Bye bye gun control - Page 5

Or should have, if you're one of those morons who believes giving everybody guns makes us safer.

I personally think that this will be a mixed bag for everyone. I think it is easy to see that the case will be decided on the side of individual rights. The other part that they will find, I believe, is that the state does have an interest in regulating arms. This may be one of those increasingly rare cases where the Court actually honors the concept of states rights and returns the issue of regulation to individual state control to a greater extent.

This means that all of the hysterical "machine guns readily available" and the "destruction of all gun laws across the country" tripe will also be just that... hysterical tripe. Just like concealed carry licenses would lead to "shootouts over parking spaces" and "the streets running with blood." None of which has, or will, happen.

The FUD pushed by Brady, VPC, and DC in this case, as they do their gun-banning PR work, is exactly what those of us in the self-defense community have been combating for years. There will NOT be shelves of machine guns available to anyone who wants one. There will not be these fantasy "guns that evade airport detection" as VPC repeatedly claims exist. This decision does not directly affect GCA 1968 or The Brady Bill, meaning that guns will still be paper-trailed from maker to dealer to buyer, and there will still be NICS background checks. There isn't even support among the NRA membership, much less the public at large, to repeal either of the aforementioned laws.

The moral of the story is really (besides this being just once that Bush did a good job) that YES, the "PEOPLE" in the Second Amendment are the same "PEOPLE" that are referenced throughout the BoR and Constitution. I find it funny that the solidifying of rights enumerated in the BoR is now just another *Bush* fuckup. Justice Kennedy has given his share of fits to those of us on the right, mind you. We now have a SCOTUS that is more likely to side with individual rights than state rights, if only by one... single... ever-swinging vote.

I think the Justices in the SCOTUS are well-reasoned and thoughtful people. It takes neither of those things to see the failure of bans like the ones in DC or LA. Manifest failures. Failures that VPC and Brady would love to replicate across the country. And as far as cities 'proactively' recending their bans, I say hogwash. Not going to happen, because the usual suspects in these cities are still convinced that gun bans work, despite the utter lack of logic and already exacerbated gun crime situation.

Catch me on the five year anniversary of the expiration of the DC ban... we'll go over the crime numbers, and their decrease, at that point.

Yaaaaaaaaawn.

It does, you know.

Why do you support only criminals being armed?

"giving everybody guns"

It seems quite likely that the SCOTUS could come about and say that rules governing ownership should ensure public safety, that is that rules like mandatory background checks and regular upkeep of gun training are perfectly reasonable limitations...

Shawn, is it possible for them to uphold the ban but still set a precedent for an individual right?

To me, it seems most likely that they would advocate an individual-rights perspective but allow local laws to set quite severe restrictions.

Definitely possible.

News coverage gave the impression that they would overturn this particular ban, however.

Easy. Simply say someone has a right but act differently.

Not sure what you mean by that, but what matters as much as the up-or-down decision is the rationale and the details of the opinion itself.

Exactly.

There's no indication they'll endorse some unqualified individual right to gun-ownership that precludes regulation.

If they do uphold the ban, it could depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. For instance, a gun ban might be upheld in D.C. or Philly given the presence of certain factors the court might articulate (law enforcement need, danger to the public, whatever you can think of), while they'd likely strike down a gun ban in say Wyoming because those factors probably wouldn't be present. Who knows really. There are very few bright-line rules in constitutional law.

Let me put this another way.

If the court decides that, in fact, people do have the "right" to have something (e.g., guns) and, simultaneously, allow a variety of conditions or restrictions upon that right, then it isn't really a "right", it's a privilege.

At that point they've accomplished a wonderful legal and rhetorical sleight-of-hand..."Pay no attention to the fact that I'm allowing your 'right' to be restricted or to be conditional, because I just said you have this 'right' (even though in my actual behavior I'm allowing it to be taken away or curtailed)."

They could call it a hairy purple elephant.

It doesn't matter whether something is colloquially called a "right" or a "privilege." Courts haven't used that distinction in due process analysis for over 40 years.

... and this is seen, I'm sure, as "progress"

It was a judicial construction to begin with.

For procedural due process, the idea was that "rights" could only be taken away with due process of law, while "privileges" could be taken away without due process of law. Now the inquiry is whether the interest qualifies as "life, liberty, or property," what it means to "deprive" someone of those things, and what constitutes "due process of law."

For substantive due process (the rights enumerated in the amendments), we have three levels of scrutiny (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rationale basis test) for determining whether government action infringes on a fundamental right. To answer BRussell's question better, the court could find an individual right to gun ownership, but also uphold the gun ban under the deferential "rational basis" test.

That's a pretty strict definition of a right - that it's not a right unless it's absolute. Can you name any right that's absolute, and can't have any conditions or restrictions at all? Speech? Religion? Jury of peers?

Yeah. As I said before, even a "right" in that long-discarded "rights vs. privileges" framework was something that could be taken away with due process of law.

All "rights" granted by a social contract are "privileges" granted by the state back to the people in exchange for giving up their complete freedom to do whatever they want.

Has there been a ruling on the right to bear howitzers?

ie The extent of the constitutional right to bear arms. After all the better armed the militia is the better it can perform its constitutional checks and balances act.

Of course those who have a psychological attraction to possessing heavy artillery can be depended on to let them off in a restrained and responsible manner.

The NRA guidelines on firing within confined spaces such as offices, schools, hospitals and homes should prove adequate restraint on anti-social use.

It isn't the NRA members you have to worry about, it is the criminals (who, given enough motivation, can already buy heavy military weapons without regard to laws).

You anti-gun guys are like the drug warriors - pursuing a war than can't be won, making things worse through your actions, and persecuting the wrong people, while all the time pointing to "your successes" via non-scientifically valid comparisons and shouting down your opponents with ridicule and exaggeration. You and your kind embody everything that is wrong with this nation.

It isn't quite the same eric...

the war on drugs has always been about controlling an individual's use of a drug through which rarely other people will be affected.

gun regulation is focused on removing weapons designed to kill other people which rarely are used against self...

in other words, the moral basis for a social program designed to regulate an individuals action is absent in the war on drugs but present in the war on guns...

regardless, no one can contend with the truism that more guns equals more deaths...

As opposed to your scientifically sound post...

Not that I want to get into it.

*cues franksargent*

Which is why the NRA vigorously defends its own executives caught breaking the law and supplying guns to criminals.

Also why the NRA has tried to destroy the records maintained under the Brady law's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to prevent guns falling into criminal hands.

Lets face it the NRA are like the drug lords, profiting from and promoting every avenue to make sure deadly weapons are widely available.

As to shouting down opponents I think that is the role of the minority pro-gun lobby. When they can't just get away with shooting down their opponents. Reason is not part of their armament.

honestly... it might be worth it to try to ban bullets, gun powder, and gun cotton...

That, if true, is a distraction and besides the point. The NRA should be held accountable when it breaks the law just like anyone else - but that is not an argument for new laws.

The violence in the US is not a gun problem, it is a problem with our screwed up society (I think mainly due to the war on drugs). My town in Canada had almost 100% gun ownership, and no gun violence. Assault rifles are illegal in Canada, and they are still easy to get (one of my Dad's friends has a collection of M-16s and AK-47s) and the violence is 10x lower than the US levels. If you watch "Bowling for Columbine", that fellow comes to the same conclusion - the guns are not the reason for the problem with violence in the US.

Ahhhh, here we go again. More insane lies without a single shred of real fact to back them up. Gastro, you STILL, after all these months, have not responded to a SINGLE request I have made re: facts to back up your idiotic posts.


Links? Basis in fact?



Another lie. You DO understand, don't you, exactly why NRA wants those records destroyed, right? It is because those records, if preserved indefinitely, would create a national database of gun owners, which is de facto registration. NICS does what it is designed to do. You demonstrate a stunning lack of knowledge about how NICS works, which is typical of your rants. You gun grabbers want to make NICS a national registration system, which is NOT what Congress passed the law to do. Just more of you guys trying to get by "interpretation" what you cannot get by legislation.


More stupidity. Pay attention here... I'm going to ask a few questions I want you to actually answer... Who is it that made the most from Columbine? The Million Mom March. The Brady Center. The VPC. I'll ask you again, you troll, exactly HOW IS IT that law-abiding gun owners WANT guns to be misused? How exactly, in your fucked up logic, does a gun crime BENEFIT law-abiding people who want to maintain their rights?


Here. Go find your own reasoning.

You're a troll. A rabid, factless, anti-gun bigot, who cannot have a real discussion. You pop back in here and post ever more bullshit, even though you have not responded to a single critique of your earlier BS. I bet in response to my post, you'll post a whole new slate of over-the-top accusations completely without fact, rather than have a discussion.

Obviously guns aren't the cause of violence... no one ever said they were... but they are the means by which violent acts are taken with ease... lowering that barrier for the purpose of lowering that barrier should be taken for what it is...

Actually, they can contend with this very simplistic view. In a vacuum, yes. In reality, no.

Check out section 10 of this study, especially Section 10, Part D, Table 1.

It relates gun restrictions to homicide/suicide rates internationally. More gun restrictions do not necessarily mean less of either.

I gave up on you.

It was as tedious as talking to a flat earther or creationist. I supplied you with heaps of links and documentation. You just pretended they weren't there. I decided I had better things to do.

Bound up in your own little world you can't look over the fence for fear that it may reveal that your preconceived notions have only constant repetition to support them.

Sadly we live in a world where Neo-Cons and Islamists are at each other's throats and reaching for their guns to prove their points, because that is all either have ever had to "prove" them.

btw As I read your post, "debating this issue", all I can picture is your spittle spraying all over your monitor.

Do you have it fitted with windscreen wipers?

I challenge you, and anyone else that believes your crap, to go back and read the thread from the start... and see who has had a *wee* bit of a problem with responding to requests for info. Real, third-party, info. Either way, just as I predicted, there are no links to fact in your response re: NRA executives. I'll just add that to the pile of accusations longing for evidence.

Sorry Jub... but that comparison isn't virtuous...

You need to compare routes to death, which the table makes no note of, socioeconomic conditions, which the table completely lacks, etc...

The table itself indicates that there were no homicides in Romania where guns are banned...

Suicide is, as I pointed out before, an entirely different kettle of fish...

Regarding Romania... N/A does not equal zero... and yes, I agree with you that suicide is a different kettle of fish. If there had been a number there, instead of the NA, you'd have an even higher total of gun death in a highly restricted country like Romania. The researchers did you a favor there. The "table," no matter what table you use, will never answer every single aspect of this issue. The point I was addressing is the (vacuum-inspired) thought that restricting guns automatically results in less murder/suicide with guns. That is not the case.

The virtuous piece of data would be to know empirically, which is not possible, if people who committed gun suicide would have done it anyway by other means, and if a gun law would have stopped them. People who commit suicide do it by the means available. That gets into a discussion about banning razor blades and tall buildings.

More information for you to ignore.

I await more of your "God meant us to have guns" links, and how Baghdad, Somalia, Columbia and Sierra Leone, the USA and other third world countries prove that the more guns, the better.

You're not John Lott, Jr. by any chance? Or maybe you are just on a per-victim commission to run block for the gun trade.

Wow. A link to the Brady Center. You call that "research" and "fact." That's not "disinterested third party," my friend. Brady wants to end gun ownership in America, and they'll say whatever they have to to achieve that end. These are the people that claim you can get through airport security with a Glock because it is plastic. And that AK-47s are "designed to be fired from the hip." They are proven to be liars and manipulators time and again, and of course, you're repeating their shit here almost word for word. They spread more lies about guns and gun owners than any group in the world, including IANSA. Let's talk logic, if you can. I spend enough time debating Brady... don't care to do it all here yet again... I cannot get you to stand up and defend your own bullshit postings. Again, clean up your own mess before you ask me to go and debate the victim-disarmament crowd at Brady.

You were doing so well with coherence, until that last sentence. You just can't help yourself, can you? You have no response whatsoever to how gun crime benefits law-abiding gun owners in the NRA. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. As usual. "Per-victim commission" ? Fuck. You. Really. Apparently you are OK with law abiding people being victims of gun crime, because that is who you want to disarm and leave helpless in the face of armed criminals who don't care about your moronic gun grabs.

Did you miss the article recently about how Baghdad is per capita safer than some American cities? With all those FULL AUTO machine guns around? And BTW... hows about you go look at gun laws in those places you mention. You're making my argument for me.

[sarcasm] I see your point! Somalia would be a wonderful place if they could just put some gun laws in place to stop the law abiding citizens from getting guns![/sarcasm]

If somebody in the US currently does not own a gun due to restrictions on ownership, I think that they are unlikely to be the kind of person who will use that gun violently. The kind of people who use guns for domestic violence are the kind of people who own guns without regard to their legality.

Your article just points out that the US is not doing enough to enforce current gun laws, it is nothing to do with legal guns being used for violence.

You are unbelievable!

A black hole into which the nonsense just pours in to come out in another dimension.

This is exactly why it is pointless debating anything with you.

The "proof" of the invalidity of any source is simply that it disagrees with you, and therefore is obviously false. The only way any source could be credible is if it agrees with you, therefore proving that you are right.

What a mental loop!

I'm out of here, don't know even why I bothered responding to the email link.

I prefer my nonsense with more wit attached to it.

Just to be sure, you won't be posting any links to NRA-funded/affiliated studies, right?

Also, why is a gun registry a bad idea?

Coming from you that's RICH. Here's what I did back in December... all in one place for you to go through:


OK, I'll humor you for a minute... pick ANY part of the bullshit Brady "smoking gun" PDF. Any one. And I'll be glad to explain it to you. I guess I can rest assured that you're not going to address your earlier mess.


Surely a person of your intellect knows what follows gun registration, right? And do people that don't care about laws follow laws that register? Of course not.

I'm here if you want to rebut any aspect of the link I posted earlier.

The problem with a gun discussion is that everyone's assumptions are *very* difficult to prove.

This isn't an easy problem with easy answers.

Let me guess: The concentration camps?

What followed car registration? THE GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY ALL OUR CARS, THAT'S WHAT!!11!

Oh wait, no it didn't.