Another Second Amendment win in California

[Mudcat]

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't.

I notice you have cited nothing to evidence your claim, likely because nothing is all you have.

No, you just failed to notice it or pretended it doesn't exist (the more likely option for a guntard).

(citation needed)

This is something you really need a cite for? The general public can barely handle driving a car responsibly, and that's something that they do on a more regular basis than handling fire arms.

I've shot with police officers before, some are good shots some are horrendous.

That goes without saying, but perhaps more important than firearms proficiency is ethics (as I'm sure you would agree).

Have you seen the NYC police in action?

No, I live in Louisville. The police here are generally professional, so I can only assume that the NYPD are the same.

At any rate, you claimed guns were unnecessary, therefore the police, politicians, and politicians bodyguards can all ditch their guns.

Unnecessary for the general public, and it would be better for the safety and security of society if they would disarm... The sooner, the better.

Then I'll get rid of mine.

Bigfoot scat.

Then repeal the 2nd Amendment, don't pretend it doesn't exist.

It doesn't need be repealed for it to be treated properly.

 

[3point14]

I can't disagree, but most California legislators have -0- interest in truth, historical or otherwise when it comes to "arms."

I think it's simply indicative of the fact that, over the last few decades, guns have had a budget, a whole corporate web of lobbyists*, well funded by the manufacturers of firearms who, understandably, want as large a customer base as possible.

No other weapon has had this backing, none, and therefore no other weapon, I would bet, is mentioned in statute quite as much.

I think it's indicative that the whole second amendment thing isn't the cultural rock it's painted as, but merely the pointy end of a sales campaign bounced of a convenient piece of badly written legislation.







*Deeply undemocratic, they should be illegal.

 

[WildCat]

The words "lawful self-defense" didn't exist in the Second Amendment before or now. The Ninth Circuit is referring to words that aren't in the Amendment. That's all I'm saying. I'm saying that when they cite the right to "lawful self-defense" in the Second Amendment they are expanding the legal definition of the Second Amendment.

Why are all the pro-gun advocates resisting this? That this is an expansion of an individual's rights under the Second Amendment? Is this gun lobby strategy? In a discussion DO NOT ADMIT that the recent court decisions have expanded or enlarged the scope of the Second Amendment? Why?



No the word abortion doesn't appear in the Constitution and I wouldn't pretend it did. The right to an abortion was hailed as a groundbreaking decision. That the right to privacy in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was extended to cover a woman's right to an abortion. It was a clear expansion of the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same way a court suddenly finding the Second Amendment covers an individual's right to carry a gun for "lawful self-defense" is a clear expansion of the Second Amendment.

What it is about the word "expansion" that seems to bother you so much?

You've provided no evidence whatsoever for your claims that this is an expansion of the 2nd Amendment, and you've ignored all evidence that contradicts you. You even refused to read the historical analysis given in the Peruta v. San Diego decision.

At some point you're gong to have to try something different than argument by assertion, and provide evidence of your claims.

One other thing you have to bear in mind is the draconian restrictions that brought about the recent and current 2nd Amendment lawsuits didn't exist until the 1980s and really picked up steam in the 2000s.

 

[WildCat]

No, it doesn't.



No, you just failed to notice it or pretended it doesn't exist (the more likely option for a guntard).




This is something you really need a cite for? The general public can barely handle driving a car responsibly, and that's something that they do on a more regular basis than handling fire arms.



That goes without saying, but perhaps more important than firearms proficiency is ethics (as I'm sure you would agree).



No, I live in Louisville. The police here are generally professional, so I can only assume that the NYPD are the same.



Unnecessary for the general public, and it would be better for the safety and security of society if they would disarm... The sooner, the better.



Bigfoot scat.



It doesn't need be repealed for it to be treated properly.

I see you still have no evidence to support your claims.

Why don't you try posting an actual argument next time, or is this the best you can do?

 

[WildCat]

I think it's simply indicative of the fact that, over the last few decades, guns have had a budget, a whole corporate web of lobbyists*, well funded by the manufacturers of firearms who, understandably, want as large a customer base as possible.

More unsupported assertions.

This is why the anti-gunners keep losing landmark court rulings, you have to have actual arguments to win a court case. It's the same reason the anti-gay marriage people keep losing in court.

eta: and as for your completely unsupported claim that the NRA is funded by firearms manufacturers, manufacturers contributed less than $15 million from 2005-1022. The NRA's income in 2011 alone was over $200 million, so firearms manufacturers contribute a very small percentage of the NRA's budget. It always was and remains a grass roots organization funded by gun owners.

 

[Mudcat]

I see you still have no evidence to support your claims.

The requirement for evidence belong to people making a positive claim, not a negative one... You are the one making the positive claim.

Why don't you try posting an actual argument next time, or is this the best you can do?

Here is a irrefutable argument: If we were talking about any other item apart from guns, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

If you weren't acting like an unreasonable child on the matter, you would understand that this is a dangerous item that requires restriction for the interests of a safe and secure society.

 

[3point14]

More unsupported assertions.

This is why the anti-gunners keep losing landmark court rulings, you have to have actual arguments to win a court case. It's the same reason the anti-gay marriage people keep losing in court.

eta: and as for your completely unsupported claim that the NRA is funded by firearms manufacturers, manufacturers contributed less than $15 million from 2005-1022. The NRA's income in 2011 alone was over $200 million, so firearms manufacturers contribute a very small percentage of the NRA's budget. It always was and remains a grass roots organization funded by gun owners.

1. Can you show me from where you garner the view that I am 'anti gun'. It's your country, I am neither pro nor anti gun (whatever that means) I simply find the situation and, particularly, the second amendment*, deeply fascinating from an outsider's perspective.

2. I certainly didn't mean it as an assertion, more of a musing on why guns are so well represented in supreme court rulings on the second amendment (which doesn't mention guns specifically at all, as you know) and other 'arms' are not. It seems odd, and I think there might be a root cause for it that will move the debate along**

3. I thank you for information I did not preiously have on the funding of the NRA. I'd like to see the figures over the years since the NRA formed. Were they more well supported by the arms industry when the NRA was first formed or have the numbers always balanced roughly this way?





*A deeply flawed and very badly written piece of legislation


*tongue in cheek. This debate is going absolutely nowhere, which is one of the reasons I find it so fascinating.

 

[WildCat]

The requirement for evidence belong to people making a positive claim, not a negative one... You are the one making the positive claim.

I've already shown the evidence of my claim. You've provided nothing but unsupported assertions.

And you did make positive claims - you said the traditional meaning of the 2nd Amendment doesn't pertain to private firearms ownership. Goy any evidence of that?

Here is a irrefutable argument: If we were talking about any other item apart from guns, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

If you weren't acting like an unreasonable child on the matter, you would understand that this is a dangerous item that requires restriction for the interests of a safe and secure society.

Special pleading fallacy, as well as ignoring the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution.

1. Can you show me from where you garner the view that I am 'anti gun'. It's your country, I am neither pro nor anti gun (whatever that means) I simply find the situation and, particularly, the second amendment*, deeply fascinating from an outsider's perspective.

2. I certainly didn't mean it as an assertion, more of a musing on why guns are so well represented in supreme court rulings on the second amendment (which doesn't mention guns specifically at all, as you know) and other 'arms' are not. It seems odd, and I think there might be a root cause for it that will move the debate along**

3. I thank you for information I did not preiously have on the funding of the NRA. I'd like to see the figures over the years since the NRA formed. Were they more well supported by the arms industry when the NRA was first formed or have the numbers always balanced roughly this way?





*A deeply flawed and very badly written piece of legislation


*tongue in cheek. This debate is going absolutely nowhere, which is one of the reasons I find it so fascinating.

The NRA was founded after the Civil War by an ex-military officer appalled at the state of marksmanship in this country. Their mission was to promote marksmanship and the shooting sports, and they evolved to protect the 2nd Amendment after it came under attack.

If you want insight into the definition od "arms" read the majority opinion of the Heller v. DC opinion.

 

[3point14]

The NRA was founded after the Civil War by an ex-military officer appalled at the state of marksmanship in this country. Their mission was to promote marksmanship and the shooting sports, and they evolved to protect the 2nd Amendment after it came under attack.

Thank you for that

If you want insight into the definition od "arms" read the majority opinion of the Heller v. DC opinion.

Ah, now that's just an opinion. A binding one from a court, but there's no way anyone can be sure that the definition from that ruling is what was meant at the time the legislation was written. furthermore, all such opinions are subject to being changed in the future. My interest is in why people are all over the second amendment when there's gunpowder but not when it's say, a stick with a nail hammered into it.



can I just ask again:

1. Can you show me from where you garner the view that I am 'anti gun'.

 

[tyr_13]

The words "lawful self-defense" didn't exist in the Second Amendment before or now. The Ninth Circuit is referring to words that aren't in the Amendment. That's all I'm saying. I'm saying that when they cite the right to "lawful self-defense" in the Second Amendment they are expanding the legal definition of the Second Amendment.

The words don't have to. Freedom of the 'press' and 'speech' wasn't 'expanded' when it applied to writings produced with intaglio or ink jet printers instead of a 'press'. Furthermore, the idea that using a gun for defense wasn't a consideration or part of the right to bear arms isn't supported by anything other than assertion, and frankly is baffling to me.

They aren't expanding the definition; they're citing it.

Why are all the pro-gun advocates resisting this? That this is an expansion of an individual's rights under the Second Amendment? Is this gun lobby strategy? In a discussion DO NOT ADMIT that the recent court decisions have expanded or enlarged the scope of the Second Amendment? Why?

I can't speak for Wildcat, especially as we disagree on much, but I'm 'resisting' it because I think you're dead wrong. It was these counties in California who were reducing the scope of the 2nd Amendment and the courts made them stop. This isn't an expansion.

 

[newyorkguy]

The figures on the NRA budget provided earlier (without any reference) do not match what Business Insider published two months ago in an article entitled This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA:

In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence. While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.

The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990. Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business. Link

I wouldn't describe myself as anti-gun either. I remain baffled as to why the resistance to the seemingly obvious statement that recent court decisions have expanded the scope of the Second Amendment. The notion that if you make that statement you must be anti-gun.

 

[3point14]

The words don't have to. Freedom of the 'press' and 'speech' wasn't 'expanded' when it applied to writings produced with intaglio or ink jet printers instead of a 'press'. Furthermore, the idea that using a gun for defense wasn't a consideration or part of the right to bear arms isn't supported by anything other than assertion, and frankly is baffling to me.

They aren't expanding the definition; they're citing it.



I can't speak for Wildcat, especially as we disagree on much, but I'm 'resisting' it because I think you're dead wrong. It was these counties in California who were reducing the scope of the 2nd Amendment and the courts made them stop. This isn't an expansion.

It is, at least, a change though?

 

[WildCat]

can I just ask again:

You're the final arbiter of that, so I'll take your word for it. Your repeating anti-gun talking points mislead me.

 

[WildCat]

The figures on the NRA budget provided earlier (without any reference) do not match what Business Insider published two months ago in an article entitled This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA:

Midway USA - the largest contributor - gets it money from customers who round up their bills as a contribution to the NRA. For example if your bill is $75.31, you are given the option of paying $76 with the 69 cents going to the NRA. So it's not Midway that contributes, they're just bundling customers contributions.

Midway does not manufacture firearms either, they're a retail store that sells shooting accessories and ammunition along with a bunch of other stuff. They don't even sell firearms aside from air rifles.

 

[newyorkguy]

...I'm 'resisting' it because I think you're dead wrong. It was these counties in California who were reducing the scope of the 2nd Amendment and the courts made them stop. This isn't an expansion.

Localities have restricted who may carry a gun in their jurisdiction for two centuries. That was firmly established by case law and upheld for decades by courts. Now that's changing. These court decisions are saying the right to carry a gun is absolute. That cities and states do not have the right to restrict it. The idea is, as the Ninth Circuit has decided, the Second Amendment guarantees to Americans the right to carry a gun. To carry. Free of any government interference. If that isn't a fundamental change I don't know what would be.

I understand the gun lobby tacticians want to keep a low profile. I think they're trying to get this change through under the radar. Even states like Florida still require a permit for concealed carry. Under this new interpretation -- if it's upheld -- Florida might not be able to do that. Citizens don't need permits to exercise a right guaranteed them under the Constitution.

Only it's not clear that these decisions will withstand the challenges that are already being planned. Thus the word goes out: Don't celebrate just yet.

 

[Mudcat]

I've already shown the evidence of my claim. You've provided nothing but unsupported assertions.

I have, but you just pretend they don't exist because the reality disagrees with your personally held belief.

And you did make positive claims - you said the traditional meaning of the 2nd Amendment doesn't pertain to private firearms ownership. Goy any evidence of that?

Hilite mine. In order to show the part you trying so hard to ignore, but shows why mine is a negative claim. A couple other things:

1. You did not, in fact, show any evidence. All you did was said go read some court decision on the issue. Providing evidence means that you quote what supports your case and summarize it.
2. I did supply evidence, despite making a negative claim.

Special pleading fallacy.

I demand that guns be treated the same as any dangerous item and be subject to stringent control and restrictions.

You believe that guns are special because their ownership is a 'right' and you accuse me of special pleading?

Oh no!!! There goes my irony meter!!!​

as well as ignoring the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution.

That is the second clause of a poorly written and even more poorly understood amendment. A second clause trumped by the first clause, pertaining to militias.

 

[3point14]

You're the final arbiter of that, so I'll take your word for it. Your repeating anti-gun talking points mislead me.

Repeating?

Look, I appreciate you feel that you're under attack, but simply dismissing anyone who makes enquiry or states an opinion contrary to your own as 'anti-gun' so you can disregard their opinions and thoughts as deeply biased really doesn't help. It is precisely the opposite of critical thinking.

 

[Mudcat]

It is precisely the opposite of critical thinking.

So is completely ignoring the legitimate argument of the anti-gun because they are the enemy, or whatever reason the pro-gun side uses.

I understand that they perceive the private ownership to be a civil right. I disagree with that perspective, but even if it was a civil right the pro-gun side needs to realize that we live in a society. And as a society we are obligated to consider the issue of public safety and security, so we must take the responsibility limit the access to firearms and insure that those that do are qualified in their safe use and won't use them inappropriately.

I have yet to see a legitimate argument to the contrary.

 

[3point14]

So is completely ignoring the legitimate argument of the anti-gun because they are the enemy, or whatever reason the pro-gun side uses.

I understand that they perceive the private ownership to be a civil right. I disagree with that perspective, but even if it was a civil right the pro-gun side needs to realize that we live in a society. And as a society we are obligated to consider the issue of public safety and security, so we must take the responsibility limit the access to firearms and insure that those that do are qualified in their safe use and won't use them inappropriately.

I have yet to see a legitimate argument to the contrary.

It's deeply cultural with, I suspect, an awful lot of revisionism just for good measure.


The bottom line is that the second amendment is an utterly, utterly lousy piece of legislation and it's screwed all of you, it's screwed those who want guns by not being precise enough and screwed those who don't for exactly the same reason.

The irony is, you just can't change it. I mean, the founding fathers realised that their document may need amending and added provisions for just that, but that is now impossible (oh the irony, amending an amendment isn't possible) partly because you guys could never agree on a revised wording, and partly because, despite the best intentions of the writers of the document, many US citizens believe that it should never, ever be amended.

 

[WildCat]

I have, but you just pretend they don't exist because the reality disagrees with your personally held belief.



Hilite mine. In order to show the part you trying so hard to ignore, but shows why mine is a negative claim. A couple other things:

1. You did not, in fact, show any evidence. All you did was said go read some court decision on the issue. Providing evidence means that you quote what supports your case and summarize it.
2. I did supply evidence, despite making a negative claim.

You claimed that the 2nd Amendment, as originally construed, did not encompass private firearms ownership, so it must have been applicable only to public firearms ownership. This is not a negative claim, it is a positive one. You have shown no evidence to back up this bizarre notion that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment really means "the government". You've cited no writings from the period, no court cases. All you've provided is assertions you regurgitated from somewhere.

I demand that guns be treated the same as any dangerous item and be subject to stringent control and restrictions.

They are subject to stringent controls and restrictions. Few things have as many as firearms do.

You believe that guns are special because their ownership is a 'right' and you accuse me of special pleading?

Yes, you are engaged in special pleading, and keeping and bearing arms is every much the civil right that freedom of speech, assembly, and religion is.

That is the second clause of a poorly written and even more poorly understood amendment. A second clause trumped by the first clause, pertaining to militias.

First clause is a collective right, 2nd clause is an individual right. It's really not poorly written until you try to do the mental gymnastics necessary to define "the people" as something other than "the people".