Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[JimL]

"no law" means: some laws; "shall not be infringed" means: may be infringed a good deal; "interstate commerce" means anything at all, including things that are neither interstate nor commerce; involuntary servitude "shall not exist" means the government may require involuntary servitude if they want, etc. Rather blatant contradictions.

As for "they get the last word," that's a thing because they claimed that that is so!
So that's a circular argument.

But there are considerations to take into account when interpreting the Constitution such as the state of affairs at the time when it was written. The Founders had no idea concerning the weaponry of the future, so, that the peoples right to bear muskets "shall not be infringed" still holds holds today. You could amend the Constitution in order to correct for the imprecise language due the Founders ignorance, but the courts I believe found that unnecessary, you do have a right to bear arms, but they obviously didn't have ground to air missiles in mind at the time of the writing.

[Teallaura]

Ok, one question comes to mind. How many armed men are you willing to send to his home to ensure compliance? Assuming he's a gun owner, and accepting for the sake of argument that he's irresponsible and therefore should "not be allowed" to own guns, what are you willing to do to correct this? Should the armed men be allowed to shoot on sight (due to his dangerous, unpredictable, and violent nature, obviously)?

In a country that has extremely few aggressive enforcements, why do you go straight to aggressive enforcement? Worse, it's not what I said - I said he should not be allowed to purchase. The enforcement would be at point of sale and, if he's dumb enough to display the weapon, at the time of display.

You guys keep arguing that gun owners are largely responsible - okay, if so, then they are responsible for the weapons in their possession - and to KEEP those weapons in their possession until legally disposed of. Unless you really want to argue that felons and lunatic should be allowed to purchase and own guns, then this is a perfectly reasonable requirement. Joel is arguing that guns are not a special case when in fact they already are - and cannot be purchased legally without permit. It undermines the permit laws (which is his wish) to allow gun owners a free pass on negligent possession.

A gun safe is not an unreasonable requirement. Using same when the weapon is not on your person/under your direct supervision is also not an unreasonable requirement.

[Joel]

The Court has the constitutional responsibility (so it claimed in Marbury v Madison).

"so it claimed". Thus a circular argument.

You not agreeing doesn't make them wrong.

Fair enough. Any judgement of their credibility must rely on one's (fallible) judgement of the truth. I'm not Catholic, and SCOTUS isn't an ecumenical council.

That early Courts (note the capital C, please) held that states could in fact regulate guns and that subsequent Federal law has been allowed to regulate guns completely undercuts the 'regulation is infringement' nonsense.

That (for example, from what I understand) early Courts interpreted the "necessary and proper" clause in a way contrary to assurances made to the ratifiers regarding what they were consenting to, is a blow to their credibility. And that matter, over an expansionist take on implied powers, is arguably a more crucial matter than the 2nd Amendment.

[Teallaura]

I don't think this is a fair response. This kind of crap is why I don't take Civics seriously--Joel is one of the most patient posters on here.

Normally I'd agree about Joel but he's misconstrued me now three times and keeps on with the 'why not the kitchen sink' silliness.

[Teallaura]

"so it claimed". Thus a circular argument....

Joel, that is not a circular argument. Even if it were, it's not invalid so this is pointless.

The Court is the final arbiter. Has been since Marbury v Madison. Arguments can be made that the Court erred - but disregarding all the case law makes for an extremely poor argument for error.

[Sparko]

Actually, yes, in certain circumstances. A kid, not your own, who manages to take your car because you left it running, has committed theft and you are very much liable. Attractive nuisance.

And yes, there are some laws on the books - I was asked how I would improve the law and gave my answer. Greater liability usually results in greater care.

I totally agree with having stronger penalties but not going crazy. If someone breaks into your house or car and steals your gun, that is not your fault. But yeah if a kid gets a hold of your gun laying around the house, then yeah you should be responsible. In fact as I said, you ARE. It is already the law.

[Sparko]

Parallel, not analogous. And it would depend on the circumstances - if you made the theft attractive, the courts very well might allow it.

There is no such thing as an attractive theft. An attractive nuisance is something like leaving a gun out for a kid to find, or a swimming pool without a fence. But you can't make something "attractive" to a thief. They are already "attracted" to your stuff, that's why they are stealing it. And even if you leave your door unlocked, that is not an invitation for someone to steal from you.

[Sparko]

"no law" means: some laws; "shall not be infringed" means: may be infringed a good deal; "interstate commerce" means anything at all, including things that are neither interstate nor commerce; involuntary servitude "shall not exist" means the government may require involuntary servitude if they want, etc. Rather blatant contradictions.

As for "they get the last word," that's a thing because they claimed that that is so!
So that's a circular argument.

fox guarding the hen house.

[Teallaura]

I totally agree with having stronger penalties but not going crazy. If someone breaks into your house or car and steals your gun, that is not your fault. But yeah if a kid gets a hold of your gun laying around the house, then yeah you should be responsible. In fact as I said, you ARE. It is already the law.

Then what's your objection? I already said that not every theft is the owner's fault - only those where no reasonable precautions were taken. Since you are in possession of something that requires permit, what is so unreasonable about making sure it's secure when you aren't using it? If the guy hauls off the safe, okay - you did your best. I never said otherwise. But if you couldn't even be bothered to lock it away when you weren't there, why shouldn't you be liable for the negligence?

[Teallaura]

There is no such thing as an attractive theft. An attractive nuisance is something like leaving a gun out for a kid to find, or a swimming pool without a fence. But you can't make something "attractive" to a thief. They are already "attracted" to your stuff, that's why they are stealing it. And even if you leave your door unlocked, that is not an invitation for someone to steal from you.

Actually, yes, you can make theft more likely - especially doing dumb things like leaving your gun on the front seat of your unlocked car. At present, it's not necessarily going to be a liability issue - but I bet your insurance company won't be paying.

[Sparko]

But there are considerations to take into account when interpreting the Constitution such as the state of affairs at the time when it was written. The Founders had no idea concerning the weaponry of the future, so, that the peoples right to bear muskets "shall not be infringed" still holds holds today. You could amend the Constitution in order to correct for the imprecise language due the Founders ignorance, but the courts I believe found that unnecessary, you do have a right to bear arms, but they obviously didn't have ground to air missiles in mind at the time of the writing.

Is this the third or fourth time you have repeated the same nonsense?


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post479011

[One Bad Pig]

But there are considerations to take into account when interpreting the Constitution such as the state of affairs at the time when it was written. The Founders had no idea concerning the weaponry of the future, so, that the peoples right to bear muskets "shall not be infringed" still holds holds today. You could amend the Constitution in order to correct for the imprecise language due the Founders ignorance, but the courts I believe found that unnecessary, you do have a right to bear arms, but they obviously didn't have ground to air missiles in mind at the time of the writing.

The Founders had no idea concerning the communications media of the future either, so that the peoples right to put quill to paper "shall not be infringed" still holds today. You could amend the Constitution in order to correct for the imprecise language due the Founders ignorance, but the courts I believe found that unnecessary, you do have a right to free speech, but they obviously didn't have the internet in mind at the time of the writing.

Does that sound convincing to you?

[Sparko]

The founding fathers were mostly lawyers so they knew what they were writing. Lawyers are very precise with their wording. And they knew the implications of their words for future generations.

[One Bad Pig]

BTW Jim, a musket was the most advanced firearm of the day,

Not true, actually. Rifles were around, then, and those were more advanced. Rifles were a lot more expensive to produce, however, so infantrymen were typically armed with muskets until well into the 19th century anyway.

[seer]

Not true, actually. Rifles were around, then, and those were more advanced. Rifles were a lot more expensive to produce, however, so infantrymen were typically armed with muskets until well into the 19th century anyway.

Well rifles were legal too then...