Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Joel]

Case law - yeah, I really have read a number of the early decisions.

But more to the point, the reason the Constitution has a dual triad balance of powers (leg, ex, jud; st, fed, populace) is that the Founders were none too keen on trusting anyone with too much power. Had they foreseen weapons that could spew carnage like a machine gun, it's incredibly dubious that they wouldn't have considered just who was taking those things home.

I haven't read the case law. Can you explain their reasoning? I tend to be skeptical of SCOTUS-said-so arguments. They have been wrong before. And I think even early on. For example, my understanding is that the ratifiers were assured that the "necessary and proper" clause would not be interpreted expansively, and then early on (Marshall court) interpreted it expansively (McCulloch v. Maryland, I believe). Some people severely criticize the Marshall court for setting the courts down the wrong road early on, in certain ways.

Regarding a balance of powers, I think the distrust of standing armies and the desire to put the armed forces largely in the hand of the people was part of that balance. If for example, there were a ban on citizens having guns, but not on the government having guns, that would be the same as concentrating/centralizing all the power of guns in the government, while putting them in the hands of the people would be to diffuse/decentralize that power. Similarly for specific weapons, like machine guns and bazookas. With the balance argument, I think if you are going to ban machine guns for the people, machine guns should also be banned for the government, otherwise you are unreasonably concentrating/unbalancing power in the government. The increased power of machine guns doesn't alter that consideration of balance of power between the government and the people, except perhaps to make it more urgent that they be in the hands of the people.

But, on the other hand, if you are talking just about background checks, then that seems probably easier for you to argue, regarding balance of powers.

"Going postal", 'road rage' et al - the increase in violent response to even mild aggravation over the last thirty years has been staggering - yet there are no statistically corresponding mass shooting sprees.

But my understanding is that violent crime has been decreasing over the past few decades.

[Sparko]

You do understand that the second amendment is a moot point, since it's purpose was to create a "well regulated" militia in place of a standing federal military, right?

The key phrase is "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not "the militia" - this has been verified by the supreme court to refer to individual citizens. besides militias can't have rights, only people can.

And the actual purpose of the amendment was to protect the people from the government. They might need a militia in order to oppose the government, just like the rebels did with Britain. So if that ever comes to pass, I don't think that government's military will be on the side of "the people" and the people might need to form militias to oppose them. I bet the German people wish they had that option during WW2 to stop the Nazis from taking over their government. But no, they were disarmed by their government first.

[Jedidiah]

Never heard of this, i'd think an outright ban on handguns would be unconstitutional (not that that ever stopped liberals from trying).

The 2nd applies to feds and states. Does it limit cities? Any constitutional law experts here? I am not interested in what you think should be, folks, just what the law actually does.

[Sparko]

The 2nd applies to feds and states. Does it limit cities? Any constitutional law experts here? I am not interested in what you think should be, folks, just what the law actually does.

From what I read, the Chicago ban is what led to the 2nd being incorporated.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDona...ity_of_Chicago

Wiki so I am not sure how accurate it is.

[Sea of red]

Not moot, but settled. Even if the 2nd were repealed that does not eliminate the right. Any infringement is still counter to the thrust of the Constitution. Of course the Constitution is now treated as though it were a "living document."

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24385[/ATTACH]

The Constitution is not a living document, it can only be changed by an amendment. Liberal activist judges are unconstitutionally abusing the law in their actions.

There goes that argument.

[Cerebrum123]

I’m not trolling, I’m educating Christians. It’s more difficult than it looks.

The thing about guns is that they are hatred amplifiers if people want to use them that way; and they do. Certainly they need a human operator but why would anyone, especially a Christian love a device that was so dangerous?

“It also bothers me because so much of the reason people want to have a gun comes down to fear and control. They want to have the say when they die, not some punk on the corner. They’re afraid for their safety. Often, they’re afraid of “the other.” And these are not traits that should be said of Christians. We don’t control our fate — we trust God that we will follow Him, live faithfully, and He will either protect us or bring us home. We don’t fear for our lives — we know death brings us to Christ and we know we’re protected by the sovereignty of God. And we don’t fear the other. We love them. We pray for them. We show them Christ, even if that means we lay down our right to take their lives.”

You "educating"?

[Joel]

The thing about guns is that they are hatred amplifiers if people want to use them that way; and they do. Certainly they need a human operator but why would anyone, especially a Christian love a device that was so dangerous?

The same is true of intelligence.

[Sea of red]

The key phrase is "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not "the militia" - this has been verified by the supreme court to refer to individual citizens. besides militias can't have rights, only people can.

And the actual purpose of the amendment was to protect the people from the government. They might need a militia in order to oppose the government, just like the rebels did with Britain. So if that ever comes to pass, I don't think that government's military will be on the side of "the people" and the people might need to form militias to oppose them. I bet the German people wish they had that option during WW2 to stop the Nazis from taking over their government. But no, they were disarmed by their government first.

You sound ridiculous.

It was the majority of the German populace that enabled the Nazi's into power. It was the minority groups like the Jews, gays, and gypsies that were oppressed. There were guns around in Germany, but those oppressed were smart enough to know that if they shot at a Nazi solider they would jeopardize their lives of their brethren. The Nazi's would always have had more men and far superior weaponry to combat any uprising -- even if they took up arms.

And this idea that people can make war on the government when they don't like it is just insanity. What do you think Timothy McVeigh was doing? Taking this kind of crap to it's logical conclusion.

[Sparko]

You sound ridiculous.

It was the majority of the German populace that enabled the Nazi's into power. It was the minority groups like the Jews, gays, and gypsies that were oppressed. There were guns around in Germany, but those oppressed were smart enough to know that if they shot at a Nazi solider they would jeopardize their lives of their brethren. The Nazi's would always have had more men and far superior weaponry to combat any uprising -- even if they took up arms.

And this idea that people can make war on the government when they don't like it is just insanity. What do you think Timothy McVeigh was doing? Taking this kind of crap to it's logical conclusion.

the german people voted in the government but not the Nazis. That was pretty much a sneak attack. The general german populous did not belong to the Nazi party or like them. My mom grew up during Nazi germany. I have photos and stories of the subjugation they went through.

some info on Nazi gun control:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...hen-p-halbrook

[Joel]

It's just the way things are

It used to be the case that every society had legal slavery. That was "just the way things are". It doesn't imply that it should be that way or that it cannot be got rid of.

I see little need for adjectives in a number of cases that you've used the phrase "innocent people". You could have simply said "people". If you really need an antonym for "criminal", how about "law-abiding"?

The point of the term is to be a negation of the particular crime for which the law is passed (murder, terrorism). So it would be not-murderer, not-terrorist, according to the particular instance. "Law-abiding" may be misleading, because we are talking about things as they are prior to the law's existence.

For example, suppose a law were passed banning all speech to prevent "bad" speech acts (suppose there were agreement on what "bad" speech is). If someone were to object that banning all speech is overkill because it bans a great deal of good/innocent speech, it would be missing the point, and equivocation, for the law's advocate to say, "But all speech is illegal, and thus criminal. So no speech is innocent." If the objector instead used "law abiding", then it would be even less clear, because the advocate in that case would be perfectly correct, without equivocation, to say that no speech is law-abiding.
The point of referring to good/innocent speech is in contrast to the speech that was recognized as bad prior to the law's existence, and for which the law was originally intended to eliminate. By my hypothetical, prior to the law, neither form of speech was against the law.

Eh, it's more than just human actions. In one case you're referring to banning humans themselves, in the other case you're referring to banning a tool that humans might use.

I already pointed out that it's never actually banning a human, or banning a tool. That's just a figure of speech. It's always banning particular human actions. It's always the defining of a crime (committing such and such action has such and such punishment). Bans of things in the U.S. of things like alcohol, certain guns, drugs, are in practice, laws against particular actions (manufacturing, selling, etc). In some cases, like the ban on alcohol, I think, the actual consumption (the very thing the law was intended to prevent) wasn't illegal. The law was designed to prevent it by banning all the other actions necessary for consumption.

Your eye roll doesn't prevent it from being true.

If you really think that banning/restricting Muslims will prevent people from being killed and harmed, you should speak out on that, and go with your heart. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, though maybe there's something in it,

I hope it was clear that I'm not making that argument. Rather, the intent is the same. Debating predictions on reductions of terrorism or mass shootings would be a different argument.

but like I said, I think it's an apples and oranges comparison to begin with.

I addressed that and you didn't respond ("Their being similar actions wasn't relevant. It is the uses of force against them that are of the same kind...")

[Darth Executor]

You sound ridiculous.

It was the majority of the German populace that enabled the Nazi's into power. It was the minority groups like the Jews, gays, and gypsies that were oppressed. There were guns around in Germany, but those oppressed were smart enough to know that if they shot at a Nazi solider they would jeopardize their lives of their brethren. The Nazi's would always have had more men and far superior weaponry to combat any uprising -- even if they took up arms.

And this idea that people can make war on the government when they don't like it is just insanity. What do you think Timothy McVeigh was doing? Taking this kind of crap to it's logical conclusion.

Why namedrop McVeigh and not George Washington? Nevermind that McVeigh's own atrocities were a response to US federal government atrocities, which you yourself have no problem accusing it of when Reagan is president.

[Joel]

You do understand that the second amendment is a moot point, since it's purpose was to create a "well regulated" militia in place of a standing federal military, right?

At the time "well regulated" meant "properly functioning", not "subject to lots of legal restrictions". The militia meant the armed populace. Some functions named in the Constitution are, "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". The militia can hardly be properly functioning if the populace isn't sufficiently armed to repel invasions.

Pure stupidity.

That's not an argument.

[firstfloor]

You "educating"?

Christians and many other religioso dedicate their lives to ignorance. It is not a laughing matter.

When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

[One Bad Pig]

Christians and many other religioso dedicate their lives to ignorance. It is not a laughing matter.

When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

You're presenting that as ignorance? Trolling obvious is trolling.

[firstfloor]

You're presenting that as ignorance? Trolling obvious is trolling.

Just saying that the religioso take great pride in their ignorance of worldly things even while they spend all their time in the world. They are off balance. That is why you think I am trolling you.