, I've redefined bacon as a spice)
-Kinsley
User avatar
new cook
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:22 pm
Location: Surfin' USA

Re: Pain

Postby Norm357 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:31 pm

So. That is how you describe a love for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Interesting.
Don't pity the rescue dog, adopt him. If he was human, he would be the one with stories to tell and books to write.

Any idiot can kill a shark. It takes a real man to catch one, kiss him on the head, and let him go.

Image
User avatar
Norm357
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 4909
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta GA

Re: Pain

Postby new cook » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:42 pm

Norm357 wrote:So. That is how you describe a love for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Interesting.

1) You've often demonstrated that you love the second amendment more than any other amendment within the Bill of Rights and more than the Constitution. You seem to love it more than people.

2) I value human life above all else.

3) The purpose and spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is in service to human life. Things are not more important than people.
Jokes of the proper kind, properly told, can do more to enlighten questions of politics, philosophy, and literature than any number of dull arguments.
-Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-92)


(I'm trying to avoid eating mammals. Not getting silly, I've redefined bacon as a spice)
-Kinsley
User avatar
new cook
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:22 pm
Location: Surfin' USA

Re: Pain

Postby Norm357 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:49 pm

You are mistaken but that's ok.
Don't pity the rescue dog, adopt him. If he was human, he would be the one with stories to tell and books to write.

Any idiot can kill a shark. It takes a real man to catch one, kiss him on the head, and let him go.

Image
User avatar
Norm357
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 4909
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta GA

Re: Pain

Postby uncle Ted » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:07 pm

new cook wrote:3) The purpose and spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is in service to human life. Things are not more important than people


Actually, the purpose and spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were to define and place limitations on the Federal Government,
protect the sovereignty of the several states (eliminated with the 17th Amendment) and protect the liberty and unalienable rights of the
individual - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The framers, fresh off the successful Revolution against England and the disappointing
experience with the Articles of Confederation created a limited Federal government that lasted for 128 years. The last century has seen
an erosion of the Founder's vision into the all encompassing Plutocracy we have today.

The 2nd Amendment provides an individual with the guarantee that government will not infringe the individual's right to self-protection against
aggression of any kind, which is a cornerstone for maintaining life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is also why the 2nd Amendment says
“the right of the people” (not the state) as self-protection is a pre-existing right that government must respect.
uncle Ted
Seaman Briner
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Pain

Postby carla » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:15 pm

I know we'll all argue about sources of info and everything else :D
but another look at the history of the interpretation of the second amendment may be instructive. I'm only looking for perspective. I know it's not going to change anyone's mind.

Search the internet for "history of second amendment interpretation"

Here's one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... nstitution

This is a really good, educational article. I realize few will bother to read it. I intend to do so closely. Hey at least I didn't post some of my favorite, liberal authors. :wink:
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Pain

Postby uncle Ted » Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:18 pm

There is no need to "argue about sources", this is an issue of interpretation and intent. There
is little more than opinion on all sides, therefore, nothing on this topic will ever be 'definitive'.

We can analyze the writings of the founders and find that they were divided on the need for
both the Bill of Rights (in general) and the 2nd Amendment (in specific). Both (BofR and 2A)
came about because of concerns from the states on the potential of a increasingly powerful
central government, otherwise ratification of the Constitution would have likely failed.

My favorite liberal authors are John Locke and Frédéric Bastiat - But then I'm using the classic
definition of 'liberal' - a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality,
not the progressive/statist meaning the word liberal took on in the early 20th century - the belief
that government should be active in supporting social and political change - the exact opposite of
what the Founders intended for the central government.

I also like the writings of that classic liberal, Dr Ben Carson, MD:
In Why did the founders give us the Second Amendment?, Dr Ben Carson wrote:...there are reasonable people who look at the tens of thousands of people who are killed each year in this
country by guns, and they do not feel that we are doing enough to stop the carnage.

Many of them want to see significant restrictions on the distribution of firearms in our nation, and others
want to restrict types and quantities of ammunition. Some would be happy just to make sure that all guns
and gun owners are registered, and most reasonable people certainly are not in favor of allowing criminals
and mentally unstable individuals to purchase firearms.

If you subtract suicides, the number of individuals killed by guns in America is far less than the number killed
by automobiles, yet the government does not tell people they can only buy approved types of automobiles
with a imited horsepower — at least not yet.

We do, however, require that anyone driving a car on the streets of our nation have a license to do so, indicating
the successful completion of adequate training. We do not grant licenses to certain categories of individuals
who would be deemed unsafe drivers. This is done for the safety of the public at large.

Perhaps instead of getting into our corners and screaming at each other, it is time to engage in intelligent
onversation about our desire to preserve the rights granted to American citizens by our Constitution while at
the same time ensuring the safety of all of our citizens. The way we treat access to automobiles is a good
starting point, although there is no perfect analogy. If we keep our goals in mind and dispose of ideological
rhetoric, we can solve this problem.
uncle Ted
Seaman Briner
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Pain

Postby okbye » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:01 am

When the constitution was written there is no way they could have foreseen where weaponry would end up. They couldn't know where society would end up. If the founding fathers had any inclining of how life would be at this stage I guarantee you we would have had a very different constitution. It's useless to argue over the intent of men 200 years ago, their world doesn't resemble ours in the least and their rules don't fit our society anymore. I don't get this whole conservative idea that nothing can change from what was written hundreds of years ago. Drag your carcasses into the modern age, we have evolved as a species and we are screwing this place up. Time to be out with the old.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Pain

Postby uncle Ted » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:29 am

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
uncle Ted
Seaman Briner
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Pain

Postby Kinsley » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:59 am

uncle Ted wrote:"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

Have we achieved universal deceit?

I don't know who to trust. There are public figures
in politics, business and the media that I want to
believe, but there is no baseline person or institution
that I am certain to be trustworthy.

My neighbor Joe has sold some of my excess stuff:
Vinyl LPs mostly, at flea markets. He always seems
to give me more than a fair share of the proceeds,
but he used to be a record promoter, so I can't even
be completely sure about him.

I met a woman on the internet who described herself
as a medical doctor. She seemed nice, we had a few
dates. Turned out she had lost her license because of
Medicare fraud.

Even with my personal physician, it seems like he is
just trying to get me to use as many drugs as possible
and take tests that are not likely to yield any useful
information.

My lawyer seems like a nice guy. We are the same age,
we were both at the University of MD during the Vietnam
demonstrations in the seventies. I don't know of any
time he has given me bad advice, but if the only honest
man I know is a lawyer...

The Artist formerly known as BigCrab


Image

"They were so preoccupied with what they could do, that they didn't
think about whether they should.''
- Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park .

"You can't always get what you want; but if you try sometimes,
you just might find, you get what you need."
- Mick
User avatar
Kinsley
Kindly Old Uncle
 
Posts: 7863
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Windsor Mill, MD

Re: Pain

Postby ABwannabe » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:16 pm

okbye wrote:When the constitution was written there is no way they could have foreseen where weaponry would end up. They couldn't know where society would end up. If the founding fathers had any inclining of how life would be at this stage I guarantee you we would have had a very different constitution. It's useless to argue over the intent of men 200 years ago, their world doesn't resemble ours in the least and their rules don't fit our society anymore. I don't get this whole conservative idea that nothing can change from what was written hundreds of years ago. Drag your carcasses into the modern age, we have evolved as a species and we are screwing this place up. Time to be out with the old.


My problem with this (and I don't pretend to speak for anyone else) is how much of the old do we throw out? What do we replace it with? And, is the problem with the old rules, or the new people? Who decides our country's collective answers those questions?

I'll clarify my conundrum with an example. Here in Alabama, our State Constitution is 90% amendments, and is the longest Constitution of all the states. It's a huge mess. There have been movements to rewrite the constitution, but nobody trusts anyone else to do the rewrite. There are too many special interests, and a rewritten constitution would likely be much worse than what we have.

So, if we decide that the 2nd Amendment is no longer valid for today's society, what about the 4th (unreasonable search and seizure)? That's becoming a big deal in the "driving while black" or "driving while Mexican" arguments. What if society gets to the point where that's considered old fashioned? Or what about the 7th (right to a trial by peers)?

My point is, I don't see how we can really consider declaring one freedom "old fashioned" without considering the entirety. The easier it is to eliminate one, it becomes that much easier to eliminate others. Unchecked, the 1st Amendment becomes seriously at risk.
ABwannabe
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Pain

Postby haleoalau » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:40 pm

new cook wrote:No. But your love of firearms and completely out of proportion with reality level of fear of being separated from those inanimate objects supersedes any concern you might have for actual living human beings and the very real dangers — past, present, and future — posed by hate filled, trigger happy bigots who want to "cleanse" America in any way they can, whether by violence or by turning frustrated white middle class people into allies against civil rights for all.


First, I'm thinking I may have interpreted this the same as Norm - this was a post about a sad event, occurring 40 minutes from my home. A truly tragic event in which 3 people died, because a man so filled with hatred and obviously ill, took it upon himself to end their lives. People who were not even in his chosen bubble of hatred. They just happened to utilize and/or attending events held at these COMMUNITY centers.

He could have run up and knifed them. He could have kidnapped and hung them. He could have used homemade bombs and blew up both buidlings resulting in FAR more deaths and property destruction.

But his weapon of choice was a firearm. Guns which LE believes he purchased via a "straw buyer" - meaning that most likely the guns were purchased legally by someone with a clean record. So there goes any argument about the gun merchant selling the gun illegally or gun show loopholes (which are a falsehood).

Because of that, You turned it into a gun argument. Maybe TJ meant it as a gun thread, or maybe it was meant as an "Can't we all just get along" thread, but since we went the gun route:

I'll use my husband as the example since he has more training that I do....

So, as a law abiding, well trained marksmen, who is hoping to be a gunsmith someday (thus he knows weaponry INSIDE and OUT, including the gun laws and various state statutes) should have his livelihood stripped away because of a few crazies? Because YOU are of the opinion that ALL gun owners are obviously irrational, fear-mongering people haters?

Or, because apparently these crazies are everywhere (in your words "very real dangers — past, present, and future") he - again, militarily and beyond, trained, should not be permitted to own or conceal carry to protect himself or (because we must think of them) our children in the "very real" event that one of these crazies should pop up wherever we are?

So...which is it? Are dangers everywhere, or are they not, and we're just as nutso as bigots like Cross?

If they're trigger happy bigots and are a very real danger, should I not have a RIGHT to protect my myself and my children - who, in a strictly historical sense would not be welcome by these groups (since the're part Asian and OHFORTHELOVEOFALLTHATISHOLY.....Catholic. Yes, we're bloody Papists....) OR for YOUR sense of safety, I should sacrifice mine?

You say you're angry that those of us who want to protect our right to own, collect, train and use (as needed, necessary, and in a safe and lawful manner) guns are imposing our worldview on you? Well, I'm angry that YOU presume my family values anyone's life less than you because we train to utilize a tool that will help us protect our loved ones (or friends, or co-workers, or an innocent bystanding stranger who doesn't like guns and thinks we're idiots) should a need arise.

That's right, I said it. [u]A TOOL[/u]. Not a toy. Not a cool thing to spin around our finger Old West style. Not a substitute penis.

I don't like YOUR view of the world all too much either.

And for the record there are PLENTY of us out here who completely disagree with SCOTUS on Citizen's United and their decision regarding money; Who are appalled at the oligarchical turn our country has taken. Who are freaking scared of the ultra-right, uber-fundamentalist religious zealots who reaching decibels of which Bruce Dickinson can only dream. But PLEASE continue to lump all of us gun owners as nuts in cahoots with the likes of Cross, McVeigh, the American Taliban, KKK, and dare I say it, Ted Nugent (Yeah...that's the moderate-lib in me speaking....) etc etc.

All you're succeeding in doing is shutting us down - the same as you seem to have already done to those of us who are good, honest, hard working people who happen to own guns, loved this country and yes love our Constitution. My husband may no longer be active duty but he, and I alongside him, took and still takes his oath to uphold our Constitution (not our government body, not our President, but the Constitution) very seriously.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
haleoalau
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:59 am
Location: Leavenworth, KS

Re: Pain

Postby okbye » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:25 pm

ABwannabe wrote:
My point is, I don't see how we can really consider declaring one freedom "old fashioned" without considering the entirety. The easier it is to eliminate one, it becomes that much easier to eliminate others. Unchecked, the 1st Amendment becomes seriously at risk.


You don't have to eliminate it, just modernize it. I have yet to see a valid argument as to why any individual needs an assault rifle. Or why people can't be required to pass a test and get a license like you do to drive. Why can any idiot go into any shop and buy a gun regardless of whether he knows how to use it or not? That still won't stop criminals from getting guns of course but it might shut up some of the whining.
When that law was written most adult males knew how to handle a gun, they used them in their lives. Guns were tools they used to live. They assumed people would know what they were doing, and they only had slow ass guns anyway. If they had been able to see a future with automatic machine guns and scatter guns I guarantee you that would have been written differently.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Pain

Postby uncle Ted » Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:29 am

okbye wrote:I have yet to see a valid argument as to why any individual needs an assault rifle

An assault rifle - a military rifle capable of switching between semi-automatic and fully automatic fire -
is currently regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. It is illegal to own or possess one without proper
permits from the BATF. Use of the term 'assault rifle' in any other context is purely a political construct.

okbye wrote:If they had been able to see a future with automatic machine guns and scatter guns I guarantee you that would have been written differently.


Automatic machine guns are already regulated by the National Firearms act of 1934.
It is illegal to own or possess one without proper permits from the BATF - if I recall
it requires a class 3 license.

'Scattergun' is another name for a shotgun. Shotguns that are modified are also illegal
under the National Firearms act of 1934.

Nuclear weapons, bazookas and Apache attack helicopters are also illegal to own without
proper licensing from the Federal Government.

It would appear that the 'modernization' of the old thinking has already taken place.
uncle Ted
Seaman Briner
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Pain

Postby okbye » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:14 am

Because of course no one who doesn't have a permit or who is not legally allowed to have a gun doesn't have one. The current system doesn't work. 1934 is hardly modernization, that was still a very different era.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Pain

Postby ABwannabe » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:16 am

okbye, first I want to say thank you for keeping this discussion intelligent. You're addressing very real concerns; I believe many of these are concerns are shared by the majority of the "2nd Amendment zealots" (my words), even if those "zealots" have a problem with your suggestions.

okbye wrote:Because of course no one who doesn't have a permit or who is not legally allowed to have a gun doesn't have one. The current system doesn't work. 1934 is hardly modernization, that was still a very different era.


This is actually the part that kind of scares me. Each of your suggestions so far to fix the current system have been shown in this thread to not really have any positive impact. I'll list them:

  • "I have yet to see a valid argument as to why any individual needs an assault rifle" - Assault rifles are already illegal
  • "why people can't be required to pass a test and get a license like you do to drive" - "Because of course no one [...] who is not legally allowed to have a gun doesn't have one ". This same argument can be used both ways
  • "Why can any idiot go into any shop and buy a gun regardless of whether he knows how to use it or not?" - I'll ignore the constitutionality argument, since that's what's being argued. This sounds like a reasonable idea. The problem becomes enforceability. The prior bullet-point (heh - pun not intended) shows that we agree that passing laws doesn't really address the problem of illegal gun ownership. You yourself said earlier: "That still won't stop criminals from getting guns of course but it might shut up some of the whining."
ABwannabe
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

Next

Return to Poli-FRY

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron