jkcerda on 23/3/2018 at 20:48
if you don't liek Penn & teller you can always look up the supreme court case I linked.
kids are eating tide pods,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, they lack discipline & or parents who give a shit, you have stacks of retards going out on flash mobs beating up people for FUN
[video=youtube;yxBIVnjlKos]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxBIVnjlKos[/video]
world star hip hop is full of oxygen thieves.
we don't just "kill" wildlife, we happen to manage it. all you guys advocate for is more gun control because you have nothing else to cling to. who is shooting there kids? other kids through any means .
heywood on 23/3/2018 at 21:58
Quote Posted by catbarf
I gave a brief list of suggestions on the second page.
Is there anything in there you'd like to discuss?
I will second what catbarf said and add safe storage requirements, plugging the holes in the background check database, and extending background check requirements to private sales and gun shows. I would also consider licensing of gun owners specifically to enforce a gun safety training requirement, as long as the licensing model is shall-issue.
I think requiring gun safety training will help reduce accidental deaths. I think safe storage requirements will reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of kids as well as gun theft, as long the penalties for failing to safely store your gun when it gets into the wrong hands are significant enough and enforced. We've also had enough examples now where background checks have failed to red flag somebody who shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, due to incompleteness of the database. A significant portion of criminals get their guns from family members or friends, and the combination of safe storage and background check requirements for private transfers (sale or gift) could reduce that.
I'm also open to ideas on how we can prevent gun suicides. Waiting periods were an obvious idea. We should have some data now to indicate whether they have an effect.
I'm sure we could make better use of mental health information, but obviously you can't take away somebody's right without due process, and if a suicidal or homicidal person finds out that some judge is going to order seizure of their guns, that might just trigger them to act or to hide their weapons. So I'm not sure how well this would work.
In the major cities, we might also consider voluntary gun buybacks with no questions asked. Giving the cash strapped ghetto dweller a legit way to trade a gun for cash might reduce the black market.
What I'm not in favor of is banning stuff to little effect just so you can feel like you're doing something. The AR-15 is a classic example. It does what any other semi-automatic center-fire rifle does. If you look at which weapon types kill the most people, the ratio of handgun victims to rifle victims is around 20:1. Among rifle victims, I don't know how many are AR-15, but anecdotally, it seems small. So even if you think that banning a specific weapon will decrease gun deaths (I personally don't see any logic in that), I would think the AR-15 would be far down the list in terms of having any effect.
catbarf on 23/3/2018 at 22:15
Quote Posted by Nicker
Fair enough. Are these federal or state regulations / jurisdictions? Are you OK with states doing the regulation or would you agree that firearms need to be a federal matter?
They're mostly federal things I'm recommending, but most of them are about enforcing policies that are on the books but don't get the attention and funding they need. States' attempts to handle gun regulation thus far have devolved into either unenforceability or outright stupidity, like airline passengers being diverted to LaGuardia and being arrested in the airport when they're forced to take possession of their illegal-in-NY checked handgun. I think we're well past the point where this needs federal, standardized intervention.
You don't seem to talk at all in either post about what the 'militia' is, which is the issue at hand. The 'militia' is not and never has been a state-sanctioned body, and its modern equivalent is
not the National Guard, it's Selective Service. The Militia Acts of 1792 automatically conscripted every free, able-bodied, white, male citizen into state militias, and provided a mechanism by which those militias could be called to service. The requirement to be white was later dropped and the ages expanded, becoming the modern conscription system.
The Militia Acts do not state that ordinary citizens can be summoned to form militias and then be equipped appropriately. It established that all so qualified are part of the militia by default, and when called to serve are expected to provide their own weapons and equipment (I've actually read contemporary accounts of resentment from the citizenry, because furnishing your own weapon and ammunition was not cheap). It was not and is not a voluntary organization like a modern military or the National Guard. Every American who has filled out a Selective Service form is the militia.
If we want to talk about grammar, 'well-regulated' in 18th-century English did not mean 'government-controlled', as evidenced by contemporary texts referencing clocks or appetites as 'well-regulated'. It's more in line with 'well-functioning'. A 'well-regulated militia' is a militia sufficiently well equipped to do its job. With the Militia Acts defining the militia as the populace, and requiring that they provide their own weapons, the 'well-regulated militia' is having private citizens sufficiently armed to fight a war, like they just had when those words were written.
The 2nd Amendment was never intended to only grant the right to own weapons to a government-sanctioned militia. The Bill of Rights doesn't even grant rights to begin with; it assumes rights are inherent and only defines which rights the federal government is prohibited from interfering with. In this case, the text is intended to prevent the government from interfering with the common citizenry's natural right to be armed for the common defense. You cite Supreme Court Justice Stevens as an authoritative source, but in the landmark D.C. v Heller his was the minority opinion among the Court, with the majority supporting the interpretation I described. United States v. Miller (1939) also provides a frequently-cited precedent for the 2nd Amendment explicitly protecting military arms for ownership by private citizens.
Edit: I mean, like I've said before, if you want to argue that that right to personal armament for collective self defense is no longer necessary when we have the most powerful standing army of anyone in the world, I won't disagree at all. But that means a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is necessary, not trying to twist and reshape it with modern definitions of its operating words.
The Dickey Amendment didn't stop the Obama administration from commissioning the CDC to perform an (
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1) extensive assessment of gun crime and regulations after Sandy Hook. I remember there was a lot of fanfare about finally having some real research to work with- and when the report came out and actually found little data to support common gun control measures, it was quietly dropped. It did do a great job of analyzing the sources of firearms used in crime, long-term trends in both intentional and unintentional firearm deaths, a breakdown of mass shootings vs other homicide vs suicide. But nothing came of it.
I'm all for further research. If repealing the Dickey Amendment, a bill that was passed in response to the CDC overtly taking a partisan stance on the issue, is what's symbolically needed for the agency to overturn its internally-imposed ban on research, then so be it.
Starker on 23/3/2018 at 22:53
It's very difficult to be non-partisan if even the research into gun-related injuries is treated as gun control advocacy.
Quote Posted by catbarf
The Dickey Amendment didn't stop the Obama administration from commissioning the CDC to perform an (
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1) extensive assessment of gun crime and regulations after Sandy Hook. I remember there was a lot of fanfare about finally having some real research to work with- and when the report came out and actually found little data to support common gun control measures, it was quietly dropped. It did do a great job of analyzing the sources of firearms used in crime, long-term trends in both intentional and unintentional firearm deaths, a breakdown of mass shootings vs other homicide vs suicide. But nothing came of it.
It also made a pretty clear case that research in this area is sorely needed:
(
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/)
The Dickey amendment may not have expressly forbidden research, but it sent a very clear message, especially as the Congress took away even the paltry sum of money that CDC requested for researching gun violence. And if there's no money, there's no research.
LarryG on 23/3/2018 at 23:31
Quote Posted by jkcerda
if you don't liek Penn & teller you can always look up the supreme court case I linked.
I did. I agree with Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion, an opinion which Justice Souter, Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer concur. Given the deep division in the court on this issue, I don't think that anyone can say that the 2008 decision, while the current law of the land, is final. It overturned prior Supreme Court opinion ((
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html) United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)) where it was held that
Quote:
The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
The Supremes got it right in 1939 and wrong in 2008. Wait another 50+ years and see what future Supremes say.
What this means is that this is an area where great legal minds can rationally disagree.
We need to quit bantering about this and get to solving the problem: Too Many GUN Related Deaths and Injuries. Can we at least all agree that this is a problem worth solving? Forget any solutions for the moment. It this a fair statement of the problem?
jkcerda on 23/3/2018 at 23:33
dang Larry, we agree on something, SCOTUS gets things right & wrong, wrong on the unPatriot Act , but right on Heller, it's important to have the correct people in SCOTUS that is why I am glad cheeto hitler won over the most corrupt woman ever to run for office .
catbarf on 23/3/2018 at 23:41
Quote Posted by LarryG
The Supremes got it right in 1939
Including the last three lines you quoted?
Quote:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that
the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear
bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Because those pretty clearly contradict the notion that the 2nd Amendment is just about belonging to a government-run militia, and reaffirm the right of private individuals to possess military-grade weaponry, as jkcerda said. Maybe I've been misunderstanding your argument here?
Edit:
Quote Posted by LarryG
It this a fair statement of the problem?
It's close, but not complete, because 'too many gun related deaths or injuries' is too narrow of a focus. Even our non-firearm homicide rate alone is still double the total homicide rate of typical first-world countries. The problem is too many deaths and injuries by all methods; firearms are a major contributing factor that deserves to be addressed but far from the only thing separating us from more peaceful societies.
LarryG on 24/3/2018 at 03:37
Quote Posted by catbarf
Including the last three lines you quoted? ... Because those pretty clearly contradict the notion that the 2nd Amendment is just about belonging to a government-run militia, and reaffirm the right of private individuals to possess military-grade weaponry, as jkcerda said. Maybe I've been misunderstanding your argument here?
Especially including those lines. But you misinterpret them. Reading a little further in the opinion, and providing background for the ruling are examples of the legal obligations expected of those male citizens:
Quote:
"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence."
Quote:
"Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers."
Quote:
"That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. . . . That every Citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . ."
Quote:
"The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty."
It further provided for organization and control of the Militia, and directed that "All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years," with certain exceptions, "shall be inrolled or formed into companies." "There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months."
Also that
"Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . . every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges, and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents."
In short, all the legislation of the period expressed the right to bear arms as necessary to the defense of the state (New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, etc.) when called up by the state. This was a period when the individual states were the primary political unit, and the federal government was more a United Nations than a United States as we know it to be now. Your obligation as a male citizen between 16 and 45 (or 50 in some states) was to arm yourself, train yourself, and then show up when muster was called with those arms and defend the state from an aggressor (perhaps New Hampshire?). If you didn't have the required arms, you could be fined unless you could prove that you were too poor to buy them. The fines levied on those wealthy but delinquent in arming themselves would be used to arm the poor. There were no government provided arms or military training back then. It was a simpler time. We have since replaced this citizen militia concept over the past two hundred years with that of a federal standing army and with state militias. These governmental institutions now provide the necessary arms and training. The earlier legislated obligations are now repealed or ignored. Only the supporting "right to bear arms," enshrined in our constitution, but clearly no longer serving its original purpose and intent, remains. Sorry to disillusion you. But the if you believe in original intent, then you must understand that the 2nd amendment is 100% limited to the right and obligation of male citizens to defend the country, and not to having and holding weapons for any other, non-enumerated purpose. The only enumerated purpose stated in the constitution and amendments for the right to bear arms is as necessary to the security of a free State. Nothing else.
And right now, the widespread misinterpretation of this right and the consequences of that misinterpretation seriously threaten the very security that the right was intended to protect. Ironic a little?
catbarf on 24/3/2018 at 04:53
Quote Posted by LarryG
The only enumerated purpose stated in the constitution and amendments for the right to bear arms is as necessary to the security of a free State. Nothing else.
Which, again, does not mean that the protection provided by the amendment only applies to government-sanctioned militia duty. None of the amendments enumerated in the Bill of Rights grant rights to the people, let alone under specific conditions. They solely limit the ability of the government to encroach upon the natural rights assumed by every citizen. This is clear enough with all the other amendments- the First does not say you have the right to practice religion or express free speech, and then restrict those to specific contexts. It simply says the government cannot play favorites with religion and cannot restrict speech. The Fourth does not say you have the right to be secure in your own home, it says that that assumed right cannot be violated by the government without due cause. Every amendment is framed the same way.
The Second Amendment does not state that the people need to provide for the common defense, and thus grants them the right to bear arms in service of that duty. It states that a need for the common defense requires an armed citizenry, and on that basis forbids the government from restricting the citizenry's ability to be armed. The amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms, with the intended purpose being so that they can provide for the common defense if called upon, but neither the wording nor the context limit the right to that purpose.
I agree that it's no longer serving its original purpose. That does not mean it is being misinterpreted.
