Active Member
Exactly, your police.
Ours is doing just fine here.
What you're saying is that there's no enough police officers to protect everyone, therefore, citizen needs to be arm in order to fill that "gap" in defending themselves from violent people or criminal. Do you see how fucked up that is?
Is there another country in who thinks that way? I don't mean no disrespect but from your statement, I'd think you'd be living in a shithole.
Throbbing Member
The fact that of that entire bit you've latched onto the one thing that wasn't actually at the core of his argument is telling, though. At the end of the day, it still is satire.Originally Posted by DigitalChaos
But as to credibility: look at who those judges are, and look at who appointed them. Now ask yourself: how impartial are they?
Stubby Member
Let me take a minute to address exactly what Stewart points were...
He said nothing about striking down the 2nd amendment, nor did he question the interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court. Measures to restrict guns, like the Brady Bill or the expired assault weapons ban, were never considered unconstitutional. Why do gun advocates, for lack of a better term, jump the gun and assume that more restrictions will alienate their constitutional rights? That's the basic definition of fear-mongering. It's using assumptions to exaggerate something that doesn't exist yet. Let a bill hit the floor of Congress, then discuss if it's unconstitutional or not. Until then, calm down."None of these [laws/restrictions] will ever be perfect. We're not looking for some magic flying solving projectile. We're looking for a series of steps from different areas, that over time can improve the situation…" "But why is it that there in no other issue in this country, with as dire public safety consequences as this, that we are unable to make even the most basic steps towards putting together a complex plan of action to slow this epidemic spread?
"Here's the problem: technology has democratized carnage. And it's very weird to me that some gun enthusiasts won't even entertain the idea of commonsense law-enforcement-supported moves to try to reign in this violence."
Stewart, in regards to the language ofthe 2nd amendment:
Stewart wasn't talking about the militia part, he was talking about the well-regulated part. Yes, a militia does refer to individual citizens. But these arms they use must be well-regulated. Who makes these regulations? Lawmakers. How do they regulate guns? Laws."Yeah, for a well-regulated militia, not a personal arsenal free-for-all."
Active Member
Yup, there is a big difference on that end. I like being self-sufficient. I am frequently disappointed when I count on others (especially politicians). I also feel like I am a bit of a minority on that topic. We live in this weird limbo where everyone is given the responsibility but most have the expectation that someone else will take care of their problems. That just doesn't work. That is a great high-level perspective on many of the issue within the US. The US has heavy roots in self-sufficiency. There were great times when everyone was self-sufficient. Sure, people depend on local community but that's very different than the change toward federal government you see lately. Many want to preserve this. Many want to change it.
Active Member
The best part of Stewarts bit is the facetious "Well if we don't succeed the first time, give up!" I agree with him there, but that's why I think it's insane to try and solve it at the federal level. With our track record of failed gun legislation.. Why bottleneck yourself at the federal level where you only have 1 testbed, have to water it down so everyone agrees, make it very hard to repeal when it fails, etc. Let us use states for 50 parallel testbeds where the laws can be more potent and more diverse.
Hairy Member
Well, there's no need for any kind of experimentation. Gun Control, throughout the rest of the developed world, has been an overwhelming success. The vast majority of those successes being laws far stricter than those in the US. As for solving things at the federal level - it's the only thing that really makes sense, seeing as people can move and trade from state to state. Local gun laws can only be so effective if you can run across the state line and buy one at Wal-Mart. Local attempts for strict control would be undone by less restrictive laws elsewhere.
Bent Member
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
Bite me
They're impartial.
Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
Yet, she upheld Roe v. Wade.
Justice John Paul Stevens was appointed by President Gerald Ford.
Yet, he wrote one of the dissenting opinions in the above-referenced gun case.
Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed by President George W Bush.
Yet, he wrote the opinion upholding the Affordable Health Care Act ("Obamacare").
The Supreme Court is bound to precedents and case law. Period. Yes, there are liberal and conservative interpretations but even those are limited to within the scope of case law citations.
English Lit and Law are very similar (*): no critique is valid unless supported by the text.
* Which is why so many legal scholars are also English Lit scholars, like my beloved Stanley Fish.
Last edited by allegro; 01-10-2013 at 08:13 PM.
Bite me
It's the old "slippery slope" argument. The same is used by the pro choice movement, saying that any limitation of abortion, at all, is a slippery slope (even though limitations are CLEARLY set, and given to the States, in Roe v. Wade, but most of them have never read Roe v Wade).
Active Member
Well, even with clearly defined limitations, the slippery slope argument still holds. It allows for a series of small steps where the limitations are slowly nudged in the negative direction, especially when you have an unrelenting force trying to do so. How many times have we seen SOPA/PIPA type proposals now? Limitations can always be redefined.
Bite me
But the limitations already exist. The courts exist to define any law. That's the way it works.
Last edited by allegro; 01-11-2013 at 12:52 AM.
Active Member
Yet here we are looking to increase the limitations on gun ownership in a way that no court would have done with existing law... Maybe I am missing what you are saying or I didn't make my point about changing limits clear?
Anyway, it looks pretty likely that if anything happens, it will be though an Executive Order. I think people on all sides of the gun control debate can agree that an EO for this is going to set an absolutely horrible precedent. Just imagine an 8 year George W Bush presidency following Obama.
Bite me
We already HAD a Federal assault weapons ban, which expired via a sunset clause. And the remaining Brady act is still in place. If you read the above SCOTUS opinion (and carefully read all of the cited cases), you'll see that other case law already set precedents to allow a ban on assault weapons (but not on handguns) and that a slippery slope does not exist. A renewal of the assault weapons ban will NOT set a new precedent; the ban is supported by already-existing precedents. The SCOTUS has repeatedly denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari relating to assault weapons bans already in place in many states. Because there is no U.S. constitutional issue.
The SCOTUS doesn't care how a law is effected. The method of passage doesn't set legal precedent.
While I fully support a Federal ban on assault weapons, I don't see it really doing anything to reduce the number of deaths caused by assault weapons in this country (again, the vast majority of which are not due to mass killings but are related to gangs, drug sales, and already-illegal assault weapons) until the Feds start cracking down on the illegal transport of guns and enforcing RICO to cripple gangs.
Last edited by allegro; 01-22-2013 at 05:47 PM.
Throbbing Member
I'm sorry, but as someone who lives in a country where seperation of the three powers goes as far as a minister of Justice not being allowed to inquire after the process of a high profile pedophelia scandal and two ministers stepping down because they recieved letters from a magistrate dealing with an inquiry into a third minister's decisions regarding a bank bail-out, the idea that the judges on a supreme court are politically appointed (being: appointed by members of another power) is... strange. Let me stick to strange.
edit: To clarify: interpretation is part of, and it's a delicate exercise. There's a lot of imput from the interpreter. Coming from a completely different background, I know from experience that there are texts that lend themselves to be interpreted in much about any way.
Last edited by Elke; 01-11-2013 at 02:29 PM.
Bite me
Well, yes, and that's why we have nine U.S. Supreme Court justices. But, while opinions can definitely be subjective, U.S. Supreme Court Opinions can only be subjective so far as the case law and the precedents allow, i.e. a Justice's decision can't be "because I don't like this" or "because I don't believe in this." I suggest that you go look at one of the Opinions cited plus the dissenting Opinion(s) to see that each side makes a very careful and valid argument based on facts, legal precedents and case law, and not on personal preference or bias, and the interpretation is based on legal premise.
Last edited by allegro; 01-11-2013 at 10:50 PM.
Throbbing Member
I'm not doubting that those 9 judges don't just pull stuff out of their ass. But I'm a postmodernist, so I believe everything that's open to interpretation is subjective. And if you can choose who's going to do the interpreting, then you can swing the global interpretation. That's not a definite, you can't predict it, but you can influence it.
Which is why I said: no impartiality.
Bite me
One of the reasons why I love law is that there is a very definite system, especially law at the very highest level (SCOTUS). Law at the highest level is NOT very subjective, which is why I love it. Law is "impartial" in the sense that it has to be fairly transparent, especially at the highest level. Every decision must be backed by specific case law and written text, which is also categorized in different hierarchies (primary and secondary sources). Of course, each is subject to interpretation, which is why we have circuit, appellate and supreme courts. But, the higher you go, the less off-the-cuff you get. The lower circuit courts certainly ARE partial and crazy. (The Circus Court of Crook County, for example.) But, SCOTUS is a level that is SO high up, and SO visible, it's such an honorable position, the position itself requires a certain standard of impartiality. This doesn't mean that they all think the same way, obviously (which is why we have PUBLISHED dissenting opinions).
Last edited by allegro; 01-14-2013 at 11:11 AM.
Active Member
I am really enjoying your posts allegro. I have to agree with most of it. As for precedent, I was referring to any other gun control that is on the table. A simple AWB renewal would be kind of pointless but it also wouldn't provide new limits. I didn't realize that is what you had in mind. An Executive Order on any gun control that doesn't amount to a renewal of past laws would set a really bad precedent though. That is what I was getting at.
This I have to ask you about though. Why do you support an AWB, especially if you see it as being ineffective for reducing deaths? I agree that it would be pointless. It had little/no effect last time.
Secondly, do you not see the giant issue with "assault weapon" legislation? Every AWB that I have seen (fed or state) focus on aesthetics instead of functionality. They create tons of loopholes too. I want to ask you about this because you seem to comprehend law. Most that I have asked just fall back on emotion.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 01-12-2013 at 05:40 PM.
Active Member
Hah. Dumbass pro-gun dude who threatened to start killing people had his permit taken away by the state:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2459456.html
Active Member
While we are on the subject of guns. I guess if other people had guns, they could have prevent this.
Shooter at 1:40.
Active Member
Sorry for double post
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-so...al-gun-control
New legislation would limit magazine to 7 bullets and further restrict automatic weapon.
Republicans pushed for a change in mental health law, which would allows for civil confinement of people determined to be a threat to others.
How and who determines if someone is threat to others remain to be determine I guess.
Bite me
You know, "it couldn't hurt" is my attitude. It's a start. I could go into a bunch of legal examples of how criminal statutes begin at one point and are then defined by case law, how our legal system works (most of which is unknown to people outside of law), but I'm tired of having to do a whole lot of work to substantiate my opinion, frankly. (And, it would be work for naught because it wouldn't change anyone's mind.) It is what it is. I'm unemotional about it. I'm not emotionally invested in this debate. No offense. I've already made it clear that I can competently shoot revolvers and I think that anybody who wants/needs an assault weapon is lazy and can't shoot or they think it's a cool expensive toy, pretending to be G.I. Joe. So I'm not willing to join in trying to protect their ability to keep the G.I. Joe gun.
Last edited by allegro; 01-22-2013 at 05:48 PM.
Active Member
Well, I guess that makes our police lazy, unable to shoot, and just pretending to be G.I. Joe. Police deal with civilian level threats all day. Either an "assault weapon" is a viable weapon for civilian level threats or it isn't.
Stubby Member
You can't really further restrict automatic weapons when they are already banned outright, at least for those that honor the law. Congrats to Republicans for concentrating on the most important issue, mental health, all the Democrats did was give criminals more power.
Bite me
Not taking the bait.
(swims away)
Last edited by allegro; 01-23-2013 at 08:56 PM.
Active Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2459187.html
That's what I don't get. Gun activists always look like lunatics. Of course, it's gonna create panic if you have two dudes walking around with assault rifle. Yet, some people claim guns are not the issue.
How can you not wonder if those idiots will start spraying bullets. If everyone starts open carrying, how can you spot the crazy people from the normal people?
If there's a crowd of 500 people with half with a concealed weapon (legally). One of them start shooting the crowd. How do you think it's gonna end? I bet you $100 that those defensive gun use will end killing innocent people in a heart beat.
Can you imagine, those two clowns walking by a bank and another gun owner shots their asses and invoke "Stand your ground".
Last edited by Deepvoid; 01-15-2013 at 02:41 PM.
Active Member
Unbelievable: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/tech/g...ame/index.html
Active Member
It's not unbelievable, it's hilarious. People are supporting the NRA when they state that gun control is not a solution and that video games are partially to blame. Then a month later, they release an FPS app. Supporters will say that you are shooting at targets and not humans so it doesn't count. The whole thing is a joke but the country is so divided that you can't do anything about it.
Bite me
I just got that app.
Note that I'm a seasoned veteran of outdoor shooting ranges and I'm pretty damned good.
On this game, however, I shoot like a drunken sailor. The game has little "safety" hints but I couldn't figure out how to aim the sight! I think this is where gangs are getting their shooting training (holding the gun sideways, of course, so the gun jams).
FAIL
Administrator
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
