Let's see...
Grades too low, so St. Paul dad pulls AK-47, charges say
Authorities: NM teen accused of killing family put rifles in van, planned Wal-Mart shootout
Gunman in Ala. bus shooting holds boy hostage in bunker
And breaking just a few hours ago...
3 shot at Phoenix office building
And these are just highlights of the last week.
Yes, I see it now. Our gun laws are sufficient and seem to be working out just fine. In fact, we need less regulation and more guns in light of these events. That'll solve the problem, George Orwell.
What was I thinking?
39 comments:
Given the following…
This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
— Markadelphia
and this…
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(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.
… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people [from] betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes?
Oh and this…
Is the Constitution law?
After all, gun control has worked out so well in the past.
Who is "we?" All 11 percent of you?
What's sad about your comments is that there is nothing new here. It's clear that do it again only harder is your credo, not mine, and that's your problem. In fact, this is your problem with nearly all issues. You say the same garbage over and over again and then, when pressed for something new and out of the box, you have nothing. What does that say to voters? They see that you are incapable of progress.
The system we have now isn't working. It's going to change. You better start getting used to the idea.
You say the same garbage over and over again and then, when pressed for something new and out of the box, you have nothing.
Because reality is reality - just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it isn't the right one.
The system we have now isn't working.
The system we have now is working better than any alternative system you can come up with. (I see you've stopped pushing mental health and are in full blown gun control mode)
It's going to change. You better start getting used to the idea.
No. You better get used to hearing that.
There will be universal background checks, an improved NICS system, more mental health screenings and tighter enforcement of existing laws. Why you are against these things and think we have the best we can have with 11,000 gun deaths a year is why YOU are going to have to get used to change...again. The country is moving on without you guys and your bizarre fantasies about government.
Who is "we?"
Those who comment here. Or if you want the full fire hose, try making this argument over at TSM.
11%?
A) Baloney. That's wishful thinking on your part.
And B)
The man who is right is a majority. We, who have God and conscience on our side, have a majority against the universe.
— Fredrick Douglass
As for what gd wrote: Ditto. "Get used to disappointment."
11,000 gun deaths a year
Source?
You're throwing this number out like every single death by gunshot is an illegitimate death. Do you really want to make that claim?
Yes, if only there were more federal laws to stop such lawlessness.
That just must be the answer!
universal background checks
Impossible to implement successfully without also requiring universal gun registration. That will not happen.
Left out is also the realization that universal would mean requiring a background check to pass down to a family member grandpa's old hunting gun. That will also not happen.
improved NICS system
Improved? By improving the incompetent current government implementation? Fine, good luck with that. Is government, is incompetent and inefficient by definition.
more mental health screenings
Without cause you must rely upon voluntary treatment. If voluntary treatment automatically causes denied rights then people will not seek voluntary treatment. Catch 22.
tighter enforcement of existing laws
Holy crap! The NRA has been saying that for two decades.
Is the right to keep and bear arms granted by the constitution or is that right pre-existing?
The constitution can be amended, but if a right pre-exists could it be repealed even through the amendment process?
bizarre fantasies about government
You mean the same EXACT ideas about government as the people who emplaced our government? Yeah, that is bizarre....
Issuing an imperial edict doesn't instantly translate into fact. The fundamental meaning of the Constitution has been debated since it was written by the men who wrote it in the same way we are debating now. Since you have an obsession with scriptural literalism, it's no wonder you have the view that you do.
Given the last few elections, it's obvious that those views are being revealed for what they are: not accurate. In typical fashion, you and NMN refuse to accept that you may be wrong and, instead, think people like me are stupid. That's why you lost the last election...people are stupid. It's obvious to me that the only fools we have now are those who share your ideology-a complete inability to admit error.
This is why people in your own party are saying you guys are the stupid party.
NMN, my source is the CDC. Actually, that's just the violent crime number. Add in the accidents and its more like 30,000.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Given the last few elections
Is that counting the 2010 election that returned control of the House to Republicans? Or are you just being a dishonest partisan hack, again.
my source is the CDC.
Yet you don't have a link to WISQARS. I do, and you have to add in suicides to get anywhere near 30,000.
Accidents aren't even in the statistical noise.
And you yourself talked about how murder was on a long, steady downtrend and that the media and opportunist politicians were being deceitful in stoking irrational fear - that was until you decided to join in with your leftie brethren.
Issuing an imperial edict doesn't instantly translate into fact
?????
Like "It's going to change. You better start getting used to the idea."?
That kinda edict?
Since you have an obsession with scriptural literalism, it's no wonder you have the view that you do.
WTF are you talking about, and to whom?
The fundamental meaning of the Constitution...way we are debating now
Except that you resolutely refuse to address FUNDAMENTALS in the rare times you do address the constitution.
What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Does it grant rights, or does it restrict the government from infringing upon pre-existing rights?
And of course, your last post was full of insult and unsupported supposition. Despite having several facts posted that you could rather have discussed.
What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Does it grant rights, or does it restrict the government from infringing upon pre-existing rights?
We've covered this ground before. The best measure for the second amendment today is Heller and the writer of that decision, Scalia. As I said before, I agree with everything he says in that brief. It's unconstitutional for a city or state to ban handguns. It's possible that the right to bear arms can also extend to some military style weapons. The second amendment is not unlimited (just the first amendment is not unlimited which I brought up in one of the last threads and you never responded to). Essentially, it's up to Congress and there has been tort over the years that allows constitutional leeway. Ultimately, it's up to Congress to decide what a "really horrible weapon" is.
I'm not issuing imperial edicts, GD. I'm stating facts. The system we have now is not working. It needs to be refined and I will agree that banning guns isn't the answer. This isn't a supply problem, it's a demand problem. There are many people that are demanding guns that should not have them. In addition to the groups stipulated under the GCA of 1968, people with mental health issues should have to go through regular screenings to maintain their licenses.
The best measure for the second amendment today is Heller and the writer of that decision, Scalia.
Who LEGITIMATELY gets to define the meaning of something which has been written? The author(s)? Or someone else?
That's actually a good question, NMN. The answer is both. The Constitution is a living document. It was made that way. The founding fathers laid the groundwork and knew that future leaders (like Scalia) would have to deal changing circumstances. That's just what Scalia did in Heller. He astutely balanced the past and the present, taking care to consider all tort since the time of the Constitution, and look at the second Amendment in a cumulative way.
Regarding militias, what are your thoughts on Presser v Illinois
I didn't say "Constitutinon". My question was much more general.
Is it legitimate for anyone to take sometime written by someone else, have them claim it means something different than what the author intended, then have that different meaning override the original author's intent?
For example, if I took this statement by you, "This isn't a supply problem, it's a demand problem." and said that it means you think "people aren't eating enough babies"*, would it be legitimate for my "interpretation" to override your intended meaning? Why, or why not?
( * Note: I am not actually saying that's what Mark meant by that statement. This is a thought experiment to demonstrate my point.)
Rats! Fumble fingers misspelling of "Constitution".
I brought up in one of the last threads and you never responded to
Ahh. Thought you'd abandoned that thread.
As I said before, I agree with everything he says in that brief
No, you agree with everything in that brief as you understand and comprehend it.
The second amendment is not unlimited (just the first amendment is not unlimited
Explain in what manner the first is not unlimited. Is speech subject to prior restraint? Can you actually yell fire in a crowded theater?
it's up to Congress
That you can even say that is ridiculous on it's face. Congress does not determine what is constitutional.
people with mental health issues should have to go through regular screenings to maintain their licenses.
Are you saying that you think people with known mental health issues could still possess guns? And what licenses? Are you advocating for universal registration?
The Constitution is a living document. It was made that way.
NO!!!@!!!!!!!
Changes to the constitution are through the amendment process. ONLY.
That's just what Scalia did in Heller. He astutely balanced the past and the present
You are confusing precedent with 'balance'. Scalia referred to precedent but did not 'balance' anything. He further has said in 'A Matter of Interpretation' that America is a civil law nation, not a common law nation. He holds that original intent is more binding than later precedent if that precedent does not follow the intent. He did not balance - he went to the intent of the writers. His reference to precedent were also qualified by their own adherence to original intent.
what are your thoughts on Presser v Illinois
My thoughts are that Presser is pretty much invalid as the court showed it to be faulty in MCDONALD v. CHICAGO.
As for the "living document" garbage:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
— United States Constitution, Article V
Yes, they provided a method to "deal [sic] changing circumstances." Why would they bother with such a convoluted process if all that was needed for one man to just "interpret" it differently?
Answer: They did not intend for the Constitution to be changed by mere "interpretation", which makes doing so ILLEGAL!!
No, you agree with everything in that brief as you understand and comprehend it.
Demonstrate your understanding and comprehension of this.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
and
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.
Common use...that's the stickler, here. Common for you is not the same as common for me.
Explain in what manner the first is not unlimited. Is speech subject to prior restraint? Can you actually yell fire in a crowded theater?
Well, you're asking two different things here. You can shout fire in a crowded theater if there is actually a fire:) If you falsely shout fire, then you are speaking in an extremely and imminently dangerous way. The Schenck case and the ones after it illustrated how the freedom of speech is not unlimited. These cases focused on speech after the fact.
In terms of prior restraint, issues of national security do not fall under the 1st amendment's umbrella. Again, we are talking about danger and loss of life here, although I'm not sure where you stand on the whole Wikileaks thing. I say that Assange is wrong and our government does have a right to protect sensitive material. juris can help us out on this one but isn't information in legal cases exempt from freedom of speech?
Other than those things, speech is not subject to prior restraint nor should it ever be.
So, freedom of speech is not unlimited just as the right to bear arms is not unlimted. Your mention of prior restraint in freedom of speech does pose an interesting question, though. Would prior restraint with the more dangerous weapons be permissible for reasons of national security? 30,000 gun deaths a year, GD.
They did not intend for the Constitution to be changed by mere "interpretation", which makes doing so ILLEGAL!!
I was speaking of the amendment process.
Hmm...I wonder if we could get a two thirds majority on universal background checks (currently polling at 88 percent).
Anyway, here's your problem, NMN. By blowing a bowel about interpretation, you shoot yourself in the foot several ways. First, you invalidate the Federalist Papers. The information contained in those documents were interpretations, not the Constitution itself, right? You've already said you disagree with Hamilton on his view, in other writings, of General Welfare and that's a problem because they are...(dum dum dah) interpretations.
Second, I guess we'd have to throw out over two hundred years of SCOTUS cases (the ones, at least, that you don't like) because they're all interpretations that came up with changing times. Some of these interpretations changed laws, right?
And, third, (and you really need to understand this), just because you are conservative doesn't give you the direct light from God on what the Constitution means. Or the Bible for that matter either.
This won't be easy for you to understand but the very thing that you are criticizing here, YOU are doing:)
I was speaking of the amendment process.
In other words, I asked you about the process of understanding the written word, and your answer was the equivalent of "broccoli".
The information contained in those documents were interpretations, not the Constitution itself, right?
They were the interpretations of the AUTHORS of it explaining their own reasoning.
Which brings us right back to my question (which affects the rest of your "response"):
Who LEGITIMATELY gets to define the meaning of something which has been written? The author(s)? Or someone else?
That's actually a good question, NMN. The answer is both. The Constitution is a living document. It was made that way. The founding fathers laid the groundwork and knew that future leaders (like Scalia) would have to deal changing circumstances. That's just what Scalia did in Heller. He astutely balanced the past and the present, taking care to consider all tort since the time of the Constitution, and look at the second Amendment in a cumulative way.
Regarding militias, what are your thoughts on Presser v Illinois?
Common use...that's the stickler, here. Common for you is not the same as common for me.
Common is common. The AR-15 style rifle is the most popular rifle sold in this country. Is that not common usage? Is the 30 round magazine most commonly sold for use in the most common rifle sold in America not common usage?
prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.
Unusual, something other than common. Dangerous? Is weapon, is supposed to be dangerous as used. Is not supposed to be dangerous to the user. Dangerous means faulty.
If you falsely shout fire, then you are speaking in an extremely and imminently dangerous way.
I know I'm talking about two different things.
The prohibition of falsely shouting fire is, as you say, after the fact. The limitation is based upon the fact happening first.
Is not the idea of prohibiting me from owning an AR-15 because of what somebody else did with a similar gun very similar to prohibiting people from shouting fire in a theater regardless of whether this is indeed a fire?
freedom of speech is not unlimited just as the right to bear arms is not unlimted.
But the limits to free speech are limited to 'after the fact' and in some cases national security. Banning wholesale classes of guns or persons from possession is not 'after the fact'.
Would prior restraint with the more dangerous weapons be permissible for reasons of national security? 30,000 gun deaths a year, GD.
You are conflating Mark. What 'more dangerous' weapons? Do those 'more dangerous' weapons account for EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 30,000 gun deaths? No? Then they are not really 'more dangerous' are they? If, as you imply, those 30,000 gun deaths are indeed a national security issue requiring prior restraint then wouldn't it make sense to take action against the guns that cause the vast majority of those 'national security' related deaths? Are you saying that we need to ban handguns? No? Then what is the reason behind you focus on semi-automatic rifles?
The Constitution is a living document. It was made that way.
Again, no. The only way the Constitution can be changed is through the amendment process. You can keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true.
Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there is no general federal common law. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (which in turn was enacted as part of the Constitution or after).
Did you get that? Federal law MUST be linked to the Constitution. In order to link to the Constitution you MUST understand what was meant in the WORDS WRITTEN in the constitution.
That means that in order to discuss how to apply second amendment issues, the answer to the question:
1) What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
Is not optional. If you wish to debate 2nd Amendment issues, you have to discuss this question otherwise you have no case and your arguments begin without merit.
If you wish to debate 2nd Amendment issues
No, I don't.
One of the things that you guys need to understand is that your don't get to frame arguments anymore. There are several reasons for this but in a macro sense it's because your paranoia, like an old lady's slip at church, has shown and people aren't buying it anymore. Shared paranoia and fear over things that will never happen is dwindling, GD, coincidentally along with your base. People have real problems out there and you offer no solutions....just the same old shit.
The fact that you likely think that someone like Mark Kelly, a gun owner, believer in the second amendment, and military veteran is a "gun grabber" and betraying the Constitution simply because he recognizes that the right to bear arms is not unlimited tells me you (and the others) have more or less lost your minds. Throw in the continued Hitler and Stalin references and you'd really do yourself a favor to sit down and talk to a sane person and have them tell you what they think about your views.
And, really, everyone knows why you don't want any new laws. Most of you guys would flunk regular evaluations for mental health. That and you just think that guns are cool and you like to blow shit up. Why even bother anymore with the "analysis" of the second amendment? I know it's just a dodge , full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (like the NRA who is a staunch defender...of the gun lobby). This is so typical of the many other issues you guys bark orders on and expect liberals to cave. We're not falling for it, anymore, dude.
Your answer on Scalia was pretty light. I guess I will assume that you disagree with him and wish that part of Heller would just go away.
If you wish to debate 2nd Amendment issues
No, I don't.
You don't? Why then do you have 32 posts labeled gun control in the month of January alone?
Oh, I see. You don't want to discuss the 2nd Amendment, you want to ignore it and pass whatever law you want to.
And you call us paranoid for thinking there are persons who want to ignore the 2nd and pass whatever laws they want to.....
Blah blah blah....
Spare me the psychological BS.
Most of you guys would flunk regular evaluations for mental health.
Ahhh, so a desire for liberty and adherence to the Constitution is mental health challenged?
Why even bother anymore with the "analysis" of the second amendment?
Because it's the truth you fucking idiot.
The day your side stops talking and starts telling is the day YOUR SIDE starts the civil war. You have apparently stopped talking. Pray others on your side aren't as stupid as you are.
Your answer on Scalia was pretty light. I guess I will assume that you disagree with him and wish that part of Heller would just go away.
No, I agree with Scalia. You don't understand what he has said.
As for light????
Those prior two posts were BOTH DISCUSSING ISSUES REGARDING SCALIA'S DECISION.
That you don't recognize that is further proof that you don't understand nor comprehend Scalia's brief.
One of the things that you guys need to understand is that your don't get to frame arguments anymore.
Ah, classic lefty pseudo-intellectual "framing"... it's all about how the argument is framed.
No, we start from reality and proceed through facts using reason. Leftist disphits don't - they start with premises based on fantasies that make them feel good and then they dance around in circles like idiots. Which isn't really all that different from many on the far right.
No, I agree with Scalia. You don't understand what he has said.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues
and
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.
You agree with both of these points? Why?
As with other issues, if there is something that doesn't fit in with your ideology, then it must be something that I "don't understand." An awfully convenient dodge...easily dispensed with, though, if you simply explained your understanding of what he is saying here.
And your point is, Markadelphia? AR-15s are and have been for decades very much in common use. The AR-15 has been the most best-selling, most popular rifle in this country for years. 30-round magazines for them are standard capacity and have been for decades. 20-round for .308 calibre.
My point is, Larry, that we need to decide if they are, in fact, standard use. Unfortunately, this is that gray area from Heller where Scalia left it up to us to decide. All we know for certain is that a ban on such weapons would not be unconstitutional.
Despite your raging paranoia, I'm not arguing for a ban. I'd rather solve this problem by examining the user, not the tool.
Scalia left it up to us to decide
WTF? He did not leave it up to us to decide what is constitutional. That is ridiculous on its face, because - well it's HIS JOB to decide what is constitutional. He did not pass the buck.
Not to mention that, although you've made this statement several times, you've yet to present a quote by Scalia or even an interpretation of something Scalia said in order to support your statement. Perhaps some of your confusion is that Scalia left unsaid specifically what can be and cannot be limited when he said the 2nd is not unlimited and what is and is not protected under common usage. Leaving those items unspecified does not mean it is 'up to us' to decide. Those items were left unspecified because the court rules on the case it is hearing - it cannot rule on issues not related to that specific case. The Heller case was whether handguns can be banned under federal law.
Heller ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL, FUNDAMENTAL right. Those two words are important. Individual right means that the old canard that the national guard is the 'new' militia is not supported. Fundamental right means that any limitations to the 2nd must meet strict scrutiny such as used when limiting other fundamental rights - such as free speech. Heller further ruled that the rights under the 2nd need not be connected to actual militia service and that arms may be kept and born for individual personal protection.
You are focusing on the two quotes referencing 'common usage' and 'dangerous and unusual'. You also seem to think I did not explain my understanding of them. I did. I even told you I did, referencing where I did so. I can not help that you have a reading comprehension problem. You don't understand Heller not because it 'doesn't fit my ideology' but rather because you don't comprehend the written word, logic or the flow of language. I will explain Scalia's points. YOU DON'T FUCKING DESERVE THE WORK I AM PUTTING INTO THIS. You use those quotes without explanation of how they support your case. You refuse to elaborate yet demand that I do. You also refuse to answer NMN's very topical and fundamental question - you are being intellectually dishonest in doing these things. You are being a dick. But, I will elaborate this despite your churlish behavior.
I will start with Scalia's reference to 'common usage'. It would be ridiculous to apply 'common usage' as you seem to. That if 'it is up to us to decide', would mean the government could prohibit a weapon or class of weapons and then use the resulting 'uncommoness' of that weapon or class of weapon to argue that the prohibition is lawful because those weapons are not in 'common usage'. Rather, Scalia argues that historically the militia would assemble with the weapons in common usage for lawful purposes such as self defense. Note that does not limit common usage only to those weapons useful for self defense, as weapons useful for any lawful purpose are included. In reference to MILLER, Scalia concludes and afirms "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right". As asked earlier, how could one say that the most popular class of arms sold in the US not be considered to be in 'common usage'? It cannot be said in truth and therefore Scalia is saying that the AR-15 class rifle is specifically protected by the Second Amendment.
Part 2
In reference to 'dangerous and unusual' I will preface my commentary by linking this compelling brief http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1859395 in which the author argues that the usage of the terms 'dangerous and unusual' in HELLER are historically and grammatically incorrect. His argument is that 'dangerous and unusual' does not refer to an object, 'arms', but rather an action 'causing terror and alarm' while in possession of arms. After reading this arguement I am inclined to agree. In agreeing I am able to address what I consider the biggest problem with Scalia's brief: his usage of 'dangerous and unusual' is meaningless as a terminology when considering prohibitions upon arms. As I said before, is gun, is supposed to be dangerous. If a gun is not dangerous then it would not be useful "for lawful purposes such as self defense". Guns are precision weapons, meaning that you aim said weapon at a target and fire with a high probability that the gun will hit what it is aimed at. Classifying a gun as 'dangerous' because it does exactly what guns have always supposed to do is folly. It would be more logical to prohibit the exact weapons protected at the time of the signing of the Bill of Rights because flintlock muskets are, in comparison to modern arms, so inaccurate that they are dangerous to persons other than the intended target of the shooter.
'Unusual' is also a rather meaningless term for this purpose. As shown by Scalia's affirmation of MILLER, the Second Amendment does not protect weapons not in common usage. Unusual weapons, if they were in common usage, would not then be unusual would they? Why would Scalia need to repeat himself? He doesn't. If Scalia is not, as linked to earlier, using the terminology 'dangerous and unusual' incorrectly then the only correct understanding of his usage is that 'dangerous and unusual' do not apply to guns but rather to such items that Juris earlier refferred to as munitions. Area effect weapons are not precise and and such are dangerous to persons other than the intended target. Such items are also neither common for lawful self defense nor would they be considered in common usage by a militiaman mustering at the time of the BoR. I am in agreement with this logic, although the argument I linked to is more compelling.
Part 3
Finally I address your repeated use of "the Second Amendment is not unlimited" argument that you wave about as some sort of talisman. First, nobody here has argued that it is unlimited. The arguments put forward have been in disagreement with your arguments for restriction. If you put forth that some right should be restricted in some manner, an argument that your restriction would be unconstitutional does not mean the person thinks the right is unlimited - just that your idea for restriction is more than allowed.
As stated earlier, HELLER found that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right and as such restrictions to it must meet strict scrutiny. Another fundamental right is that of free speech. As we discussed earlier limitations upon free speech are applied for wrongful actions - thus not prior restraint, or in extremely limited national security issues. Since the 2nd Amendment is also a fundamental right then even considered as not an unlimited right any such limitations to that right have to be narrow, specific and limited. Banning an entire class of arms that are common, not dangerous or unusual and useful for lawful purposes such as self defense would be on it's face contrary to a strict scrutiny limitation of a fundamental right. Ergo you cannot ban AR-15 class rifles or other similar 'assault rifles'. An example Scalia used on this topic was "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful". Alan Gura, who argued his brief in HELLER has said that a ban on carrying concealed weapons would be constitutional, a ban on carrying weapons openly would be constitutional, but a ban upon both simultaneously would not be constitutional. This would fall in line with the finding that an individual can 'bear' arms 'for lawful purposes such a self defense' as the right can be excercised in either manner but if both were prohibited then the right is infringed. That is the type of limitation allowed. Reading that the second is not an unlimited right and interpreting that to mean the most common weapon in current use could be banned is the type of lack of understanding I point to.
See, now was that all that hard? Heck, if you took out the personal insults, you would have saved yourself a lot more time. In many ways, you've set the bar here on thorough responses. In fact, I will henceforth encourage people to give a "Guard Duck" like response to my questions and/or discussions.
It seems to me that your points here revolve around what is considered to be common use weapons and what aren't common use. If the AR-15 is indeed common use, then banning it would be unconstitutional. So, it's common use should be measured in some sort of empirical way. Since you are an expert on firearms, how many people have AR-15s and use them commonly? Compared to rifles? Handguns? Shotguns? From my personal knowledge, out of everyone that I know that owns a gun (and that's most people in Minnesota due to how popular hunting is here), only a handful own an AR-15. All own rifles and shotguns. About two thirds own at least one hand gun. Hand guns clearly are common use weapons, btw. Of course, my group of friends, while larger than most, is not an empirical measurement.
Getting back to the freedom of speech analogy, the problem I have with it, in the final analysis, is that you can't compare prior restraint and after the fact actions on the first amendment with the second amendment. If you wait until after the fact with a gun violence incident, someone is more likely hurt or dead. In this light, prior restraint is different with speech than it is with the right to bear arms. Moreover, the people who have lost the right to bear arms (felons, the mentally insane etc) still have the right to free speech and should not be censored.
In fact, prior restraint is where we should be focusing our efforts in terms of refining gun laws. This is what I mean by focusing less on supply (the guns themselves) and more on demand (the people). There are many people that should not own guns. The law has defined this for many years yet they still manage to get them. That's why the background check system needs to be improved and refined. People who are mentally ill should not have access to guns. Since they are tracked already with their prescriptions, some sort of system should be implemented to access this database and send out some red flags if someone who is taking large doses of anti-psychotics wants to be a gun.
We have to prevent as many criminals and unbalanced people from obtaining weapons. Everyone on all sides of this issue should be for that but they aren't.
you can't compare prior restraint and after the fact actions on the first amendment with the second amendment.
Examining that idea was precisely the point of these questions which you have now ignored twice:
Why are shall-issue concealed carry laws a better protection for Second Amendment rights than may-issue laws?
Or we could look at it from another direction. As a social studies teacher, you're supposed to know about history. Can you think of any examples from history where the government claimed the ability to qualify who got to own arms? (As opposed to someone disqualifying themself by committing a violent crime or through a institution level mental defect.) How did they turn out? And most especially, why did it turn out that way?
And now, days later, you've ignored the questions for a third time.
And you have the nerve to claim that we're "in the bubble". You can't even stand to test your own ideas against reality.
Post a Comment