The Dark Lord
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,859
It is a conspiracy theory. Never happened. There is no "true motive".
What is with guns and paranoia?
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun issues gun rights
It is a conspiracy theory. Never happened. There is no "true motive".
Cain
Straussian
There's no publication date on the article (I think I've seen it before), but it's probably 20 years old since liberal law professor Laurence Tribe famously switched from a collective rights view to an individual rights view. I'm not much interested in debating the merits of one side against the other, and I'll just continue to accept an individual rights view for the purpose of argument (and the reality that five men in black robes decided it was correct).
OK. So earlier you argued government could require a permit for concealed carry because it has a "vested interest in public safety" (I don't see how that stands up to the NRA's own rhetoric, which is that outlaws are not going to apply for a permit, and besides, "MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME," and Gary Kleck proved blah blah blah), so... on what grounds can the government tell us how we should store firearms in our own homes? If safe storage laws are supposed to protect the public, then why not make prospective gun owners apply for a
---------
crimresearch:
Wow.
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for civility.
For someone who criticized me for using the notorious buzzwords "find persuasive," it's ironic this is at least the second time you've misused "moving the goalposts" (without specification) and with the bizarre reference to Jim Crow.
You're straying off topic...
While guns laws have been created to disarm blacks -- Ronald Reagan and other white people were absolutely terrified of Panthers entering the California state house with firearms... it really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Whether or not a blind man should be allowed to own a gun is a bit more on topic...
Yeah, I'll be sure to amp up all my anti-14th Amendment rhetoric, which I continue to spout.
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for civility.
Last edited by a moderator:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
If you had read Heller, you would have seen that The Embarrassing... was referenced in the dicta.
I'm not an N.R.A. spokesman, and you asked me for my opinion.
I don't know what purpose you have in mind bringing them into our discussion.
In California, we already have a scheme called the Basic Handgun Safety Certificate, which is intended to make sure that handgun buyers demonstrate safe handing techniques and can pass a written test on safe storage, lawful transportation laws etc. before purchase.
Does it have a positive effect on safety? I have no idea and the state Bureau of Fireams doesn't either, but it makes somebody feel good and keeps DOJ BOF workers busy.
You're going in circles with your permit fetish.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
yeah nations with so many guns per capita are really barbaric, filled with bloodlusty gunnuts running around playing cowboys. i would never want to live in a country with so many guns per capita as the US.
Guns per capita.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Gun related death rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Ranb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Gun related death rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Ranb
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
Yes. If he/she thinks that is a gun should be part of his/her home protection plan then they should be allowed to buy one. I don't know how many do, but I am against outlawing something that isn't a problem. For the record, I'm OK with blind people buying cars and chainsaws as well.
South Carolina has declared November 23-24 2012 to be a sales tax holiday for all guns. There will be no sales tax charged on any gun purchased on those two days. Ammunition and accessories like holsters, slings and scopes will be taxed normally.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
It would be more logical to stick to what has actually been posted. Your personal attacks only serve to prove my point.
The topic is Heller and McDonald. They applied the 14th amendment to the 2nd in affirming individual rights.
You made the claim that the Court ignored precedent in doing so.
You haven't produced a single cite to support that, and you've hand waved away links to the actual decision showing the precedent, as 'vomit'.
You claimed that the Heller and McDonald rulings were disputed by legal scholars, and failed to produce any links supporting that. Now you want to move the goalposts to pre-Heller failed arguments, and make up the strawman that I brought them up.
And your attempt to spin your way out of your rejection of the 14th amendment and equal rights under the 2nd (or any other) amendment, is shall we say, 'not persuasive'.
The plural of denial isn't 'proof'.
Last edited:
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
There used to be a car in Virginia that had handicapped plates that spelled out BLIND...
And yes, the whole point of the 14th amendment is that there has to be a *compelling* reason to deny equal treatment under the law.
Being blind could be a compelling reason to deny someone a hunting license, driver's license, or a carry permit, it isn't a compelling reason to say they cannot have a gun sitting in a drawer in their house. If they commit a crime with it, then give them equal treatment under the law for that as well.
And being a resident of inner DC or Chicago instead of being wealthy enough to live in some gated enclave, isn't a compelling reason for someone like Otis McDonald to not be alllowed a gun in a drawer in his house.
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,396
Before leaving a state that has TX CFL reciprocity for a state that doesn't, he could mail the pistol to the next state that does, and pick it up there - of course this would only work if he isn't in a hurry.
Cain
Straussian
Do you see how this does not follow? I'm not asking you to speak on behalf of the NRA.
From now on I'm going to mention a
----------------------------
RenaissanceBiker
Maybe I should have been more specific. Granted, I did say home protection, but you are a respected Constitutional lawyer. The purchaser buys the gun for their own use. Not as a collector, to feel it up every so often. ("Marge, I felt this incredible power holding a gun. The kind of power GOD must feel when HE holds a gun!") I'm pretty sure most people oppose allowing the blind to drive.
---------------
Ranb
Your sarcasm detector is broken.
--------------
crimresearch:
I don't mind making comments in passing, but it is something you would lecture about sticking to what "actually has been posted"...
Strained. The topic is guns and paranoia, which has branched off into the Second Amendment, and then Heller and McDonald. I am guessing there is no amount of explaining that can disabuse you from this 14th Amendment fetish now, but you're not reading my posts, and do not understand my arguments.
How many Supreme Court cases have you seen on the Second Amendment? Think about this because at least one other poster deduced the vital case. Do you really think Heller would have instantly won "landmark" status if it had maintained the status quo? Then think back on gun laws predating this case. Then think back on all the lower courts that upheld gun laws since.
Here you are again misusing and abusing terms you do not understand. This is sort of like asking me to produce journal articles saying evolution is real. Do you sincerely believe there are no arguments in law journals discussing and analyzing the Second Amendment before-and-after Heller? Get. A. Clue. Major court cases, especially controversial rulings, invite an avalanche of commentary.
I'm sorry your baseless accusation was met with what it deserved. I'll be much more kind the next time some asks me to "prove" something I do not believe, at which point they're free to go off on ill-advised tangents about race in America.
It is not broken. I merely posted some data I thought was relevant. If you are referring to the post made by DC immediately prior to mine, I was fully aware of the smile icon at the end of it. I think you are trolling again. Perhaps you could be more civil in this thread by not trying to pick a fight, keeping the sarcasm to a minimum and providing evidence to back up your claims?
Ranb
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
I'm not a lawyer and never said I was. Even though the goalpost keeps moving, I think I can still hit it from here.
He or she could buy it for his or her own use or for the use of another. "Son, I bought a shotgun so you can kill that fox that's killing our chickens and a pistol so you can protect your mother and sister from those theives that tried to break in last week. I like that shotgun. I fired it off the back deck over the pond to check the action. Your Ma said it was all clear to shoot. I do love to shoot a shotgun in a non-sexual way."
What part of your arguement does this statement support?
Owning a car is different from driving a car. "Son, I bought us a car to replace the one those theives stole. I also bought a chainsaw so that Sam the farmhand can clear out those scrub trees. Now drive me down to the gun store."
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
So the concern that people get equal rights in America is a 'fetish', linking to court rulings citing the 14th is 'vomiting irrelevant nonsense', arguing against racist laws is 'ill advised', but you don't actually believe what you've posted.
Well, why didn't you say so way back when?
I own firearms for target shooting and home protection. I used to do a bit of hunting when I was younger, but gave that up many years back. My personal observations from visiting my local gun shop, is that since Obama got elected, business there has been very good indeed. On the surface, the people who work at the shop, don't like Obama; but I willing to bet that come election day, many if not most of them(especially the ownership) will do their duty to keep guns and ammo sales up. That means doing their part in keeping President Obama in office.
The Dark Lord
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,859
So Obama is supposedly signing some UN treaty that bans guns this month. Of course, there is no way that Obama would sign such a treaty. Even if he wants to ban guns, he presumably wants to be reelected more. And even if he did sign such a treaty there is no way that 67 Senators are going to go along with it as is required for ratification. And even if they did, the Constitution is supreme over any treaty so it would be struck down.
The reality of the situation is that there is a treaty being discussed that Obama may sign but it is concerning international small arms trade and would have no effect on domestic laws.
The reality of the situation is that there is a treaty being discussed that Obama may sign but it is concerning international small arms trade and would have no effect on domestic laws.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Cain:
From now on I'm going to mention a license permit certificate. But you're right, this has been a bit like pulling teeth. Would you be OK with a certificate as a condition for buying a gun to better ensure that firearms owners can demonstrate basic competence?
Past the 4473, proper ID, proof of residency and an instant background check, I see no compelling reason for additional restrictions or governmental authorization for simple possession of a firearm.
You want to hunt? Hunter safety class and hunting license.
You want to carry? whatever rules your state of residence requires for classroom and range qualification.
Want to engage in the business of selling firearms? Fed. and State licenses, record keeping, employee background checks and safe storage.
Want to manufacture firearms? Fed and state licensing, record keeping, employee background checks, safe storage.
On another note, there's a reason that Second Amendment cases failed before Heller.
Earlier challenges pretty much failed for a simple reason - every petioner came before the court with dirty hands.
Before Heller, Mcdonald and a whole slough of civil cases you haven't heard of (California state court cases) the run-of-the-mill firearms case that went up the appeals chain involved someone tried and convicted in lower courts, and honestly no matter the facts about whatever law was invovled, the court usually doesn't look with favor upon violators of well established criminal statutes.
Here's an exception to that:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/600/case.html
Staples v. U.S.
I'd advise reading it for a peek into what's next wrt civil actions against state anti-gun statutes.
The foundation I'm involved with is actively looking for clean hands plantiffs in every county in California that have either been denied rights, or had their rights violated by false arrest and confiscation of their legal firearms.
The sad thing is that we have no shortage of plantiffs, and not enough money to litigate every case, and in many recent cases the municipality or county invovled has simply settled out of court to avoid setting up an environment for a good win (think Heller or Mcdonald) for our side.
From now on I'm going to mention a license permit certificate. But you're right, this has been a bit like pulling teeth. Would you be OK with a certificate as a condition for buying a gun to better ensure that firearms owners can demonstrate basic competence?
Past the 4473, proper ID, proof of residency and an instant background check, I see no compelling reason for additional restrictions or governmental authorization for simple possession of a firearm.
You want to hunt? Hunter safety class and hunting license.
You want to carry? whatever rules your state of residence requires for classroom and range qualification.
Want to engage in the business of selling firearms? Fed. and State licenses, record keeping, employee background checks and safe storage.
Want to manufacture firearms? Fed and state licensing, record keeping, employee background checks, safe storage.
On another note, there's a reason that Second Amendment cases failed before Heller.
Earlier challenges pretty much failed for a simple reason - every petioner came before the court with dirty hands.
Before Heller, Mcdonald and a whole slough of civil cases you haven't heard of (California state court cases) the run-of-the-mill firearms case that went up the appeals chain involved someone tried and convicted in lower courts, and honestly no matter the facts about whatever law was invovled, the court usually doesn't look with favor upon violators of well established criminal statutes.
Here's an exception to that:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/600/case.html
Staples v. U.S.
I'd advise reading it for a peek into what's next wrt civil actions against state anti-gun statutes.
The foundation I'm involved with is actively looking for clean hands plantiffs in every county in California that have either been denied rights, or had their rights violated by false arrest and confiscation of their legal firearms.
The sad thing is that we have no shortage of plantiffs, and not enough money to litigate every case, and in many recent cases the municipality or county invovled has simply settled out of court to avoid setting up an environment for a good win (think Heller or Mcdonald) for our side.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
No treaty can override Constitutional protections and the BoR.
Fear mongers are beating the drum, but they're doing it to push an agenda, not sound a true alarm.
They should remember the story about the Boy who Cried Wolf.
Cain
Straussian
Another person who has no apparent idea what it means to move goalposts.
Which is why, if it was not clear already, I said he bought it for personal use, but I'm sure you'd rather just ape language you've on heard on these boards and hope it sticks...
Again, even though this was anticipated and addressed, you still missed it, which is why I subsequently clarified that it was for personal use. Try again.
-------------------------------
ranb
I'm not sure what else you could think I was possibly referring to, but I'll take your word for it. It's not as though you have a history of missing the most obviously sarcastic comments.
-----------------------------
crimresearch
In my Intro to American Govt. course, I spend a day and a half lecturing on the 14th Amendment, noting it's involved in more Supreme Court cases than any other Amendment, and regarded by some as "the most important" (if such a statement makes any sense). It's perfectly fine to argue against racist laws, but your tireless haranguing is wildly off base. Wildly.
------------------------------
BStrong
And even in the case of Heller, a half-dozen (or so) other people were recruited to challenge the the D.C. ban, but I don't think you're drawing the right conclusion. As you go on to say, you've had "no shortage of willing plantiffs." The gun rights lobby could not get a win because courts have been hostile to their views over the years. There's been a significant and organized decades long push back, which has influenced scholarship, judges and the courts. Like I said, even famed Constitutional expert Laurence Tribe flipped to the individual rights view.
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
First you didn't want a blind person to buy a car, then you didn't want him to drive it. If he buys it so someone else can drive him around, it is for his personal use.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
State on the proposed U.N. small arms treaty:
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/
KEY U.S. REDLINES
• The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
• There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
• There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
• The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
• The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
• There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
• There will be no lowering of current international standards.
• Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
• The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
• There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/
KEY U.S. REDLINES
• The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
• There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
• There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
• The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
• The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
• There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
• There will be no lowering of current international standards.
• Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
• The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
• There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT