gun control

123578

Comments

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Hatorian said:
    Here’s a first step I think everyone can agree with.no matter what side you support. Maybe a bit extreme and maybe needs some tweeking. 

    BAN LOBBYING and limit fundraising. Not just for the NRA but for all organisations.
    A core part of the First Amendment is protection of political speech, and money (while less protected) is also considered speech in some ways.  'This is because “virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.”'  https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/political-speech/

    The ACLU's position is the response to "bad speech" (speech you don't like) should be more speech (of the kind with which you agree), not censorship. https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/we-all-need-defend-speech-we-hate

    As the US is a constitutional democracy ("a system of government based on popular sovereignty in which the structures, powers, and limits of government are set forth in a constitution") perhaps we should try to solve problems within the Constitution rather than immediately leaping to change the Constitution. 
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    lengmo said:
    Just FYI, there's a great source of information (and opinion) in Heller and its amicus briefs:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/02/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/01/amicus-briefs-for-dc-available-in-guns-case/

    For the historical meaning of the Second Amendment, I would recommend starting with the one from the Academics for the Second Amendment:
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf

    Which side uses handwaving and emotion and which side uses facts and logic always tells me a lot about the merits of each side.
    Yes, god forbid emotion get in the way of a discussion about teenagers getting gunned down. 
    hisdudeness915
  • HatorianHatorian Dagobah
    edited February 2018
    Hatorian said:
    Here’s a first step I think everyone can agree with.no matter what side you support. Maybe a bit extreme and maybe needs some tweeking. 

    BAN LOBBYING and limit fundraising. Not just for the NRA but for all organisations. 

    This helps with more than just the gun issue. It helps limit corporate influence across the board.

    no lobbying. And put say a $500 limit per company/Organization/individual on donations to a political party/candidate.

    It would take much more than just limiting donations. Would also need to crack down on all the activities that organisations do. Such as giving a congressman’s Son a $500k a year job or things like that. It would need a lot of work but if you could take the money out of politics then maybe things might get done. 


    Lobbying happens on all kinds of levels and can be a valuable thing. Much of government is not the fireworks and drama of a debate like gun control or abortion. A lot of it is more boring and pedantic, but still important, stuff that affects citizens on a national, local or state level. If some group of people has an agenda item they want to get across in any kind of organizational structure, group discussion, followed by talking points, selecting someone to go in and make the argument, etc is a better process than just say hammering the person with the power with barrage of emails or something. It simply creates efficiencies in government deliberations. Also, there are a ton of lobbyists and firms that represent smaller organizations and don't have the cache or money of an NRA type organization. There are lots of times when smaller groups or groups with more mundane agendas hire lobbyists to represent their interests, similar to when you hire a lawyer to represent you in a legal process.  So I don't think banning lobbying is necessary.

    The problem is when certain organizations like the NRA get so much power from having a huge purse and being able to basically buy congresspeople. It seems obvious to me that the position of the NRA is not that of many Americans and yet they have so much power which seems to simply be based on money? Or am I missing something here? So maybe it would be better if lobbying had certain limits; I know there has been a discussion in Washington for a long time about campaign finance reform, and I also think it would be great if it was easier for citizens groups to access lobbyists as kind of a counterbalance to these big money groups.
    Good point. I can see where there’s been good progress from lobbying from women’s rights groups but I think it’s a night and day comparison when talking about corporate greed to ethical/moral rights. 

    I would bet that there are very few people in a political position that have been “bought” by groups supporting women’s rights. However when talking about the defence industry or NRA you’re probably talking millions of dollars and hundreds of Politicians. 

    Really wish there was a “reduce defence Budget by 20% to pay for millions of kids college educations” lobby. 
  • lengmo said:
    Hatorian said:
    Here’s a first step I think everyone can agree with.no matter what side you support. Maybe a bit extreme and maybe needs some tweeking. 

    BAN LOBBYING and limit fundraising. Not just for the NRA but for all organisations.


    perhaps we should try to solve problems within the Constitution rather than immediately leaping to change the Constitution. 
    While I agree the constitution is an amazing document and we as a country should do everything we can to follow it, I really don’t agree with this idea we cant or shouldn’t change it. The original constitution simply establishes the government, the states and there purpose. I mean the 2nd amendment is exactly that. An amendment. And we have amendments that have repealed other amendments. So why do we say certain parts cannot be changed? There is nothing stopping us from implementing the 28th amendment that either repeals or updates the 2nd amendment.  

  • This makes sense, but it is also undemocratic for the person or group with the most money to have the most influence. [...] Whereas in the lobbying system we have now, the expensive and rich lobbying groups have way too much power and voice whereas average citizens have very little and don't even understand how that works. 
    You get to join political groups with which you agree and those groups amplify your voice on issues.  It's equally not fair that more eloquent people have more influence, that more attractive/famous people have more influence, etc.  If people don't understand something they can use freely available information on the internet to learn more.

    Dee said:
    Yes, god forbid emotion get in the way of a discussion about teenagers getting gunned down. 
    Emotions running high brought us the Patriot Act https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/patriot act flyer.pdf and many other bad laws, such as the North Carolina bathroom bill.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill

    It's reasonable to ask what measures might be effective and constitutional, such as rebuilding the US mental health care infrastructure gutted in the 1980s, automatic sharing of information from the FBI to local authorities, charging law enforcement officers who stand by when a shooting is occurring, etc.  http://www.wral.com/sources-coral-springs-police-upset-at-some-broward-deputies-for-not-entering-school/17367924/

  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    voodoorat said:
    What actual rationale do you mean, the one to allow well-regulated militias due to what some of the founders feared would be a weak federal government?  "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Most of that weird grammatically-challenged sentence is about the subject of a well-regulated militia which seems to have almost nothing to do with the "modern" interpretation as an individual right.

    I just don't buy the argument that the 2nd amendment was ever intended to protect us from tyranny (nor do I think it would), except in the sense that it was intended to allow us to defend ourselves from a foreign invasion if the federal government was too weak.

    An oldie but goodie:  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

    It doesn't really matter what you personally buy. The fact is there is a lot of well respected legal opinion saying the opposite. If you can't acknowledge that this isn't the thread for you.

    A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for the health of the nation, the right of the people to keep and drink orange juice shall not be infringed.

    When are the people allowed to drink orange juice? How much oj can they possess? Pulp or no pulp? Can it be blended with other juices?

  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Dee said:
    lengmo said:
    Just FYI, there's a great source of information (and opinion) in Heller and its amicus briefs:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/02/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/01/amicus-briefs-for-dc-available-in-guns-case/

    For the historical meaning of the Second Amendment, I would recommend starting with the one from the Academics for the Second Amendment:
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf

    Which side uses handwaving and emotion and which side uses facts and logic always tells me a lot about the merits of each side.
    Yes, god forbid emotion get in the way of a discussion about teenagers getting gunned down. 
    Come on. We should legislate based on how people feel now? Eh, rule of law is okay, but when people get worked up it goes all our the window! Channel that passion into the appropriate legal and political vectors, but don't expect it alone to carry the day.


    emnofseattleJaimieT
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Hatorian said:
    lengmo said:
    Hatorian said:
    Here’s a first step I think everyone can agree with.no matter what side you support. Maybe a bit extreme and maybe needs some tweeking. 

    BAN LOBBYING and limit fundraising. Not just for the NRA but for all organisations.


    perhaps we should try to solve problems within the Constitution rather than immediately leaping to change the Constitution. 
    While I agree the constitution is an amazing document and we as a country should do everything we can to follow it, I really don’t agree with this idea we cant or shouldn’t change it. The original constitution simply establishes the government, the states and there purpose. I mean the 2nd amendment is exactly that. An amendment. And we have amendments that have repealed other amendments. So why do we say certain parts cannot be changed? There is nothing stopping us from implementing the 28th amendment that either repeals or updates the 2nd amendment.  
    Indeed, that's exactly how things should go. The sticky point is that the Court has okayed and even imposed it's own limitations and infringement of our constitutional rights where to draw the line at this point. We just stopped amending the Constitution last century, for better and worse.
    Hatorian
  • voodooratvoodoorat Atlanta
    edited February 2018
    voodoorat said:
    What actual rationale do you mean, the one to allow well-regulated militias due to what some of the founders feared would be a weak federal government?  "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Most of that weird grammatically-challenged sentence is about the subject of a well-regulated militia which seems to have almost nothing to do with the "modern" interpretation as an individual right.

    I just don't buy the argument that the 2nd amendment was ever intended to protect us from tyranny (nor do I think it would), except in the sense that it was intended to allow us to defend ourselves from a foreign invasion if the federal government was too weak.

    An oldie but goodie:  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

    It doesn't really matter what you personally buy. The fact is there is a lot of well respected legal opinion saying the opposite. If you can't acknowledge that this isn't the thread for you.

    A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for the health of the nation, the right of the people to keep and drink orange juice shall not be infringed.

    When are the people allowed to drink orange juice? How much oj can they possess? Pulp or no pulp? Can it be blended with other juices?

    Not sure what you're arguing here. 

    There were 4 dissenting supreme court justices in the Heller case.  There was > 200 years of precedent with a different interpretation of the amendment that did allow municipalities to ban handguns at that point.  The American Bar and American Pediatric Associations also posted amicus briefs arguing against the decision.  So I guess I could just say "The fact is there is a lot of well respected legal opinion saying the opposite. If you can't acknowledge that this isn't the thread for you" if I wanted to be condescending and dismissive.  I've never disputed that there are people who do "buy it", I didn't know that this thread was only intended for Supreme Court Justices to comment on though.  I posted a long form article along with my comment, since you didn't actually address anything that it said instead going with the "stop talking" response, is it safe to assume that you didn't read it?

    There is nothing stopping us from amending the constitution except 2-party partisan politics, just as we could have amended it to make the 2nd amendment intent clearer instead of reversing precedent in the judiciary with Heller.  But we didn't.

    As far as the actual path to changing gun law in America, I think aside from minor things around the fringes, the way it changes is the same way cigarettes have gone mostly by the wayside:  The public turns against them over time and what were once considered huge impositions ("I can't smoke on a plane?!", "I have to go outside to smoke at a restaurant?!", "I can't even smoke in bars?!") are not considered huge impositions.  Whether that's bans or just tighter registration/registry type stuff, I don't now, but I do think that it's probably a matter of time.  The young people today will be less enamored I think with this particular brand of identity politics, and while there will always be a subset of people I don't think gun ownership will continue to expand...  Unless maybe something happens demographically and people start moving back out of the cities.  Maybe this most recent shooting makes a difference in swaying public opinion, certainly it seems to be damaging the NRA brand (although that could well be just a matter of it hurting the brand with people already disinclined to like the NRA--and have no effect on its core supporters).
  • voodoorat said:
     I posted a long form article along with my comment, since you didn't actually address anything that it said instead going with the "stop talking" response, is it safe to assume that you didn't read it?

    As far as the actual path to changing gun law in America, I think aside from minor things around the fringes, the way it changes is the same way cigarettes have gone mostly by the wayside:  The public turns against them over time and what were once considered huge impositions ("I can't smoke on a plane?!", "I have to go outside to smoke at a restaurant?!", "I can't even smoke in bars?!") are not considered huge impositions. 
    I'm not A Ron; I looked through the article and it seems the usual misrepresentation.  Take a look at the amicus brief I linked to earlier for a more credible look at the history of the Amendment.  If you take the time to compare the article to the brief, perhaps you will find specific cases where one side used omission, weasel words, etc. to try to make their case.

    There's a problem with the cigarette analogy: lighting up a cigarette is like discharging a gun, and discharging a gun is already prohibited inside most city limits with certain limited exceptions.  The argument in the US is about what kind of guns people are allowed to own ("keep" from "keep and bear").
  • Yes, I read the brief and some others, including some of those which were advocating for the DC ban.  That amicus brief was by a lobbying group created by the NRA with a vested interest (in fact, their whole purpose for existing) to advocate for expansion of gun rights and this particular case, it's an interesting perspective as is the NRA's but there are plenty of well-cited opinions which disagree.  I would read a few more articles, scholarly works, etc, before I made up my mind if that's where you started your research.

    There is also the natural laboratory of our current patchwork local and state gun laws--where we no doubt will find that the less restrictions there are on purchasing and owning guns, the less violence there is inflicted or facilitated by guns.  Lighting up a cigarette isn't the only thing tightly regulated, sales of cigarettes are as well, and cigarette manufacturers are legally liable for the harm caused by the use of their product.  Admittedly it's not a perfect analogy--there's nothing in the bill of rights about cigarettes, but my point was about public sentiment on the subject anyway, not directly about the legality of anything.  The argument  is about to what extent gun ownership can be regulated--nobody (as far as I know) argues that it can't be regulated at all (nobody as far as I know is advocating widespread civilian ownership of automatic weapons or bazookas or whatever), not whether or not it's illegal to shoot a gun in city limits.

    I also read a few days ago (someone tried to send it to me as proof that the individual right was established law in the 1880s in spite of obviously not having actually read the decision at all) the Presser v. Illinois decision.  My point has been just that the current interpretation of the constitution which complicates thing is itself largely a political problem:  If public sentiment turns against guns in the future as I think is likely, the interpretation of the amendment will likely change again.  That is, they overturned precedent once they can do it again.  I just dispute the idea that the amendment has always been interpreted to mean that law-abiding individuals could not be banned from owning handguns.  That changed, and not really that long ago.  I don't know if bans (especially city bans since obviously a city is affected by its surroundings, we see this now in Chicago) would be effective anyway, but I think honesty about the history of the amendment is useful.

    There is a commonly-cited scholarly article on the history of the 2nd amendment (predating Heller, I believe ~2000):  https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3286&context=cklawreview
  • lengmolengmo RTP, NC
    edited February 2018
    voodoorat said:
    Yes, I read the brief and some others, including some of those which were advocating for the DC ban.  That amicus brief was by a lobbying group created by the NRA with a vested interest (in fact, their whole purpose for existing) to advocate for expansion of gun rights and this particular case [...]  I would read a few more articles, scholarly works, etc, before I made up my mind if that's where you started your research.

    There is a commonly-cited scholarly article on the history of the 2nd amendment (predating Heller, I believe ~2000):  https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3286&context=cklawreview
    http://academicssecondamendment.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-help-win-supreme-court-right-to.html
    'Academics for the Second Amendment ("A2A") [...] A2A was formed in 1992 [...]" I know at least one person involved is an NRA member, but I've not seen that they were created by the NRA (that wouldn't be a bad thing; just because the press demonize the NRA doesn't make the NRA bad).

    Don't worry about me; I've been learning about the Second Amendment since the 1990's.  There's just little point in referring people to books they won't buy when I can point them to links to material.  If you want a book, start with To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

    I got to the second paragraph of that article before finding an error I recognized off the top and stopped.  Miller held that only arms appropriate for a militia were protected, not that Miller had to be in a militia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller#Decision
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    edited February 2018
    Dee said:
    lengmo said:
    Just FYI, there's a great source of information (and opinion) in Heller and its amicus briefs:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/02/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/01/amicus-briefs-for-dc-available-in-guns-case/

    For the historical meaning of the Second Amendment, I would recommend starting with the one from the Academics for the Second Amendment:
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf

    Which side uses handwaving and emotion and which side uses facts and logic always tells me a lot about the merits of each side.
    Yes, god forbid emotion get in the way of a discussion about teenagers getting gunned down. 
    Come on. We should legislate based on how people feel now? Eh, rule of law is okay, but when people get worked up it goes all our the window! Channel that passion into the appropriate legal and political vectors, but don't expect it alone to carry the day.


    Legislation is made because of how people feel all the time. People put pressure on legislators because they feel angry enough or upset enough about something to do so. Humans are not robots. 
  • edited February 2018
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    voodoorat said:
    voodoorat said:
    What actual rationale do you mean, the one to allow well-regulated militias due to what some of the founders feared would be a weak federal government?  "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Most of that weird grammatically-challenged sentence is about the subject of a well-regulated militia which seems to have almost nothing to do with the "modern" interpretation as an individual right.

    I just don't buy the argument that the 2nd amendment was ever intended to protect us from tyranny (nor do I think it would), except in the sense that it was intended to allow us to defend ourselves from a foreign invasion if the federal government was too weak.

    An oldie but goodie:  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

    It doesn't really matter what you personally buy. The fact is there is a lot of well respected legal opinion saying the opposite. If you can't acknowledge that this isn't the thread for you.

    A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for the health of the nation, the right of the people to keep and drink orange juice shall not be infringed.

    When are the people allowed to drink orange juice? How much oj can they possess? Pulp or no pulp? Can it be blended with other juices?

    Not sure what you're arguing here. 

    There were 4 dissenting supreme court justices in the Heller case.  There was > 200 years of precedent with a different interpretation of the amendment that did allow municipalities to ban handguns at that point.  The American Bar and American Pediatric Associations also posted amicus briefs arguing against the decision.  So I guess I could just say "The fact is there is a lot of well respected legal opinion saying the opposite. If you can't acknowledge that this isn't the thread for you" if I wanted to be condescending and dismissive.  I've never disputed that there are people who do "buy it", I didn't know that this thread was only intended for Supreme Court Justices to comment on though.  I posted a long form article along with my comment, since you didn't actually address anything that it said instead going with the "stop talking" response, is it safe to assume that you didn't read it?

    There is nothing stopping us from amending the constitution except 2-party partisan politics, just as we could have amended it to make the 2nd amendment intent clearer instead of reversing precedent in the judiciary with Heller.  But we didn't.

    As far as the actual path to changing gun law in America, I think aside from minor things around the fringes, the way it changes is the same way cigarettes have gone mostly by the wayside:  The public turns against them over time and what were once considered huge impositions ("I can't smoke on a plane?!", "I have to go outside to smoke at a restaurant?!", "I can't even smoke in bars?!") are not considered huge impositions.  Whether that's bans or just tighter registration/registry type stuff, I don't now, but I do think that it's probably a matter of time.  The young people today will be less enamored I think with this particular brand of identity politics, and while there will always be a subset of people I don't think gun ownership will continue to expand...  Unless maybe something happens demographically and people start moving back out of the cities.  Maybe this most recent shooting makes a difference in swaying public opinion, certainly it seems to be damaging the NRA brand (although that could well be just a matter of it hurting the brand with people already disinclined to like the NRA--and have no effect on its core supporters).
    The most recent poll I saw still showed the majority of Americans either believe the NRA has "just enough" or "not enough" influence, and only 46% of Americans answered "too much" The NRA when polled about is viewed positively by a majority of the country. I think a lot of these people are simply more vocal, people who don't like the NRA are going out and using grandiose language "blood money, blood on their hands" type stuff but I don't think the average person, even those who support more gun laws, views the NRA as responsible for public shootings. 

    paradoxically, polls have shown younger people actually are more pro-gun then older people. the Assault weapon ban in 94 was passed by boomers and the older end of the World War Two generation who overwhelmingly supported it in polling, Gen X had kinda support, but now that Gen X and older half of the Millenials are the voting bloc the AWB depending on who's polling either has a very thin majority support, like in the low 50s or majority opposition. 

    The registration and background check provisions are widely supported in polling, but have not attracted the same level of support during ballot measure campaigns 


  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited February 2018
    lengmo said:
    voodoorat said:
    Yes, I read the brief and some others, including some of those which were advocating for the DC ban.  That amicus brief was by a lobbying group created by the NRA with a vested interest (in fact, their whole purpose for existing) to advocate for expansion of gun rights and this particular case [...]  I would read a few more articles, scholarly works, etc, before I made up my mind if that's where you started your research.

    There is a commonly-cited scholarly article on the history of the 2nd amendment (predating Heller, I believe ~2000):  https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3286&context=cklawreview
    http://academicssecondamendment.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-help-win-supreme-court-right-to.html
    'Academics for the Second Amendment ("A2A") [...] A2A was formed in 1992 [...]" I know at least one person involved is an NRA member, but I've not seen that they were created by the NRA (that wouldn't be a bad thing; just because the press demonize the NRA doesn't make the NRA bad).

    Don't worry about me; I've been learning about the Second Amendment since the 1990's.  There's just little point in referring people to books they won't buy when I can point them to links to material.  If you want a book, start with To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

    I got to the second paragraph of that article before finding an error I recognized off the top and stopped.  Miller held that only arms appropriate for a militia were protected, not that Miller had to be in a militia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller#Decision
    Its also worth noting for context, Miller was a default Judgment because Miller the man had beat the government on second amendment grounds at two lower court levels, but died after the Governments appeal was accepted by the court, Miller represented himself and had no attorney, therefore there was no one representing the Miller side before the Supreme Court, only the Government was heard, which makes it problematic to count on that ruling over others such as Heller where attorneys represented the pro-gun side and there was equal time for both parties before the court 

    Plus the idea of a "collective militia right" is a strained reading by people who want to see that in the ruling, Miller can just as easily be interpreted as saying only "military style weapons" are protected by the second amendment. We don't know, it was a specific ruling unique to a specific case, all the judges who ruled on it are dead, we can't ask them. no other gun cases were heard before the court until decades after all those other judges were dead, so there is no real support either way other then seeing what you want to see. 

    What do know is that the Supreme Court alluded to a personal right to carry arms in the Dicta of the Dred Scott v Sanford ruling, we know that state courts in Georgia in the early 19th century invalidated gun control laws on the basis of the Second Amendment (Nunn v Georgia) We know that of all the states that included a right to bear arms in their state constitutions it was an unambigous individual right, and it seems to me that the second amendment was well understood in contemporary times to mean an individual right. 

    Even if one accepts the "right of the militia" argument you have 10 USC § 246 
    (a)
    The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b)The classes of the militia are—
    (1)
    the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2)
    the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    In my state the law is RCW 38.04.030

    Composition of the militia.

    The militia of the state of Washington shall consist of all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, and shall include all persons who are members of the national guard and the state guard, and said militia shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • If the NRA said we have to arm ourselves against the possibility of tyranny, have you noticed the guy in the guy in the White House, I might think holy shit you got a point.
  • Find it a bit scary that the FBI can be all over NCAA entitlements while letting this gunman slide. Seems like the FBI and congress find it more interesting to investigate sports than they do protecting lives. 
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    voodoorat said:
    There were 4 dissenting supreme court justices in the Heller case.  There was > 200 years of precedent with a different interpretation of the amendment that did allow municipalities to ban handguns at that point.  The American Bar and American Pediatric Associations also posted amicus briefs arguing against the decision.  So I guess I could just say "The fact is there is a lot of well respected legal opinion saying the opposite. If you can't acknowledge that this isn't the thread for you" if I wanted to be condescending and dismissive.  I've never disputed that there are people who do "buy it", I didn't know that this thread was only intended for Supreme Court Justices to comment on though.  I posted a long form article along with my comment, since you didn't actually address anything that it said instead going with the "stop talking" response, is it safe to assume that you didn't read it?
    Look, all I ask is that you grant the side you are arguing against isn't crazy or evil.  You're having a hard time not taking a combative tone with me, and I'm on your side.  That's why I say influencing me and wresting admissions of your correctness does not matter.  I'd probably accept a ban on semi-automatic weapons.  I'm waaaaayyyyyy outside the mainstream gun owner's views in the US.  I'm not saying your interpretation isn't valid or is crazy.  But it's not especially mainstream nor well represented among Americans today.  Also, saying that there was a view on the 2nd amendment that stood for 200 years and was radically revisited in the last two decades is objectively false.  The "founding fathers" were many different men that wanted many different things, and in general when they said "the people" they meant it.  I feel like you're relying a lot on sources that leave out a rather big part of the picture, and you haven't honestly sat down and asked yourself "why do so many people feel like the 2nd amendment says something different than I think it says?"  But again, I don't WANT to get into a Constitutional argument with you.  One, I don't really have the time for it.  If I wanted to have this argument, I'd just fucking do a podcast on it and reach 10k+ people instead of the handful here.   All I want is the mostly liberal people on this board to confront the fact that the other side of every issue is not always insane, greedy, or evil, and to honestly ask if you've really done a 360 degree analysis of the issue from both sides that I think an issue of this importance deserves.   

    If we don't, the victories we win will be pyrrhic at best.  As I said, we already had an assault weapons ban in the US.  It lasted 10 years and didn't do anything but sell a shit ton of assault rifles and high capacity magazines.
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    edited February 2018
    Legislation is made because of how people feel all the time. People put pressure on legislators because they feel angry enough or upset enough about something to do so. Humans are not robots. 
    Well of course, and as I said there are appropriate legal and political channels for that.  That said, laws that are passed based on emotion without being tethered to a factual understanding of the issues people are upset and passionate about is bad law.  You know how I frequently mourn that my liberal friends are no more rational or logical than my conservative friends, it's just that the facts happen to side with them at this particular point in human history?  This is what I'm talking about.  Ban whatever you want to ban, but know what it is you're banning and what separates it from something you don't feel strongly about banning.  And why are our liberal political leaders spreading misinformation and being in general inarticulate when discussing such a huge issue of our times?  Why is this different from the right acting like all abortions are late third term partial birth emergency contraceptive by lazy and irresponsible women?

    Example: Just listened to Lovett or Leave It podcast yesterday, and he makes a point about the disastrous Marco Rubio town hall where the crowd has turned against him and he rhetorically asks something like "what do you want to do, ban all semi-automatic weapons?" and the crowd roars approval, and Rubio is shell shocked.  Rubio is a worm, but the crowd has no idea what they're asking for and they don't care.  Kids died and they're upset about it.  Lovett makes the point on his podcast where he plays this clip "what a silly man, he's saying that we've already banned 200 poisons and there are 1200 left so why ban any poison? LOLOLOLOL!"  That would indeed be a silly point to make.  But if bleach is a poison and strychnine is a poison and uranium is a poison and tide pods are a poison, then it damn well makes a difference between the 200 and the 1200.  Uranium you only want in reactors, tide pods and bleach in your laundry closet and strychnine in the hands of trained pest control technicians. And maybe tide pods shouldn't look and feel like gummy candy, seems like that's a reasonable change to make.

    I want my side to be better.  Either get informed and understand what you're asking for, or stop complaining and lamenting the loss of rationality when the other side gets worked up and runs around like a bull in a china shop.  
    JaimieTFlukes
  • Legislation is made because of how people feel all the time. People put pressure on legislators because they feel angry enough or upset enough about something to do so. Humans are not robots. 

    Example: Just listened to Lovett or Leave It podcast yesterday, and he makes a point about the disastrous Marco Rubio town hall where the crowd has turned against him and he rhetorically asks something like "what do you want to do, ban all semi-automatic weapons?" and the crowd roars approval, and Rubio is shell shocked.  Rubio is a worm, but the crowd has no idea what they're asking for and they don't care.  Kids died and they're upset about it.  
    Not for nothing, but he said all semiautomatic rifles, not semiautomatic weapons, which is a pretty big distinction. And it's odd to me that you presume the crowd there had no idea what they were asking for - it's entirely possible that lots of people in that crowd had thought about what happened and decided that a semi-automatic rifle ban was a reasonable step to take - traumatic events can certainly lead to rash action, but it's not necessary that any decision that follows a traumatic event must be irrational. We've talked about Australia a lot in this thread - their strict gun control laws were a result of a traumatic event, but I don't think a majority of Australians look back on that decision as irrational. 

    Apparently only 30% of adults in the US own a gun, and of that 30% only 62% own a rifle. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/ So we're looking at less than 20% of US adults owning a rifle, with no numbers breakdown for semiautomatic or not. In any event, safe to say this would impact a minority of American. Further, even in 2016, polling suggested there was majority support for a ban of all semi-automatic weapons - https://morningconsultintelligence.com/public/mc/160609_crosstabs_NYT_v2_AP.pdf I'd be curious to have someone run a poll on a semiautomatic rifle ban now, and in 6 months, and see what the numbers are. That might tell us what is emotional impact and what is a sticking opinion with people.

    I think it's very unfair, though, to say of the people in the crowd had "no idea what they were asking for" and that they don't care. It's perfectly rational, outside of any constitutional argument or what the founding fathers intended, to look objectively at the situation in the US and decide "I think the added utility of people being able to buy semiautomatic rifles in outweighed by the harm they cause, and I support banning them." That is not an inherently irrational thought.

    On a grammatical note, does anyone know the answer on semi-automatic vs semiautomatic? It thought it had the hyphen, but started seeing more mainstream reporting without the hyphen, but still see both. I am confused. 
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    asmallcat said:
    Legislation is made because of how people feel all the time. People put pressure on legislators because they feel angry enough or upset enough about something to do so. Humans are not robots. 

    Example: Just listened to Lovett or Leave It podcast yesterday, and he makes a point about the disastrous Marco Rubio town hall where the crowd has turned against him and he rhetorically asks something like "what do you want to do, ban all semi-automatic weapons?" and the crowd roars approval, and Rubio is shell shocked.  Rubio is a worm, but the crowd has no idea what they're asking for and they don't care.  Kids died and they're upset about it.  
    Not for nothing, but he said all semiautomatic rifles, not semiautomatic weapons, which is a pretty big distinction. And it's odd to me that you presume the crowd there had no idea what they were asking for - it's entirely possible that lots of people in that crowd had thought about what happened and decided that a semi-automatic rifle ban was a reasonable step to take - traumatic events can certainly lead to rash action, but it's not necessary that any decision that follows a traumatic event must be irrational. 
    Well, I suppose we're both reading into the hearts and minds of the people attending the town hall.  It would indeed be a surprise to me to find out these people understood the nuance of what Rubio was talking about, as it would make them the exceptional slice of the American populace from my experience. Certainly the idea of banning an entire class of firearm isn't irrational, we've done it before in this country, there are many classes of weapons already banned or banned for all intents and purposes, and as I mentioned it's even one I personally am leaning to subscribing to, and I don't consider myself irrational. 
  • asmallcat said:
    Legislation is made because of how people feel all the time. People put pressure on legislators because they feel angry enough or upset enough about something to do so. Humans are not robots. 

    Example: Just listened to Lovett or Leave It podcast yesterday, and he makes a point about the disastrous Marco Rubio town hall where the crowd has turned against him and he rhetorically asks something like "what do you want to do, ban all semi-automatic weapons?" and the crowd roars approval, and Rubio is shell shocked.  Rubio is a worm, but the crowd has no idea what they're asking for and they don't care.  Kids died and they're upset about it.  
    Not for nothing, but he said all semiautomatic rifles, not semiautomatic weapons, which is a pretty big distinction. And it's odd to me that you presume the crowd there had no idea what they were asking for - it's entirely possible that lots of people in that crowd had thought about what happened and decided that a semi-automatic rifle ban was a reasonable step to take - traumatic events can certainly lead to rash action, but it's not necessary that any decision that follows a traumatic event must be irrational. 
    Well, I suppose we're both reading into the hearts and minds of the people attending the town hall.  It would indeed be a surprise to me to find out these people understood the nuance of what Rubio was talking about, as it would make them the exceptional slice of the American populace from my experience. Certainly the idea of banning an entire class of firearm isn't irrational, we've done it before in this country, there are many classes of weapons already banned or banned for all intents and purposes, and as I mentioned it's even one I personally am leaning to subscribing to, and I don't consider myself irrational. 
    Yeah, I mean I'm sure at least some people heard "ban all *insert weapon type here*" and just cheered because they are upset and would have cheered whatever he said that suggested a broader gun ban. 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    asmallcat said:
    Legislation is made because of how people feel all the time. People put pressure on legislators because they feel angry enough or upset enough about something to do so. Humans are not robots. 

    Example: Just listened to Lovett or Leave It podcast yesterday, and he makes a point about the disastrous Marco Rubio town hall where the crowd has turned against him and he rhetorically asks something like "what do you want to do, ban all semi-automatic weapons?" and the crowd roars approval, and Rubio is shell shocked.  Rubio is a worm, but the crowd has no idea what they're asking for and they don't care.  Kids died and they're upset about it.  

    On a grammatical note, does anyone know the answer on semi-automatic vs semiautomatic? It thought it had the hyphen, but started seeing more mainstream reporting without the hyphen, but still see both. I am confused. 

    OMG, I know something in a gun control thread. 

    So here's how our language usually works when creating compound words. You start with two words, like "web site." People get used to that, you start using "web-site." People get used to that, you start using "website." 

    Semiautomatic is the more evolved form. But it might be premature. Use whatever you want.
    asmallcat
  • @A_Ron_Hubbard I certainly don't think you are irrational, and in no way are you representative of the sentiments expressed by Wayne Lapierre at CPAC.  if I understand correctly a large portion of gun owners are not NRA members, and of the ones who are, don't necessarily subscribe to the inflammatory rhetoric I heard at CPAC. What I'd like to see is more gun owners wrestle this issue away from the tribalism the NRA wants this to be. 
    Also, did Australia have to fight for its independence the way we did? Someone with a history degree wanna fill me in on this, seeing as Australia is often used an example how well of gun control works. 
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    Lovett makes the point on his podcast where he plays this clip "what a silly man, he's saying that we've already banned 200 poisons and there are 1200 left so why ban any poison? LOLOLOLOL!"  That would indeed be a silly point to make.  But if bleach is a poison and strychnine is a poison and uranium is a poison and tide pods are a poison, then it damn well makes a difference between the 200 and the 1200.  Uranium you only want in reactors, tide pods and bleach in your laundry closet and strychnine in the hands of trained pest control technicians. And maybe tide pods shouldn't look and feel like gummy candy, seems like that's a reasonable change to make.
    I listened to the same podcast and it was a bit of a mob scene. Not a great look.

    I think what Jon was responding to is the argument that there's no point banning or restricting specific guns (like the AR-15) because bad actors will just use other guns for their mass murder. That argument generates a lot of frustration because it feels like giving up to people who desperately want to do something productive, even if it's not 100% effective.

    Your rebuttal here actually makes the same point Lovett is trying to make, but in a more elegant way. It's appropriate to channel different classes of weapons into different uses through regulation.

    The fact that you can't walk into a gun store and buy an RPG means this already happens. If people (who also hold this right) think the line needs to be drawn a little further down the kills-per-minute spectrum, there are valid ways for them to pursue that. Protesting and speaking up at town hall meetings is one of them. Voting is another.

    Having read up a bit, I think the intent of the 2nd amendment is fairly clear given some historical context. I would no longer make the argument that the current interpretation is far off of the intention. The framers really seem to have felt that an armed populace would have an advantage not enjoyed by citizens of other countries. I'm not sure that in 2018 it's as clear how large an advantage it is or if it's worth the risks. The availability of global communication has granted power to individuals that, in my opinion, eclipses the power of an armed populace.

    I don't really have a point here. I'm really just talking for its own sake. I believe those I disagree with on this topic hold their beliefs sincerely.

    It's easy for me to say as a 38 year old in a different country who doesn't even want a gun, but maybe it would be a good idea to see how people do at adulting for a bit before you let them have the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    edited February 2018
    adobo1148 said:
    @A_Ron_Hubbard I certainly don't think you are irrational, and in no way are you representative of the sentiments expressed by Wayne Lapierre at CPAC.  if I understand correctly a large portion of gun owners are not NRA members, and of the ones who are, don't necessarily subscribe to the inflammatory rhetoric I heard at CPAC. What I'd like to see is more gun owners wrestle this issue away from the tribalism the NRA wants this to be. 
    Also, did Australia have to fight for its independence the way we did? Someone with a history degree wanna fill me in on this, seeing as Australia is often used an example how well of gun control works. 
    Australia is a Commonwealth country. We are ostensibly ruled by the Queen. Great Britain doesn’t stick its beak in much, but they can if they want to. They sacked our entire government once in the 1970s. 

    Anyway, regarding other comments above, we don’t have a gun culture here, so I guess it’s just that we don’t think clinging to the right to own weapons IS rational or logical. It’s clearly a huge cultural divide between the US and pretty much the rest of the developed world. We just don’t get it. It’s very strange to us to hear about children being gunned down and a country just kind of shrugging that off as the “price of freedom”. But there’s a lot about US culture the rest of the world doesn’t really understand. Every country has its weird quirks (god knows Australia does), but we just hear so much more about America’s because we are saturated (willingly) in US pop culture and (not so willingly) global politics. Having said that, depending on where you read it, somewhere between 30 and 40% of adult Americans are gun owners, so there’s a significant majority who also don’t seem to buy into gun culture. 

    P.S. It’s a myth we don’t have guns at all in Australia - we do. My stepfather has one. We just have strict rules about who can own them (you have to have a reason like farming or sport shooting or hunting, not just to look cool or shoot a potential burglar), and how they are licenced and stored. Gun control works here because we never had that gun culture in the first place. Realistically, it’s not a good comparison. 
    Flukesdavemcbrusskelly
Sign In or Register to comment.