Gun Control discussion

[Darth Richard II]

Right but there's no way to actually remove an amendment permanently without going through some crazy shit.

[IamMe90]

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

I actually expressed no opinion whatsoever as to whether the 2008 decision ignored the principle of stare decisis, or failed to give it due deference.  Is that your position?

It was a rhetorical question, as I think you well know. Yes, that is my position. Many lower courts had already interpreted the holding in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) as not abridging the state's power to regulate the private use of non-military firearms. Now, you can argue about whether or not the those courts were correct in their interpretation of Miller. You can also argue, even if these courts had correctly interpreted Miller, whether the holding in Miller was a correct analysis of the Second Amendment. But if the Court in Heller meant to defer to the principle of stare decisis, it would not have disregarded the decades of precedent that had amassed as a result of the prior interpretation of Miller. Note, I'm not necessarily saying that the Court should always adhere strictly to that principle: sometimes, the judiciary can make egregious and incorrect interpretations and bad precedent forms. Watershed cases exist for a reason. Heller was a watershed case, though. 

[Lord Mord]

3 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

Quote
Those provisions that have not been amended yet, are interpreted according to what they meant when originally put into effect.  That is the only honest way to interpret the Constitution.  That is the only way it can serve as a barrier protecting our freedom.

Lew,

I don't know that anyone gets to claim a monopoly on honesty of interpretation.  Certainly, I don't see the rationale for saying it.

I had thought, though, that the whole purpose of writing the Constitution in such a spare, and sometimes vague manner was to set down the general shape of some of notions, knowing those shapes would be colored in somewhat differently in the following age, without destroying the document.  That sounds to me like something that evolves, even without amendment.  They wanted it to bend, so it wouldn't have to break.

Indeed, if your description were accurate, then surely we could not assume that the First Amendment protects anything particularly which appears on the internet, nor that the Second Amendment should protect our rights to automatic weapons.  Those things were not what was meant at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted.  Those rights, therefore, don't exist, because the document is strictly limited to what was intended at the time, right?

Or, I suppose I must have missed something?  Please help me understand.

[Darth Richard II]

55 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Ah, pre-2016 America. How I miss Thee...

Pfft, Facts, you can use those to prove anything even remotely true! - Homer Simpson

[Altherion]

58 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Right but there's no way to actually remove an amendment permanently without going through some crazy shit.

That seems like a philosophical distinction to me. For all intents and purposes, the 18th amendment has been removed. The only thing we haven't done is attempt to erase it from history a-la 1984 (i.e. subtract one from the numbers of all of the later amendments and such). This would be symbolic and more than a little bit silly -- everyone would still know it is there.

50 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

The language of the Second Amendment is honestly vague enough that you could enact almost any sort of gun regulation without the law necessarily being unconstitutional.

In general, the Constitution offers no protection when the legislative, judicial and executive branches all agree to disregard it and yes, they've done so for clauses that are far less vague than the Second Amendment. However... the latter is uniquely positioned in that it enables its own defense against such disregard and the government has thus far not pushed the issue too hard.

[King Ned Stark]

@Kalbear, I disagree with one thing you’ve said.  Is it truly a trade off?  Full disclosure, I own a AR-15, a black rifle, what those who lobby for gun control call an assault rifle.  I’ve put a flashlight, laser, foregrip, and a holographic sight on it.  I enjoy shooting, like basketball or golf.  I don’t even shoot animals, if I wasn’t so weak I’d be a vegetarian, because I like animals and have a soft spot for em.  However, even though I like sport shooting, I’d hand over all of my guns (4), if it would save a single life.  I’d even vote to ban guns if God would come tell me that every other gun in the US was gone.  The truth is, I have a family, and I as much as I’m sure I could trust them in your care, or Relic or Dr Pepper or even Sword of Doom; I don’t trust people.  Until a time I am confident that I don’t need a gun, because they are everywhere, then I will keep mine.  Right, left, or center; at least you have to agree that people are untrustworthy, petty, and dangerous.  Hungry enough, a person will cut your throat for a snickers bar.  I have no faith in humanity, Paddock only reinforced that for me.  Not necessarily people on this forum, I may disagree with you on a political or religious level, but you guys are smart, and make me think deeply even on gun control, which I’m staunchly behind 2A.  Sorry for the run on paragraph.

Will try to reply to others later; this convo moved very fast.

@Free Northman Reborn, you make some very good points, especially about the revolver.  A lot of people don’t understand firearms, even police empty entire magazines in fight or flight situations and hit nothing.  

@Mother Cocanuts, you’ve done well enough on your own, I’ve just never liked when a person gets singled out.  All in all, you’ve had much better responses than I ever could.

 

[King Ned Stark]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

That seems like a philosophical distinction to me. For all intents and purposes, the 18th amendment has been removed. The only thing we haven't done is attempt to erase it from history a-la 1984 (i.e. subtract one from the numbers of all of the later amendments and such). This would be symbolic and more than a little bit silly -- everyone would still know it is there.

In general, the Constitution offers no protection when the legislative, judicial and executive branches all agree to disregard it and yes, they've done so for clauses that are far less vague than the Second Amendment. However... the latter is uniquely positioned in that it enables its own defense against such disregard and the government has thus far not pushed the issue too hard.

That’s a smart post.

 

[Relic]

2 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

@Kalbear, I disagree with one thing you’ve said.  Is it truly a trade off?  Full disclosure, I own a AR-15, a black rifle, what those who lobby for gun control call an assault rifle.  I’ve put a flashlight, laser, foregrip, and a holographic sight on it.  I enjoy shooting, like basketball or golf.  I don’t even shoot animals, if I wasn’t so weak I’d be a vegetarian, because I like animals and have a soft spot for em.  However, even though I like sport shooting, I’d hand over all of my guns (4), if it would save a single life.  I’d even vote to ban guns if God would come tell me that every other gun in the US was gone.  The truth is, I have a family, and I as much as I’m sure I could trust them in your care, or Relic or Dr Pepper or even Sword of Doom; I don’t trust people.  Until a time I am confident that I don’t need a gun, because they are everywhere, then I will keep mine.  Right, left, or center; at least you have to agree that people are untrustworthy, petty, and dangerous.  Hungry enough, a person will cut your throat for a snickers bar.  I have no faith in humanity, Paddock only reinforced that for me.  Not necessarily people on this forum, I may disagree with you on a political or religious level, but you guys are smart, and make me think deeply even on gun control, which I’m staunchly behind 2A.  Sorry for the run on paragraph.

Will try to reply to others later; this convo moved very fast.

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence. I appreciate the sentiment. I wish we had more gun owners like you. 

Can I ask you a question? Why do you think that the need for a gun, which you describe above, is so prevalent in the USA? There isn't a single other developed country that is filled with citizens who think they might need a gun to eventually kill other marauding citizens. I have spent a greater part of the last 2 years in Europe, from Spain to Romania, from Germany to Greece, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that most Europeans don't think this way. Despite claims by certain people that Europe is a "2nd world soon-to-be wasteland" over run by refugees, and terrorists, and gypsies and god knows what other fictional horrors, despite a history jammed with war and death, most Europeans don't spend time thinking about the need to arm themselves.  

Where does the distrust in America come from? Is it due to our melting pot of cultures? The incessant drone of fear mongering media outlets? Violent movies? An obsession with materialism that drives us into fits of depression and loneliness that fuels our fear of death after having lived a meaningless life? 

I think that if we were to the root of WHY we are so obsessed with guns as a culture we could potentially do more to stop gun violence in the States.  @Kalbear is probably right that the most realistic way of scaling back gun violence is an appeal to owners on issues of safety and background checks, but I'd still like to know your reasoning. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Aside from Canada, most countries of the Americas are very violent. It is not unique to the USA. The homicide rates are the highest in the world even though the countries there are by no means the poorest. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Can you even repeal an amendment? I didn't think you could actually do that unless you call a constitutional convention.

You absolutely can the 18th Amendment created prohibition.  The 21st Amendment repealed prohibition.

I'm not sure why people are frightened of the amendment process.  I would love to see and have been arguing for a real Constitutional Convention for more than 10 years.  We need to look hard at what works, what doesn't, what is anachronistic, and start again.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

It was a rhetorical question, as I think you well know. Yes, that is my position. Many lower courts had already interpreted the holding in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) as not abridging the state's power to regulate the private use of non-military firearms. Now, you can argue about whether or not the those courts were correct in their interpretation of Miller. You can also argue, even if these courts had correctly interpreted Miller, whether the holding in Miller was a correct analysis of the Second Amendment. But if the Court in Heller meant to defer to the principle of stare decisis, it would not have disregarded the decades of precedent that had amassed as a result of the prior interpretation of Miller. Note, I'm not necessarily saying that the Court should always adhere strictly to that principle: sometimes, the judiciary can make egregious and incorrect interpretations and bad precedent forms. Watershed cases exist for a reason. Heller was a watershed case, though. 

Speaking legally if you look at the details of US v Miller it is a poor case to create principles of Stare Decisis from.  Heller only holds that full bans on personal ownership of firearms are Unconstitutional.  It clearly holds open the door for reasonable regulation. It isn't hard to create a case for compelling State interests in firearm registration, waiting periods, required training classes, and insurance requirements for firearm ownership:

http://volokh.com/2010/02/27/united-states-v-miller/

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

@Kalbear, I disagree with one thing you’ve said.  Is it truly a trade off?  Full disclosure, I own a AR-15, a black rifle, what those who lobby for gun control call an assault rifle.  I’ve put a flashlight, laser, foregrip, and a holographic sight on it.  I enjoy shooting, like basketball or golf.  I don’t even shoot animals, if I wasn’t so weak I’d be a vegetarian, because I like animals and have a soft spot for em.  However, even though I like sport shooting, I’d hand over all of my guns (4), if it would save a single life.  I’d even vote to ban guns if God would come tell me that every other gun in the US was gone.  The truth is, I have a family, and I as much as I’m sure I could trust them in your care, or Relic or Dr Pepper or even Sword of Doom; I don’t trust people.  Until a time I am confident that I don’t need a gun, because they are everywhere, then I will keep mine.  Right, left, or center; at least you have to agree that people are untrustworthy, petty, and dangerous.  Hungry enough, a person will cut your throat for a snickers bar.  I have no faith in humanity, Paddock only reinforced that for me.  Not necessarily people on this forum, I may disagree with you on a political or religious level, but you guys are smart, and make me think deeply even on gun control, which I’m staunchly behind 2A.  Sorry for the run on paragraph.

Will try to reply to others later; this convo moved very fast.

@Free Northman Reborn, you make some very good points, especially about the revolver.  A lot of people don’t understand firearms, even police empty entire magazines in fight or flight situations and hit nothing.  

@Mother Cocanuts, you’ve done well enough on your own, I’ve just never liked when a person gets singled out.  All in all, you’ve had much better responses than I ever could.

 

Interesting that you use the example of a hungry person killing someone over a Snickers bar.  There are far more deaths each year from gun related accidents than there are from hungry people committing murder for food.

And statistically having a gun in your home makes you and your family more, not less, likely to be the victims of violence.

[James Arryn]

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Interesting that you use the example of a hungry person killing someone over a Snickers bar.  There are far more deaths each year from gun related accidents than there are from hungry people committing murder for food.

And statistically having a gun in your home makes you and your family more, not less, likely to be the victims of violence.[/b]

The latter is one of those things everyone knows as like an academic fact, but think it doesn't really apply to people like them because reasons. 

[Mother Cocanuts]

On 10/7/2017 at 5:13 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mother Cocanuts,

Voting is also a right yet due to the problems that can arise from election it is regulated and requires registration.

Why should the right to keep and bear firearms be exempted from regulation?

Voter registrations makes sense because it keeps a record of eligible voters. But just because voting is regulated, which it shouldn't be, why do you conclude that it must then mean that any other right is fair game? I'd also ask you to consider this thought experiment: can you really bear a right if there are stipulations on it?

15 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

 

@Mother Cocanuts, you’ve done well enough on your own, I’ve just never liked when a person gets singled out.  All in all, you’ve had much better responses than I ever could.

I think you were accurate in pointing out what they were doing. And, I do appreciate your speaking up.

8 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Interesting that you use the example of a hungry person killing someone over a Snickers bar.  There are far more deaths each year from gun related accidents than there are from hungry people committing murder for food.

And statistically having a gun in your home makes you and your family more, not less, likely to be the victims of violence.

This is misleading. The majority of firearm related deaths are suicides and most suicides happen at home, inflating the the statistics of how dangerous having a gun at home is.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mother Cocanuts,

As with voting rights restrictions trigger "strict scrutiny" analysis if a regulation is challenged in the courts.  That means the State must show a compelling interest in the regulations that restrict the right.  Do you really think a compelling interest cannot be shown regarding restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms after the mass shootings we've suffered recently?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

40 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Voter registrations makes sense because it keeps a record of eligible voters. But just because voting is regulated, which it shouldn't be, why do you conclude that it must then mean that any other right is fair game? I'd also ask you to consider this thought experiment: can you really bear a right if there are stipulations on it?

I think you were accurate in pointing out what they were doing. And, I do appreciate your speaking up.

This is misleading. The majority of firearm related deaths are suicides and most suicides happen at home, inflating the the statistics of how dangerous having a gun at home is.

Are suicides usually committed by the person who purchased the weapon?  If not it shows a problem with having the weapon in the home...

[Darth Richard II]

8 hours ago, James Arryn said:

The latter is one of those things everyone knows as like an academic fact, but think it doesn't really apply to people like them because reasons. 

Oh hell, if I owned a gun I'd be dead. It's why I don't allow myself to own guns.

[Mother Cocanuts]

40 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mother Cocanuts,

As with voting rights restrictions trigger "strict scrutiny" analysis if a regulation is challenged in the courts.  That means the State must show a compelling interest in the regulations that restrict the right.  Do you really think a compelling interest cannot be shown regarding restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms after the mass shootings we've suffered recently?

No. As I've pointed out throughout this discussion, an incredible minority of gun owners are violent offenders (even if we associate one firearm related death to one distinct gun owner.) Firearm related deaths are also an incredible minority of overall deaths. We cannot escape the reality that regulations will affect all gun owners, and I find the majority who do not act out violently with their firearms more compelling than the minority that does. The political response to these mass shootings have been based more on emotion than the facts.

50 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are suicides usually committed by the person who purchased the weapon?  If not it shows a problem with having the weapon in the home...

That's interesting. Do you have a reference?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

No. As I've pointed out throughout this discussion, an incredible minority of gun owners are violent offenders (even if we associate one firearm related death to one distinct gun owner.) Firearm related deaths are also an incredible minority of overall deaths. We cannot escape the reality that regulations will affect all gun owners, and I find the majority who do not act out violently with their firearms more compelling than the minority that does. The political response to these mass shootings have been based more on emotion than the facts.

That's interesting. Do you have a reference?

What is the percentage of fraudulent voting to justify the registration requirement to vote?  I don't have the figures... largely because the NRA has fought federal funding for such studies.

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

I'd also ask you to consider this thought experiment: can you really bear a right if there are stipulations on it?

Of course, all rights have stipulations on them. Even if it's not the government that is applying those stipulations. Many rights have inherent stipulations that are a necessity of reality. Guns cost money. If you don't have the money to afford a gun your right to bear arms means jack shit. So either you can have a right with stipulations on it, or rights just straight up don't exist. Unless your arguing that everyone should be supplied with a gun or that people shoulnd't have to pay for them.