Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumLawmaker wants military patrols after child's murder
By Antoinette Campbell, CNN
updated 9:20 PM EST, Mon December 19, 2011
(CNN) -- A Louisiana lawmaker wants the National Guard to patrol the streets of New Orleans after a toddler who was four days shy of her second birthday was shot and killed in a drive-by.
"She was out here as a innocent bystander. She's dead now," said Rufus Ruck, the child's cousin.
Keira Holmes Gordon was gunned down in a double shooting at the B. W. Cooper Housing development on Sunday. She was one of two people hit when gunmen from two separate cars opened fire on a man who was standing nearby.
---------
State lawmaker Austin Badon Jr., who represents part of Orleans Parish, said crime is spiraling out of control and wants the government to step and help control the violence.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/19/justice/louisiana-murder-national-guard/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Do you think this is an appropriate request? Do you think it's indicative that gun control as it currently exists is failing to stop the flow of firearms to criminals? What do you think needs to change to try and stop tragedies such as these?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)financed by local bong owners.
I think it is a better idea than when Blackwater and local police tried gun confiscation during Katrina.
It was a gang hit, not much different from the drive-bys the Mafia used to do in the 1920s (until the St. Valentine's Day Massacre pissed people off to the point the mob formed the Commission.) Personally, I agree with German sociologist Wilhelm Heitmeyer's view that tightening gun laws are a distraction from the real issues. I also agree with FSU criminologist Gary Kleck that there is no evidence that gun laws have any effect on crime. What needs to change?
ending the war on drugs
dismantle the empire and MIC, using the money saved on schools, jobs, infrastructure,
equal funding of all schools
put the last nail in racism's coffin
raising the minimum wage and have it automatically adjust for inflation
that is a start.
burrfoot
(821 posts)I hope everyone who says "well if you're not willing to tighten gun control laws, how do you suggest we fix this?" would read this post. You hit the nail on the head.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)free or easily affordable secondary education to anyone who has the desire..I hear how colleges and universities are full..they wouldn't be if the number of foreign students was reduced to a level which would allow room for deserving, underprivileged citizens.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Was the shooter a career criminal and why were they on the street?
Should innocent people be punished for the deeds of criminals?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)"Should innocent people be punished for the deeds of criminals?"
Hyperbole.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)If a child is injured/killed by a drunk driver then should all drivers be punished because of the actions of one person?
Or is it only the use of a firearm that causes this to happen.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tens of thousands of people lose their lives every year due to gun violence. You look at the rest of the civilized world, where rational gun regulations are in place, and their rates of homicide and gun violence are far lower.
It's always amusing that pro-gunners think things like licensing and registration requirements are "punishment", while victims of gun violence don't seem to mean much to them.
The use of the term "punish" is obvious hyperbole, akin to other right-wing talking points like "taxation is slavery", and it simply serves to show that the NRA bubble is incapable of making its case in an intelligent and reasoned manner.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)How many of the "tens of thousands" would have died anyway as a result of the culture they/we live in? How many were killed by unlicensed/unregistered firearms? How many unregistered/unlicensed firerarms didn't kill anyone or never will?
Hyperbole is when you compare 2A activist to right-wingers in an attempt to paint them all one color.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You mean someone who has read the entire amendment and is clued in to the historical context vis-a-vis militias vs a standing army? To understand something is not to oppose it. Quite the opposite.
I agree with you, the gun culture itself probably has a lot to do with the levels of gun violence, in addition to gun laws themselves. But if you compare across developed nations, you find that the US does not have particularly high crime rates in general -- we are usually somewhere in the middle. So that indicates that we are not a uniquely violent people.
However, among developed nation, our homicide rate is number 1, by a comfortable margin, and the reason is that we have far more gun homicides. So the argument that it's the "violent US culture/society" simply falls flat.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)If a drug pusher owns a single gun and is not afraid to use it, is that person of the "gun" culture? I would say not, just a common criminal. I would consider a person a member of the gun culture if they can cay they enjoy shooting without using the firearm as a tool. Or a person who can discuss the merits of stainless steel versus carbon steel for barrel life. Or someone who relaxes and reloads. Please, it is unfair and discriminatory to lump in people who can appreciate the science and technology of firearms with criminals.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)drug culture, yes.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"You mean someone who has read the entire amendment and is clued in to the historical context vis-a-vis militias vs a standing army? To understand something is not to oppose it. Quite the opposite."
""What is an anti 2A person?"
Oh, thats easy. Someone who claims to have "read the entire amendment and is clued in to the historical context", yet ignores the fact that the second amendment is a restriction on government which protects a right which belongs to the people - nothing more, nothing less.
And heres the proof that the second amendment is what I just described it as:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
billofrights.org
Now, since historicly accurate context has been provided for you, can we all assume you will now adjust your inaccurate interpretation accordingly, or must we link this post every time you drag out the absurdity you characterize as "understanding" of the second amendment?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Of course the second amendment is a restriction of government. The question is what right it actually protects. Is it the right to bear arms in the context of militia service? Or does it extend to self-defense, hunting, etc.?
Both the text and the historical context pretty clearly point to the militia interpretation: the purpose of 2A was to prevent the federal government from disarming militias. This is a fact that is even agreed upon by people like Scalia, who, like you, read 2A more broadly, essentially arguing that the militia clause should be ignored, along with the intent of the framers.
I understand that your dislike of gun control laws makes you favor the Scalia interpretation, but you should at least understand that, historically, 2A has nothing to do with limiting the ability of the government to regulate civilian gun ownership for the sake of public safety.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Basically Heller amounted to defining the limits of "reasonable." Did nothing radical or redefine anything. The "collective theory" has never been precedent. Reasonable restriction, yes. Bans, no (the reason NFA did not ban anything, the logic was that it would not survive a challenge.)
It is not so much as dislike as it is the definition of "reasonable", "common sense", "sane", "comprehensive" etc. never gets defined beyond those terms. I don't know anyone who wants to (for example) repeal the NFA. Many of us would like individuals to have access NICS, and an incentive to use it, when making private sales (the feds mandating it could run in to the commerce clause).
The biggest dislike of "gun control" is for the most part this:
most gun control advocates don't have a clue what current laws are
their knowledge of the issue does not seem to extend beyond Brady propaganda (evidenced by over use of propaganda buzz words"
regional bigotry (not so much here)
inability of making an argument free of logical fallacies
What are your specific proposals?
If we were to have a national licensing system, I would like it also be a de-facto CCW (like Czech Republic) and order a guns online and shipped to your door across state lines [like Canada. Type your PAL number along with the shippiing info. canadaammo.com (for example) verifies it as a real number with the RCMP, postal service (or UPS) brings it to your door]. Not sure how they do gun shows, next time I'm up there, I'll go to one and ask.
The license? A NICS check when you get your DL or other state ID. You pass, the code goes on your ID. If not (or you opt out), it does not. I think we should adopt the same silencer laws as Finland, France, and Norway.
I would call that reasonable.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Here's Scalia's explanation of the central question:
There were actually two dissenting opinions written. The Breyer dissent, as you suggest, was in fact about reasonability and matters of degree, arguing that even under the expanded interpretation of 2A, the DC law was still constitutional. But the Stevens dissent stated clearly that 2A "does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons".
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)for all practical purposes for the moment. Of course, what would not be covered under the 2d, could be under the 9th.
I happened to come across this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Both the text and the historical context pretty clearly point to the militia interpretation: the purpose of 2A was to prevent the federal government from disarming militias. This is a fact that is even agreed upon by people like Scalia, who, like you, read 2A more broadly, essentially arguing that the militia clause should be ignored, along with the intent of the framers."
No sir.
Written in modern language, it would read:
Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now, its very clear that while you may read such a sentence as "contextually militia limited", it is not, nor did the framers intend it to be. "Who are the militia? The whole body of people..." Just because the great majority of people do not ascribe to the declaratory clause, the meaning which YOU ascribe to it, does not mean the great majority "ignore it".
But you knew that.
"I understand that your dislike of gun control laws makes you favor the Scalia interpretation, but you should at least understand that, historically, 2A has nothing to do with limiting the ability of the government to regulate civilian gun ownership for the sake of public safety."
Too cute by half. Historically, "public safety" wasn't wielded as quite the same club, by the same blindfolded idiots, swinging at the pinata of civil liberties, as it has been in the last two decades. Jim crow not historically withstanding (do go ahead and use jim crow as an example, wont you?). So lets don't pretend that it has always been the case, mkay? My "dislike" of gun control laws? Facts not in evidence, I'd say. The "scalia" interpretation? I've held the same view on it, for years. As in far before Heller was granted cert, or even appealed to the supreme court. Beyond that, sparky, Polling indicates that the great majority of americans agree with ME, and also agree with the "scalia" interpretation. As does president Obama. Is he wrong too? Everyone is wrong...Obama is wrong, scalia is wrong, the majority of americans are wrong...but youre somehow right?
No sir. Youre fighting a war you already lost. You just haven't come to accept it as such.
It - the second amendment - is SETTLED LAW, as Kagan AND Satomayor both said during their confirmation hearings, or were they lieing, or just plain wrong, too?
Its SETTLED LAW, and theres really nothing you can do about that except wish it weren't so...But as mickey goldmill said:
"You can wish in one and crap in the other, and see which gets full first".
I personally wouldn't advise it, but hey, if you need it illustrated for you, theyre your hands...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The fact that the militia clause is "subordinate" doesn't mean you get to just ignore it. The question is how should RKBA be interpreted, and the militia clause gives a clear indication, to those like yourself who are ignorant of the historical facts, that RKBA refers to military and not civilian gun ownership.
You see, outside of the NRA kindergarden, people understand that all of the constitution must be interpreted. For example, it is pretty well agreed upon that commercial speech is less protected than political speech. But, but, but, HOW can this BE!?!?!?! Da constatooshun doesn't actually say anything about commercial speech!!!
The reason, of course, is that commercial speech is less of a fundamental civil rights issue than political speech. In order to have a functioning democracy and a free society, it is necessary for people to be able to freely express political opinions, even in a potentially controversial or misleading ways, but it is not necessary to allow for the same leeway as to how companies market their products.
As for 2A, the fact that RKBA refers to military and not civilian gun ownership is much clearer than these first amendment issues. First, it is pretty obvious that carrying around a gun for self defense has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights or maintaining a function democracy. It's an issue of personal safety, but -- obviously -- if safety is the objective, then having gun laws so permissive that there is a net increase in violence and death (like we have in the US) is completely self-defeating. As they say, the bill of rights is not a suicide pact.
As if that weren't enough, for any ignoramuses that can't figure this out on their own that 2A does not in fact require that we endure tens of thousands of needless deaths every year to preserve "gun rights", the framers actually inserted clear guidelines into the text itself, in the form of the militia clause. I guess they couldn't forsee that a brainless cult called the NRA would one day cause large numbers of people to simply ignore all this and draw the perverse conclusions necessary to satisfy their gun obsession.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I suggest you consult an English grammar instructor.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There's more to constitutional interpretation than grammar. I think they'll explain it to you when you reach junior high.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"The fact that the militia clause is "subordinate" doesn't mean you get to just ignore it."
Your problem, as everyone here can see, is that YOU think anyone not ascribing the meaning YOU ascribe to it, is "ignoring it".
Thats it in a nutshell.
Its a declaratory clause, nothing more nothing less.
"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty "
The right in that sentence, belongs to "any person", not "the press".
Or am I "ignoring" the "liberty of the press" clause"?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Apparently the philosophical issues involved require more intellectual sophistication than you are capable of, which explains why you chose to ignore the entire content of my last post rather than even attempt a rebuttal.
Not too surprising.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"The fact that the militia clause is "subordinate" doesn't mean you get to just ignore it. The question is how should RKBA be interpreted, and the militia clause gives a clear indication, to those like yourself who are ignorant of the historical facts, that RKBA refers to military and not civilian gun ownership."
Would it be "ignorant of historical fact" for me to point out that when amendment 2 was passed, we had a civilian military, and people who volunteered were to bring their own weapons?
No the question ISN'T "how should rkba be interpreted". That war is over. YOU lost. Get over it.
"You see, outside of the NRA kindergarden, people understand that all of the constitution must be interpreted. For example, it is pretty well agreed upon that commercial speech is less protected than political speech. But, but, but, HOW can this BE!?!?!?! Da constatooshun doesn't actually say anything about commercial speech!!!"
Cute. Everyone make note how civil these anti-gun types are.
"The reason, of course, is that commercial speech is less of a fundamental civil rights issue than political speech. In order to have a functioning democracy and a free society, it is necessary for people to be able to freely express political opinions, even in a potentially controversial or misleading ways, but it is not necessary to allow for the same leeway as to how companies market their products."
Blah blah blah.
"As for 2A, the fact that RKBA refers to military and not civilian gun ownership is much clearer than these first amendment issues. First, it is pretty obvious that carrying around a gun for self defense has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights or maintaining a function democracy. It's an issue of personal safety, but -- obviously -- if safety is the objective, then having gun laws so permissive that there is a net increase in violence and death (like we have in the US) is completely self-defeating. As they say, the bill of rights is not a suicide pact."
You state it as a fact, represent it as a fact, but you show no empirical evidence.
"As if that weren't enough, for any ignoramuses that can't figure this out on their own that 2A does not in fact require that we endure tens of thousands of needless deaths every year to preserve "gun rights", the framers actually inserted clear guidelines into the text itself, in the form of the militia clause. I guess they couldn't forsee that a brainless cult called the NRA would one day cause large numbers of people to simply ignore all this and draw the perverse conclusions necessary to satisfy their gun obsession."
Once again, stating your opinion, as if it were fact.
I got news for you bub. The only fact that matters at this very moment, is that amendment 2 protecting an individual right, is SETTLED LAW. President Obama says it protects an individual right, and I dare say hes more of a constitutional scholar than you are. But I'm willing to listen to any qualifications you may wish to put forth showing he isn't. Furthermore, the american people AGREE with that interpretation - by over 70 percent (I'll dig the poll up if you really want to see it). How sad for you, eh?
But let me guess - the President is wrong, and the American people are wrong, and you are right.
Like I said, Youre fighting a war you already lost. You just haven't come to accept it as such.
Keep on banging the collective rights drum, and pretending that doing so matters, the rest of us will move right right along, castle doctrines, shall issue CCW in Illinois and California probably sooner than later, Nationwide CCW reciprocity within probably ten years, and who knows what else.
And you know what the kicker is? People with attitudes like yours, toward guns and the people that own them, will be largely responsible for it.
Look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
Yup.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Boy, that's a brilliant legal argument. Remember what I said about the lack of "intellectual sophistication" in my last post. Thanks for the illustration!
Of course, since these are questions about legal interpretation and political philosophy, there is no "over", except in the sense that the five far-right-wing supremes voted 5-4 in a decision that happens to appeal to small-minded pro-gunners. It's always interesting that people like you treat 2A like a religious text, and yet are usually staggeringly ignorant of the historical context. Actually it reminds me of all those fundies out there that don't know much about the Bible -- in both cases, apparently the religious devotion to a text gets in the way of clear and rational analysis.
I mean, it's pretty clear by now, after several posts, that you are not the least bit capable of mounting any kind of legal or philosophical defense of self-defense gun ownership as a constitutionally protected right. The only thing you seem capable of is repeatedly pointing out that Scalia and Thomas et al agreed with you, or that opinion polls agree with you, etc.
As for me, I don't usually let Scalia or opinion polls make up my mind about legal or civil rights issues -- I like to think for myself. Just to cite one example, polls showed that the majority of Americans support waterboarding. Until recently polls showed that the majority of Americans opposed gay marriage. A majority of Americans think creationism should be taught in schools (largely the same people that agree with you about guns, by the way). Etc.
And, though it doesn't surprise me anymore, it's always a little strange and slightly disconcerting to come across people like yourself who are incapable or unwilling to think for themselves about civil rights, and instead rely on arguments like "because Scalia said so" or "because that's what polls show".
beevul
(12,194 posts)"there is no "over", except in the sense that the five far-right-wing supremes voted 5-4 in a decision that happens to appeal to small-minded pro-gunners."
Of course, that ignores that 76 percent of americans agree with that interpretation. Or is that too democratic for you. Oh, and President Obama agrees with the individual rights interpretation. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, list your bonafides for me, so I can compare them to his. I might decide hes wrong and you're right, if you do. 
"I mean, it's pretty clear by now, after several posts, that you are not the least bit capable of mounting any kind of legal or philosophical defense of self-defense gun ownership as a constitutionally protected right."
Is it? Really? I haven't seen any attacks made by you worth mounting any sort of legal or philosophical defense over. All I see, is posts long on assertion, and short on fact, and completely devoid of any objective information.
"And, though it doesn't surprise me anymore, it's always a little strange and slightly disconcerting to come across people like yourself who are incapable or unwilling to think for themselves about civil rights, and instead rely on arguments like "because Scalia said so" or "because that's what polls show"."
My views are my own buddy. Always have been, always will be, and I've been stating them here in this forum since 2003, 5 full years before heller or the polls I refer to. Go ahead, look in the archives, this is the only screen name I have ever had.
Don't let that stop you from casting false aspersions though.
They only hurt your cause, not mine.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)
Whenever you feel like addressing the legal, historical, and underlying philosophical issues I brought up, give it a shot. It's pretty clear to everyone reading this that the reason you are ignoring them is because you have no answer. You know how to repeat slogans, and give small-minded grammar lessons, but you're way over your head when it comes to the larger fundamental issues in play.
I'll repeat again that it's a bit disconcerting to find so many people who put their trust in Scalia and opinion polls, but are unable to carry on a reasoned discussion and think for themselves. Regardless of what the founding fathers thought about guns, I'm quite certain they would be appalled by this level of civic ignorance.
But keep it up. With every one of these posts that you keep hiding from the substance, you keep looking more foolish....
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Ignoring the substance. Citing opinion polls."
What substance have you provided? Assertions not backed up with non-biased objective cite. If that is what qualifies for substance in your view, you definitely have no business questioning anyone or anything, other than yourself.
And of course, you ignore that President Obama - a constitutional scholar - believes the second amendment protects an individual right. I can imagine why - it must pain you greatly.
"...the larger fundamental issues in play."
LOL. That was the entire point, which you are in denial of:
The larger fundamental issues ARE NO LONGER IN PLAY. Its been decided. You can post to your hearts content that its incorrect, that its inaccurate, that its just plain wrong...and I can post back that its accurate, that its correct, that its just plain right. But at the end of the day its been decided. The rest is just mental masturbatory exercise on your part, intended to sow the seeds of doubt in people who aren't sure, and otherwise preaching to a choir with very few members. Hey, knock yourself out. Feel free. While you waste your time and effort doing so, the millions of us on the other side of the issue are writing and calling and emailing our congresscritters and making our voices heard, and donating to groups to lobby for our cause. Law is on OUR side, and while you sit here doing your mental masturbatory exercises, WE are getting castle doctrine, and concealed carry, and a few other things passed across America.
Maybe a picture will illustrate what side of the issue you're on, and what the tactics you employ (the same tactics the anti-gun crowd has employed since its birth) have gained you and your "movement" better than I can explain it:
"I'll repeat again that it's a bit disconcerting to find so many people who put their trust in Scalia and opinion polls, but are unable to carry on a reasoned discussion and think for themselves. Regardless of what the founding fathers thought about guns, I'm quite certain they would be appaled by this level of civic ignorance."
And I'll repeat again:
My views are my own buddy. Always have been, always will be, and I've been stating them here in this forum since 2003, 5 full years before heller or the polls I refer to. Go ahead, look in the archives, this is the only screen name I have ever had.
Anyone who gives so much as two shits about whether thats true or not, can verify what I say is true, and more importantly that what YOU say is untrue - by simply browsing the archives.
I'm quite certain anyone that cares enough to bother will see the aspersions, and the poster casting them, in the proper and correct light.
Lastly, one can not hide from substance, when no such substance has been presented to them.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I was just trying to see if you can make a single reasoned argument about why the historical context of the second amendment should be ignored, and why civilian gun ownership for self-defense should be elevated to the level of a constitutionally protected right. Given that self-defense was not at all what the framers had in mind, and given that the ostensible purpose of self-defense is safety, it seems pretty self-defeating to interepret 2A in a way that actually forces us to tolerate levels of gun violence that are unheard of in the rest of developed world.
But instead any kind of intelligent response, what we get is this progression of increasingly hysterical re-iterations of the fact that opinion polls at the moment happen to agree with you about the second amendment. LOL.
I guess the difference between popular opinion and constitutional law is too much for your mind to handle. Kind of ironic, actually, because one of the reasons that a constitution is important is precisely to avoid situation where the majority might be in favor of policies that would be in violation the civil rights.
Anyway, I won't bore you with any more attempts at intelligent discussion. Have fun with your colorful drawings! Ooh look it changes colors! Neat-o!!!!
You've been a wonderful example of the intellectual vacuousness of the pro-gunner community! 
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)The ENTIRE USSC, yes, all 9 of them, are in agreement that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL, not collective right.
That is a fact. It is not conjecture. It is not merely the opinion of a Republican (like it would matter anyway). It is not an opinion poll.
Plain simple fact.
The supporting opinion poll results are to indicate the incompatibility of your opinion with that of the bulk of the United States. 75% is a pretty good sized number - and unless Democrats only account for less than 25% of the entire public and are monolithic in their beliefs, there are obviously some Democrats in that number.
You can be as condescending as you wish, and question our intelligence all you like. This does not change a thing. Your side lost the battle. Time to get over it and move on, or accept being branded as one who holds beliefs and opinions inconsistent with the law of the land and is actively working to subvert civil and natural rights.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The 4 justices who are not right-wingers agreed that 2A does not extend to non-military uses of firearms. Here's a tip. Try reading the Stevens defense before commenting on it (rather than just trusting the NRA press releases and gun blogs).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
As for the opinion polls, I hope you are aware that comfortable majorities of Americans support things like closing the gun show loophole, registration of handguns, banning hi-cap mags, etc. Of course, as I mentioned, majorities also favor the teaching of creationism in schools, and waterboarding terror suspects, etc. That's why I don't base my constitutional or political views on opinion polls.
The reason y'all keep bringing up the polls is very obvious. You can't actually defend the Scalia opinion on its own terms. You can't give any fundamental reason whatsoever as to why the intent of the framers should be disregarded, and 2A should be read to protect gun rights outside of militia use, to such an extreme extent that it forces us to endure by far the highest rates of gun violence in the developed world.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...we're NOT wrong. You just cannot accept that what you consider to be a bunch of backwards, provincial, ignorant rednecks who think violence is the solution to everything are not what you believe them to be.
The dissent on the law itself is one thing. I freely admit the minority has a different opinion. The finding on the right itself though is that it protects an individual right and this is reaffirmed in McDonald, just in case people like you didn't figure it out the first time with Heller.
Last but not least, whether the decisions were 5-4 or 9-0 doesn't ultimately matter. Unless and until the Constitution is amended, it stands as the last word on the subject. Try to remember, Roe v. Wade was ALSO a 5-4 decision. Are you going to suggest that it should be ignored as well? Are you really going to stand on your belief that only a 9-0 decision need be followed, and then only if the judges were appointed by approved Presidents?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Do you simply agree with every decision the supreme court makes? Or do you occasionally try to think for yourself? How about Dred Scott? Would you have defended that with the same kind of "it's the law of the land, deal with it" obliviousness?
Believe me, I understand how the supreme court works, and I know the outcome of Heller. I understand that 5-4 decisions are still the law of the land, that's why we got Bush and everything that follows. But somehow I'm able to distinguish between the fact that the SC voted a certain way, and the underlying question of whether that decision was a good one.
I'm not sure why this is so mind-boggling, really.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...doesn't change the fact that I accept it and do not try to pretend that it is somehow meaningless.
Sad fact is, Dred Scott WAS the law of the land for a while, and it took some pretty serious work to get it changed. On a certain level, I actually agree with it. Do not interpret that to mean I agree with slavery (i find the idea repulsive), but i do agree that slavery as existed at the time was legal, and slaves were property.
Ultimately it was changed the right way, rather than simply pretending the facts as they were did not exist. Perhaps you completely missed the 13th and 14th Amendments?
In the case of the RKBA, changing that to mean what you insist in means in the face of all facts to the contrary, will require repealing the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th and possibly the 14th Amendments, AND require adding an additional amendment granting Congress the authority to legislate in that are as explicit authority is not granted in Art. 1, Sec. 8, regardless of what you THINK the commerce clause allows.
Now, if you want to start a shooting war over your belief that the 2nd Amendment does not protect a pre-existing RKBA, go for it. Besides the fact that it would be more than a little ironic, you could plan on losing...badly. The last time the legitimate government in these parts made a serious effort to disarm the populace we had this little dust up many of us like to call the American Revolution - and in that case, General Gage was actually on the 100% right side of the law.
Dan, you're not ever going to get the required majority to amend the Constitution to the degree required, and even if you somehow did, those who disagreed with the whole thing would put their lives on the line to correct your mistake. Not trying to sound like I'm saying "Love it or leave it", but if you really have that much of a problem with it, you would be far better served moving to a nation more in keeping with your beliefs.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...and correct interpretation of 2A will only require a single additional non-right-wing judge. I don't want to amend the constitution, and I certainly don't want to get into a shooting war. You have a bizarre imagination.
I'm actually just looking for a sign of intelligent life on the pro-gun side: to see if anyone can come up with a reasoned arguments as to why the intent of the framers should be ignored and we should expand the interpretation of 2A to include civilian gun ownership for self defense.
Looks like I'm not going to get that (shocker!). So, enjoy your right-wing majority while it lasts. Bye now, always a good time!
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)You should realize a single judge is not going to change a thing. First off, you'd have to actually have a case make it to the USSC showing actual harm caused to another by someone legally exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Good luck with THAT one. Even if it did happen (and I really am at a loss as to what possible events could even occur in the first place), the USSC is extremely reluctant to overturn itself, especially on an issue addressed in 2 separate cases in 2 years. I would honestly have to say Heller and McDonald are nearly etched in stone, and the more cases to hit the court which rely upon them, the stronger the decisions become.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)At least not for ownership. Only 2-3 states require any form of registration or licensing for ownership. While most require licensing for concealed carry, that is a different issue.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It's bad enough to endure one injustice. Why endure another, especially when licensing and registration won't do anything to stop innocent people from being killed anyway?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Obviously, if we simply assume that certain laws will be ineffective and useless, then there's no reason to pass them. On the other hand, if we assume that these and other gun control laws would cut down on homicide, then we have an excellent reason to.
And that's the whole point. This really has nothing to do with "punishment" or "injustice". The real question is whether gun control would save lives -- it's a matter of effectiveness. Obviously, you and I have different opinions on that, but maybe we can agree that the hyperbolic "punishment" rhetoric is kind of silly.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Its fact.
Registration and licensing in the few states which have attempted it, have done nothing to reduce crime. Arguably, it has increased crime.
Prior restraint is a "punishment" on the law abiding. I'm sorry you are incapable of understanding that. Perhaps if we were discussing you having to have a license to purchase a computer, register it, and have a license to post only on certain websites, you might see it the same way.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The fact the some superficial NRA propaganda has convinced you that gun availability is not linked with homicide does not make it a fact. It's really unfortunate that you are not capable of even mildly sophisticated reasoning about public policy, but I do understand that inside the NRA bubble, very little weight is placed on careful, rational analysis. Still, you must be aware that, outside of the bubble, there are well-informed and scientifically literate people who don't take these talking points very seriously.
Restrictions on guns are no more a "punishment" than speed limits or restrictions on dangerous substances like anthrax or plutonium. The fact of the matter is that public safety is a serious concern, and gun availability is a contributor to gun violence and homicide. In modern societies, there are regulations on many walks of life, from building codes to taxes to food inspections to speed limits, etc. Childish libertarians will insist on labeling any and every one of these regulations as "punishment" or "slavery" or whatever other incendiary term they can think of, but the adults in the room know better.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)It is FBI UCR data, which has been posted frequently in the forum. If you have similar information to refute it, by all means, post it. I really don't much care about the opinions of a small number of people who think they are the authorities on any subject, regardless of which side they take. What I DO care about are the facts I can see. Those facts are simple - Gun ownership has gone up dramatically while crime has dropped. That in and of itself puts the lie to the idea that increased gun ownership leads to more crime.
You want to restrict how I use a firearm, fine. You want to restrict access to them by a myriad of regulations and fees? That's a different story.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Your crude view of gun ownership versus homicide data in in the US over the time doesn't even begin to tell the whole story. And even there you have your facts wrong. Violent crime rates in the US peaked in the early 90s, at the same time that gun ownership rates were peaking -- since then, both gun ownership rates and crime rates have dropped. However, because many factors affect crime rates, just this data alone doesn't really prove too much. The fact that gun availability and homicide are linked has been established in many scientific studies, which have looked at international comparisons, as well as looking at US data at a more granular state-by-state or county-by-county level.
I don't kid myself that you might actually be interested in a rational, scientific approach to the issue of gun violence -- even if you were willing to be open minded, I doubt that you would be capable, at a cognitive level, of understanding the real issues. But for anyone else reading this, the following two studies are a decent place to start.
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
http://www.sanford.duke.edu/research/papers/SAN04-07.pdf
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Given that you are not exactly one of the most open minded people I came across here, are you willing to be equally open minded?
We, on a cognitive level, understand the issues very well. Probably better than most on your side. Since we read and discuss your studies, can you do the same with Kleck, Wright, Rossi et al? Don't believe you have.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think the point we left it off was where I pointed out that Kleck tries to justify his inflated DGU estimates by claiming that the vast majority of DGUs don't involve notifying the police, and yet over 60% of his respondents said that the police actually did get notified. Or maybe it was where I pointed out that Kleck, in a desperate attempt to claim that there are more DGUs than gun crimes, used a technique prone to overestimation (phone survey) to estimate DGUs, and a much stricter technique (NCIS) to estimate gun crimes, something any unbiased observe would recognize as a horribly biased and misleading comparison.
Does any of that ring a bell? Do you have answers yet? Or do you want to just forget about it for now, and then come back a month later and once again pretend that I'm not familiar with Kleck.
On second thought, never mind those studies I posted. I think you'll find this to be much more useful:
http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Memory-Thomas-Fuller/dp/B001PLOCI4
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in his studies, I am guessing you did not read them. I don't remember you explaining how Cook got a number closer to Kleck's than NCVS but had to explain it away to keep his Joyce Foundation Grant.
His words:
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."
My MIL bought one of Ian Ayres' weight loss books,The $500 Diet, for her Kindle.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For clarification, the points are:
1) His own numbers show that over 60% of DGUs get reported to the police.
2) Using a different technique to estimate DGUs versus gun crimes results in a biased comparison.
Take your time. No rush. I'll be right here.
But don't try and hide behind big blocks of text. These are very specific criticisms. Please find the exact sentence or sentences where he even acknowledges them.
Or else (for extra credit!) you could try and answer these questions in your own words. You know, like they make you do in class, to make sure you actually understand the material and aren't just blindly cutting and pasting...
Good luck!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)where did your points come from? Can you find were Kleck did that or did Hemeway pull it out of his ass like accusing Gertz's employees of faking the evidence?
Before you do the "blind study" bit, what steps did Hemenway take to avoid the same problem? I don't remember you mentioning that.
I was not hiding behind anything, I just gave his own words.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)OK, so let me predict right off the bat that you are never going to get around to addressing either of my criticisms of Kleck, either in your own words, or even by finding where Kleck himself addresses them. I'm pretty confident, because this is what has happened every other time we've had this argument, but you've got a chance to prove me wrong here.
So now back to our show.
Do you really need me to find for you where Kleck compares his phone survey DGU numbers with NCVS estimates of gun crimes? Really? Have you actually read Kleck? Because this is pretty basic stuff.
I'll tell you what. I'll do your homework for you, and I'll point out to you where Kleck does this. But since we've already had this discussion several times, and since I've already pointed out this and other such things over and over again to you, this time I'm asking for something in exchange.
Before I do your homework, you need to unambiguously deny that Kleck makes this comparison. No weaseling out. You need to agree to the following: "I, gejohnston, am unambiguously denying that that Gary Kleck, in his paper "Armed Resistance to Crime" compares his phone survey DGU estimates to NCVS estimates of gun crimes in order to claim that DGUs are more common", then I'll be happy to show you just where you're wrong.
How does that sound?
Or, you can just admit that Kleck does in fact draw this comparison, and, in your own words (or even in Kleck's words), explain why this comparison is fair.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you brought it up, your homework. I am guessing you are the one tap dancing.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It can't have been that long since you read it, because we had a whole big argument about it like two months ago!
Really, this is a pretty basic issue -- the DGUs vs gun crimes comparison -- but nothing? At all? LOL
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I was working off of memory.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I mean it seems like the places with the toughest gun control now presently have the highest crime rates. It seems to me like the only people complying with the bureaucracy are law-abiding people. The criminals don't bother with the paperwork.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Actually, states with higher levels of gun ownership have higher homicide rates. For example, see the following Harvard study:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html
It may seem to you the NY and IL are high-crime states, but actually the top ten states for homicide in 2010 were, in order:
LA, MD, MO, MS, NM, AZ, SC, NV, GA, AL
Aside from maybe Maryland, these are hardly states with tough gun control.
Now, obviously, there are other factors besides gun availability that determine homicide rates. It's not a simple issue that wherever there are more guns there is automatically going to be more gun violence. Guns are jut one factor.
However, whether you look at international comparisons, where the US has the highest homicide rate of any wealthy nation, or state-by-state comparisons like that study, or even more granular studies looking at county-by-county data, you repeatedly find that gun availability is in fact linked with higher rates of homicide.
Since you brought up New York, it is worth noting that NYC has a homicide rate of 6.4/100K, which is not too far from the national average of 4.8. When you take into account that NYC is extremely densely populated, and dense urban areas have higher crime rates generally, this is actually pretty good, relatively speaking -- it's lower than many other smaller and less dense cities like Houston or Phoenix. And then you have to also take into account that many (most) guns used in NYC crimes come from out of state. If NYC was located in the UK, for example, without easy sources of gun trafficking nearby, the rate of gun crimes would undoubtedly be lower.
As a point of comparison, the statewide homicide rate in the state of Arizona, known for its liberal gun laws, is also 6.4. And, according to the latest census, NYC has a population of 8M, versus a population of 6M for Arizona. So that means that 8 million people crammed into the tiny NYC are able to maintain the same homicide rate as 6M people spread over the entire state of AZ. Or, conversely, 6M people with easy access to guns, spread all over AZ, somehow kill each other at the same rate as 8M people crammed into NYC. And if it weren't for gun flow from other states into NYC, then the homicide rate in NYC would actually be lower than AZ.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)That makes sense to me. The more readily guns are available, the more likely they will be used in crime.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and being astradle one of the busiest drug/people/money smuggling routes in the Americas....
Nope, nothing to see here folks.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Demonstratably untrue. Care to revise your claim to something... non-fictional?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Thanks for playing! Next time, try the roulette table instead -- it doesn't require any thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Accidents are not violent crimes, neither are suicides. Even you cite doesn't claim what you are trying to conflate.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I gotta say, even by the usual NRA-bubble standards of misrepresentation, this is pretty brazen. Did you think I wouldn't notice? LOL!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)to violent crime to misrepresent the actual number of violent crimes with guns.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...to try and play down the total death toll of gun violence.
My claim that "tens of thousands die every year due to gun violence" is 100% true, regardless of whether or not you like the term.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)either way, the idea that suicides would be prevented because they would have to switch to a rope is rather absurd.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...of expert researchers on suicide and on gun violence. Numerous studies have demonstrated that gun availability is a significant factor in suicide, particularly among young people. This is because suicide is often an impulsive act, and the access to easy and lethal means can mean the difference between a completed suicide and a passing suicidal urge.
Of course, I get that you don't actually believe in "research" and "studies" and "science", because as usual the scientific community is involved in some conspiracy to take away your guns. I mean, why listen to people who spend their lives studying suicide when you can instead just go by the NRA bullet points?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and what scientific community outside of the usual suspects? Sorry, come up with something in a criminology journal not paid for by the Joyce Foundation. Oh yeah, the body of the research never seems to match the conclusions or press release.
For example, when Canada passed their 1977 gun control law suicides nor crime went down. Granted fewer Canadian's shot themselves, but the number of suicides increased to make up the difference. Can you show changes in violent crime rates in Europe before and after their laws passed? Of course you don't actually believe in real "science" or real "research" because criminologists that do not take Joyce money and do not come to the results you like is a right wing, climate science denying, racist, misogynist, NRA stooge. But why listen to people who actually follow the evidence to come to a conclusion instead of making the evidence fit the desired results when you can just go by the Brady bullet points?
Here is a thought: If suicide by gun is part of "gun violence" then suicide is a violent act, correct? That is what you said.
If suicide is a violent act, then Japan (which is skewed since murder/suicides are labeled as all suicides. Cold cases tend to get labeled as suicides), South Korea, France, and Hungary are more violent societies than the US since their suicide rates alone are much higher than our murder and suicide rate combined. Even more violent are Russia and South Africa since not only are their suicide rates astronomical, their murder rates make us look like Switzerland and Norway.
What do you "experts" suggest we do about rope violence, knife violence, train violence, bridge violence, etc?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Please stop using suicide as a booster for gun control. I'm not ever going to accept increased gun control because people kill themselves with guns.
I just don't care how many people kill themselves with guns. Anyone who really wants to kill themselves will do so, guns or no guns.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The fact that extensive studies have shown that gun availability does in fact contribute to suicide obviously makes no difference to you. And why should it? After all, you also don't think homicides are a reason for gun control. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
The fact of the matter is, you won't accept gun control for any reason. That is the very definition of extremism. No matter how many people have to die, you won't tolerate the slightest inconvenience to your "gun rights".
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The fact of the matter is, you won't accept gun control for any reason. That is the very definition of extremism. No matter how many people have to die, you won't tolerate the slightest inconvenience to your "gun rights".
That's exactly right. I think it is a mistake to allow the firearm debate to revolve around crime.
It doesn't matter to me how many people commit crimes with firearms, nor how many people commit suicide with firearms. I'm not going to allow the actions of criminals and mentally disturbed people to be used as an excuse to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.
If you want to solve the criminal problem, go after criminals. If you want to solve mental problems, go after mentally ill people. Leave me alone, thanks.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)into "you don't care about suicide victims".
That's either a vile fucking lie or an egregious error on your part. You should correct that. Immediately.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)around ten thousand people lose their lives to (the idiotic, made up term) "gun violence" each year, most of whom are very much not "innocent" by anyone's standards.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)The acts of a few bad students causing the prom to be cancelled.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Why is that so many in the Gungeon can't stick to the topic of guns? Why does it have to be about alcohol, or driving, or anything else? If the Second Amendment was so clearly absolute in the favor of Second Amendment rights you wouldn't need to hide behind false analogies. 
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...if people actually understood English and were willing to think and accept that guns are no different than anything else, we wouldn't have to have this discussion.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)If that was true we wouldn't have the Second Amendment
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)The idea of arms control is nothing new. Been around since the first despot beat up enough people to declare himself ruler.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Soon as some other device comes out which is more efficient/effective than a firearm, people will switch to it, just as they did from blades to firearms.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Doesn't make it any more true - just like the rest of the crap you post.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)So simple people with low technological comprehension can understand.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)More like a perfectly legitimate question, which we notice you have failed to answer.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...punishes legitimate owners.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)If you werent paying attention the first few times, why would I waste the time to tell you again?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Did you think everybody on Democratic Underground was going to agree with you and leave you in your comfort zone always?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)I'm here to discuss the RKBA and you'll note there are far more here who agree with me than you.
Why are YOU here? Did you come in here expecting to find nothing but sheep who would go along with your inane ideas without question? You obviously didn't come here expecting to be seriously questioned or to actually learn anything.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Gosh, one could go on for hours about this, really.
Here's an example:
In 1986 the federal government closed the machine gun registry. This means that no machine guns manufactured after 1986 are "transferable" - they can't be bought and sold to private parties. As a result, the cost of machine guns has skyrocketed. An M16, which in 1986 had a military contract price of about $400, today sells for over $20,000. This means that machine guns are effectively unobtainable to ordinary people. Yes, they are still legal to buy, but they are incredibly expensive. This is an example of how legitimate owners are punished by gun control.
Here's another example:
In 1994 the federal government passed the "Assault Weapons Ban". It really did not ban much, because manufacturers simply made cosmetic changes to assault weapons to make them comply with the letter of the law while being functionally identical to what they were prior to the ban. But you could no longer have, for example, a semi-automatic AK-47 variant with a threaded muzzle, nor provisions to mount a bayonet. Neither of these features had anything to do with crime, but legitimate firearm owners could no longer buy firearms with these features.
Here's another example:
California does not allow assault rifles with a protruding pistol grip. Which means instead of the normal pistol grip found on assault rifles like the AR15 and the AK-47, people have had to install bastardized grips such as these:
The weapon is otherwise completely identical in function as a standard AR15 or AK-47 variant, it simply has a kludged pistol grip to satisfy the letter of the law. This is another example of how gun control penalizes legitimate firearm owners.
I could go on and on but hopefully you get the idea.
ileus
(15,396 posts)the only answer is to ban guns...
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)this "lawmaker" needs to be removed from office.
His request is fucking insane and demonstrates that he is nothing but a tyrant who believes the people must submit to the will of the state.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)No, it's not an appropriate request. We do not want our military involved in civilian law enforcement. Of course, we now have just had this signed into law with the NDAA, but I digress.
The fact of the matter is, this was a drug-related shooting by people who were almost certainly already prohibited from owning firearms. No law would have stopped them.
Decriminalizing drugs would go a long way to stopping this sort of thing, however.
burf
(1,164 posts)to happen anytime soon. Jindal is in Iowa campaigning for Perry.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)and to that lawmaker apparently, federal law means nothing.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and they want more of it... harder, faster and deeper.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)That worked real good at Kent State, didn't it?
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)It's an overall crime problem.
Do guns cause poverty or does poverty cause guns?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)the local mechanic, exterminator and law clerk dressed in flak gear enforcing laws as they understand them under the umbrella of protection given by federal law. What could go wrong?
How about the much more logical solution of defunding raygun's "war on drugs" and diverting the billions spent here and abroad on local law enforcement funding and easy availability to mental health services and chemical dependancy treatment for anyone who wants it?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Legalize pot, which would divert a whole big wad of money and police resources on "other" illegal drug sells/movers WHILE SIMULTANIOUSLY reducing the scope of their organizations. More cops looking at few people, in other words.
Option 2: Increase the size of the NOPD with the money this idiot wants to spend on National Guardsmen. Give'em a pay raise, too, to attract experienced cops from out-of-state areas.