User Tag List

Page 29 of 63 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 623

Thread: Another shooting...

  1. #281
    Meat Tornado Array DiscoBiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    11,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    What is the rebuttal to that kind of argument, from those of you who have examined this in more detail?
    DC v. Heller is instructive here.

    Decision

    The Supreme Court held:[43]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

    The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[44]
    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
    - Edmund Burke

    8w9 sx/so

  2. #282
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    This is like modern medicine attempting to treat the symptoms but ignoring the underlying cause. Everyone wants to ban guns but no one wants to take a look at our failing mental health system. How about free mental healthcare for teens and young adults? How about getting rid of the stigma attached to mental illness so that people aren't scared to come forward when they or their loved ones are suffering from an illness, acting erratically, making violent threats. In the US, we tend to ignore our problems or place the blame on something else. In this case it's guns, some people blame rape on provocatively dressed women, or blame the president for the economy, or blame the chair for being in our way when we run into it instead of blaming ourselves for not paying attention and finding solutions to problems, instead of sweeping them under the rug. We ignore our children, we don't monitor their behavior, we give them unhindered access to the internet(where most of these school shooters have given indications that they want to murder schoolmates, parents or others). This is a complex problem that requires more than just banning guns, it requires things like involved parenting and repairing our broken mental health system and changing attitudes towards the mentally ill, some of these and other contributing factors can't be solved by legislation and something that's usually exacerbated by mass media. It's been mentioned before in this thread, that there are examples of gun ownership in other countries that have much lower rates of gun violence. What about their rates of mental illness and their culture? Is their mental health system collapsing like ours? Is their culture divided into varied sociopathic subcultures, some of which still pervade popular culture, that are celebrated in movies and music?

    No, your right, that's too much work, lets just ban guns so we can feel better about ourselves.

    This is usually the problem when Europeans attempt to propose a ban on guns in the US. We aren't a tiny country with 20 million people and generations of forced disarmament and oppression. We've never had a king or a dictator and government has largely been kept out of our private lives. We haven't been fucked in the ass the way that most European countries have in the last two centuries. No one has invaded us and made us feel that bending over for the Germans, for example, is acceptable. But, in exchange, we have complexes as you can clearly see from the last few sentences. I haven't decided which one is better yet. The US has had a long history of private gun ownership. There are millions of guns whose purchase has a paper trail, beyond those guns, there are inherited guns, black powder guns(which aren't considered firearms in most states), illegal guns, homemade guns, guns with no record of existence, guns in caches behind houses in Idaho, etc. The point is, there's no way that people are going to get rid of all of the guns in the US. It's a large country with lots of houses, barns, sheds, basements and other hiding places. People who want guns would still be able to get them if they were banned, people who don't want the government taking their guns would hide them in the unlikely event that the ATF comes up with the billions of dollars it would require to search every house in the country. Even then, who's going to ban the readily available materials needed to build a rudimentary semi-auto pistol? Even then, who's going to secure the borders so that guns can't find their way back into the country to be sold on the black market? Even then, what kind of sociopath is going to let a lack of guns stop them from planting bombs at a school? Are you going to censor the internet so bomb-making and gun-making plans can't be found? I'm not saying that easier access to guns isn't a part of the problem, but banning guns isn't the solution either. Anyone with $20 and the will to murder can make a magazine-fed shotgun. The part of the equation that needs to be solved is the "will to murder".
    The day when you've fixed all the violent people (and with small, unoppressive government that doesn't do social engineering or get involved its citizens lives - imagine that), let me know. Then, paradoxically, guns won't be necessarry anyway, as 'the right to bear arms' presupposes a threat, suggesting an unresolved 'root cause'

    Until then I am glad to live in a state which protects me effectively from the actually existing threats, which incidentally is the same argument for the existence of a police force and army, which if we were only to treat 'root causes', would not be necessarry..

    Out of interest, why do you feel it is an affront to your liberty to not be able to own a gun, but don't propose to legalize tanks or bombs? I am not just being trite - if your government ever wanted to oppress you, you would need a bit more than a few rifles to 'resist' the world's strongest army.

  3. #283
    (in)formation Array Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    872 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    So what for does a normal citizen need a gun ?
    This is my question as well.

  4. #284
    Unlimited Dancemoves ® Array AgentF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,570

    Default

    heartbreaking...

    I may be kindly, I am ordinarily gentle, but in my line of business I am obliged to will terribly what I will at all.
    ~ Catherine the Great


    7w6 ❣ sx/so ❤ physical touch ❥ sanguine 70%, choleric 30% ❦

    Johari.

  5. #285
    meh Array Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    This is like modern medicine attempting to treat the symptoms but ignoring the underlying cause. Everyone wants to ban guns but no one wants to take a look at our failing mental health system.
    If you can't solve your mental health crisis, surely this is a bloody good argument for banning unrestricted access to lethal weaponry??
    We are nowhere near being in a position to prevent/cure all mental illness, even if you were willing to pay for it (and you're not).
    Passing legislation to restrict access to guns is a much more feasible proposition (even if total enforcement is not feasible at this time. At least the problem wouldn't be compounded generation after generation.)
    The part of the equation that needs to be solved is the "will to murder".
    Oh sure. Because reengineering several billion years of evolution is easier than banning automated weapons.

    Are you convincing yourself? Cos you're not convincing anyone else.


    The New York Times has referred to Australia's gun laws as a "road map" for the US, saying that "in the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect."
    Speaks for itself...
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  6. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    If you can't solve your mental health crisis, surely this is a bloody good argument for banning unrestricted access to lethal weaponry??
    You don't know enough about the US mental health system or gun laws to contribute to this discussion. All you've done so far is make claims without backing them up, keep it up. Learn first, then spout.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  7. #287
    (in)formation Array Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    872 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,639

    Default

    Came across this over at Slate and thought I'd share.


    Things Can Change

    A century ago, there were forms of brutal violence considered so thoroughly American that they could never be banished. Today, they no longer exist.

    By Beverly Gage|Posted Monday, Dec. 17, 2012, at 9:48 AM ET


    In 1985, when I was 13 years old, a woman suffering from schizophrenia brought a semiautomatic rifle to our local mall and began shooting. This was the mall where I picked out clothes from the Gap, where I sat for photos with Santa Claus as a toddler, where kids my age were just starting to hang out and flaunt their independence. The woman, 25-year-old Sylvia Seegrist, killed three people, including a 2-year-old child, and shot several others before being subdued by a man who thought she was shooting blanks. When asked why she had done it, Seegrist said, bizarrely, that “my family makes me nervous.” In other words, there was no reason at all.

    As a middle-schooler, I registered the event only in the haziest terms: I knew something terrible had happened, I was glad it hadn’t happened to me, and I figured the adults would take care of the rest. Now, as an adult, what seems shocking is just how little was done. There were calls for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, for better treatment and commitment laws, for more restrictive gun control, for greater community vigilance to identify people prone to violence. But none of it, apparently, mattered quite enough. Fourteen years after the Springfield Mall shooting came Columbine, then Virginia Tech, and now Sandy Hook Elementary.


    Like millions of other heartsick people, I am inclined to despair at this list, to think that though all of this must change, it never will. But as a historian I am reminded that change often comes slowly, and with great pain and effort. A century ago, there were forms of graphic, brutal violence considered so thoroughly American that they could never be banished from the national landscape. Today they no longer exist. In the story of how these changes happened, there may be a model—or a least a bit of hope—for the present.

    One example is class violence, once seen a shameful but ineradicable feature of American life. Beginning in the 1870s, the United States became infamous around the world for the brutality of its labor clashes, in which gun battles, dynamitings, and hand-to-hand combat produced what seemed to be an unending stream of senseless death. Sometimes the violence came at the hands of police: 100 strikers killed during the rail uprising of 1877, 11 children burned to death in the 1914 Ludlow Massacre. On other occasions, it came as retaliation from below. In 1910, men employed by the Bridge and Structural Iron Workers blew up the headquarters of the anti-union Los Angeles Times, killing 21 printers and laborers working inside.


    Compared to today’s gun massacres, it is easy to see these earlier events as a more comprehensible form of violence, with obvious political motives and straightforward political solutions. Yet Americans at the time experienced them as a cause for national soul-searching, as well as a kind of helplessness and even despair. Muckraker Lincoln Steffens put it best, after the L.A. Times bombing. “What are we Americans going to do about conditions which are bringing up healthy, good-tempered boys … to really believe … that the only resource they have … is to use dynamite against property and life?”


    The arguments that followed were fierce: Should the country enact new labor laws? Engender Christian renewal? Regulate guns and explosives? But the answers were obvious even then. Americans needed a better process, enforced by the federal government, for managing labor-employer relations. Until the 1930s, advocates simply lacked the political will and public support to make it happen.


    An even more intractable debate accompanied the rise and fall of lynching, one of the most gruesome forms of violence ever to take root in the United States. Today, we tend to remember lynching as a clandestine crime, a young black man pulled from his bed in the dark of night and brutalized or hanged in the Southern woods. For most of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, though, it was a community phenomenon of almost unthinkable cruelty, in which hundreds if not thousands of people gathered to witness a victim being disemboweled, castrated, tortured, or burned, then killed in full view.


    To modern sensibilities, the injustice once again seems obvious, as do the solutions: Prosecute lynchers, fight for racial justice, strengthen the rule of law, and mobilize public opinion to condemn rather than excuse outbursts of brutality. And yet it took more than 100 years for lynching to begin to disappear as a feature of American life, and even longer for Americans to fully acknowledge the depth of its horror. In the meantime, thousands of influential people, including many esteemed congressmen and senators, argued that lynching was simply a fact of life, a random act of violence about which nothing could be done. It was not until 2005 that the U.S. Senate, spearheaded by Mary Landrieu, apologized for failing to pass federal anti-lynching legislation, and for leaving hundreds of innocent people to be sacrificed to official inaction.


    The parallels between past and present are not perfect, of course. Today’s violence is more random, without rational motive or political purpose. Yet these examples tell us something important about how social change happens around violence, and about what we now need to do. Ending both lynching and class violence required efforts spread over many decades. And those efforts attacked the problem at multiple levels, from the passage of new federal laws to campaigns aimed at mobilizing public opinion.


    Most of all, they required a mass rejection of the argument that this is just what America is like, and that there is nothing to be done. We’ve now lived with gun massacres for two generations. That’s long enough.

  8. #288
    Senior Member Array Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    The day when you've fixed all the violent people, let me know. Then, paradoxically, guns won't be necessarry anyway, as 'the right to bear arms' presupposes a threat, suggesting an unresolved 'root cause'
    Considering how many men I know who were attacked by women using butcher knives, I think we should ban steel cutlery. We can eat with plastic. Oh, and about the woman who killed her husband by repeatedly running over his body with a Mercedes— ban those cars. Clearly, they're the cause of women gone wild.

    BMW's are fine.

  9. #289
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    So what for does a normal citizen need a gun ?
    To protect themselves, their families, and their property, approximately 2.5 million times a year.

  10. #290
    Mr. Blue Array entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    3w2 so
    Posts
    15,756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    To protect themselves, their families, and their property, approximately 2.5 million times a year.
    But if that was really so, I'ld ask myself whats wrong then and not hand out more weapons to do even more damage.

    I mean you can fight fire with fire, but ultimately everything will burn or be scorched earth..
    Bad Santa
    Time will explain.
    ~Persuasion - by Jane Austen

Similar Threads

  1. Yet Another Shooting
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 08:55 AM
  2. Another shooting, seven dead
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 06:45 PM
  3. Treyvon Martin shooting
    By FigerPuppet in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 210
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 11:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO