Likes: 
Faceplams: Jesus, why the fuck was I born in America?
Behold the morning star
Jesus, why the fuck was I born in America?
Active Member
Jones posted a personal video after the Piers interview. Here's some excerpt with background analysis from Cenk Uygur.
FATUM NOS IUNGET
I'll be the first person to admit, Piers Morgan is a yutz. Alex Jones however...yeesh. If he could've shut his moronic face for more than five solid seconds, he could've tried to at least discuss Morgan's arguments.
Personally, I don't feel that anyone really wants to ban guns for self defense altogether (as much as the second amendment idiots want to just plug their ears and yell LALALALALA)...it's on weapons that are designed solely to kill multiple amounts of people in an efficient manner. Nobody. NOBODY needs an AR-15 to defend themselves. These people constantly live in this hypothetical world where their house, with their charming children cozy in their beds, is ambushed by a mercenary team wearing kevlar and brandishing M-16's. Right to bear arms? If it makes you feel safe, sure. Handgun in your house if you live in a shitty neighborhood? Have at 'er. Didn't Lanza's mother have like, six weapons, including the AR-15 in her home? For once, these people seriously just need to live in reality for a few minutes and think it through.
I said it before....I cannot recall ever hearing of a well-armed citizen sporting their 'Second Amendment! Fuck Yeah!' hoodie, swooping through a window and saving the day from an assault rifle toting maniac shooting up a school. I honestly can't.
Throbbing Member
Active Member
I don't have any numbers, but I believe it's safe to say that your country is pretty split in the middle regarding guns. I think that half of the country believe that guns should only be carry by police officers and the likes.Originally Posted by DigitalChaos
Regarding the other half who are in possession of one or multiple firearms, when asked for the reason why they carry a gun, self-defence is on top of the list but there's also a big chuck of people who are openly stating that they're protecting themselves from the government. To me, that it is insanity. I don't think anyone in their right mind can honestly say that there's real possibility that a revolution against the government can or will happen.
Education is playing a huge role here. When you had 43% of Americans believing that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, it's easy to see why a bunch of people want to protect themselves from the bad government who's allegedly coming after them. However, between you and me, that's a bunch of horseshit.
Correct me if I'm wrong but states that are definitely pro-guns are more south, and this might be prejudicial but I believe south states would generally be consider less educated? This is a preconceived image and I apologize if I'm way off and/or insult anyone. Not my goal. Just trying to established some links.
Stubby Member
He didn't say anything we already didn't know, but, like always, his direct way of summing up points of discussion with waves of both sarcasm and seriousness is always a welcome addition to the debate.
I loved his statement that they used muskets when the 2nd Amendment was created. I've always noticed that nobody seems to bring this up fact when harping on about their 2nd Amendment rights. The 1st and 4th Amendments worked the same way in the 1700's as they do now, but gun technology has advanced to the point of making the 2nd obsolete in today's society.
Active Member
... says the person posting on the internet and watching a clip that previously aired on national TV.
Active Member
The opinion on gun ownership is constantly shifting. Right now it's about 40% who want more restrictions. 60% want to keep as is or reduce. The percentage of gun owners is in the mid 40's (again, another fluctuating number over time). Here is one poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx You'd probably be surprised that the pro-gun control group has massively dropped over the years.
As for the utility of guns, there are plenty of reasons and I could go for pages. What is the utility in drinking alcohol? Surely the utility of guns is well above that of alcohol. Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than guns, and that includes the deaths of attackers/criminals by gun. But asking why we need it misses the point of our Constitution. The Constitution is not a list of what we can/can't do, it's a list of what the government can/can't do. So in a way, the 2nd Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) is to protect the people from the government.
Your attempts to draw lines on gun control are unfounded. What you are describing is the rhetorical stereotypes of the media. At a time when gun control is diminishing in popularity and only a few states are onboard, they need to create a dividing narrative to have any hope of getting traction. Pigeon-holing people into a side is how most of our politics work today. Here is a decent map of gun rights vs gun restriction (for 2011):
To that I say, good fucking luck trying to make this happen at the federal level. There is NOTHING (other than the people) stopping each state from enacting their own gun control. It is almost always easier to enact legislation at a state level instead of federal. Why don't we see each state trying to fix their own perceived problem?
Active Member
Ok so you have guns to protect yourself from your government, yet it serves every other purposes than actually protecting yourself from the government.
Like I said, thinking there will be a revolution or another civil war is insanity. Or at least I think it is ...
I think I should have asked that question first but do you actually believe there's a problem with guns right now?
Last edited by Deepvoid; 01-09-2013 at 01:40 PM.
Active Member
Double post but there was his news that was just released in Quebec.
A man was seen in Mont-Tremblant with a gun near a gas station. 5 squad cars were immediately dispatched and arrested the gentlemen. It turned out to be a toy gun.
The only thing I could think was "how much safer can it get?" I can't. I'm not saying bad things don't happen but the likelihood of getting shot here is so low.
Don't you want that?
Active Member
You should probably reread my post. That isn't what I said. You really want me to talk about how GUNS can protect against government. I can certainly make the case for it but I think it is irrelevant to the current discussion (again, see above for why).
Do I think there is a problem with guns right now? This question is way too open to really answer. It's like asking if there is an issue with the internet. I think guns can and are used for bad things. Would I like to see those bad things stopped? Fuck yes! Do I have an answer to the bad things? Nope! And I haven't see anyone else with one either. I see a lot of different opinions. I see a lot of people wanting politicians to give them something, anything to make them feel safe (bad, very bad, idea). We have tried and failed, with gun control, many times at the federal and state level. At least if we keep this at the state level we have 50 different places to try and get it right. Heck, I would start with the existing legislation and fix it before calling it a failure (which prompts us to either remove it or add more). Example: We have a national background check system that that half the states aren't reporting their murders, drug abuses, etc to. This completely screws up the ability of states to do proper background checks when doing gun sales. I mean... what the fuck!? Why is THAT not an important topic right now?
Active Member
You would have to do a retroactive background check. However, I believe you do not have a gun registry, which makes this task impossible.
Is a gun registry something that was ever brought up?
Also, I don't know your Constitution in details but could someone claim that his rights are being violated if asked for personal medical records when one try to purchase a gun?
Last edited by Deepvoid; 01-09-2013 at 02:53 PM.
Stubby Member
No, you're giving me an interpretation - I'm giving you facts about your state's laws, and cited a source and a specific Penal Code that says that firing a warning shot when you think your life is in danger is perfectly legal. Yet you conveniently failed to reply to that fact.
Active Member
You mean this? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics Cause that is exactly the system I am talking about when half the states are failing to report info. Gun registries are a totally separate topic. Registries that exist are at the state level. California has one for handguns. Looks like they will have one for long guns in 1 year. We also do background checks (with NICS) for all handgun purchases. Criminals who move here from half the country are able to get handguns because the NICS report checks out OK.
I am sure medical record sharing would very much be an invasion of privacy but the records I am talking about are mostly criminal.
edit: the mental health records are considered separate for some reason. I don't have the details on that. Here is an entire report about the NICS failing due to mental health and substance abuse records not being reported: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns....mimeo_revb.pdf
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 01-09-2013 at 03:19 PM.
Active Member
Stewart might want to research the Supreme Court interpretations before doing his own...
RE: Militias
2008 Supreme Court decision: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller
RE: Muskets
And if you look in the full text of DC v Heller you will find:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time.
Active Member
Then, register all 300 million guns. Everyone who has suffered any mental illness as simple as a depression (which is consider a mental illness anyway) should have their guns removed.
Considering that roughly 20 million people each year are suffering from one kind of mental illness or another, you should be able to reduce greatly the number of guns within 10 years.
Throbbing Member
I think he's quite clearly referring to the original text, and not to the Supreme Courts most recent interpretation. No?
Active Member
Yea, lets take a failing system and pile more on top of it instead of fixing it first. You would fit in well with the current politicians.
Active Member
Jon Stewart interpreting 2nd Amendment vs Supreme Court interpreting 2nd Amendment.
hrmmm... wonder which of those has more credibility and a deeper understanding of the Constitution...
Active Member
Another week, another shooting
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90910H20130110
This time in a state with some of the most strict gun control.
Active Member
Well you know what. It appears there's nothing that can be done. Kids get shot. Tough luck. Circle of life right?
Those parents can make another baby.
You said it yourself, you don't have any answers and no one else seems to have any answers. Is there even a problem?
In the end, from where I come from, I don't have to worry about gun violence. So whenever there's a shooting in the US, it just makes for good discussion with a couple beers, while you are "sending prayers and thoughts". What a joke.
Bite me
whoa whoa whoa wait a second, I'm gonna legal nitpick, here, but you can't (well, shouldn't) look at an opinion summary and use that as the basis of an argument involving a SCOTUS opinion. All SCOTUS opinions are made up NOT ONLY of the justices' interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, but PRIMARILY based upon precedents.
You have to look at the whole opinion (well, in this case, the Syllabus) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 54 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
Last edited by allegro; 01-10-2013 at 02:14 PM.
Active Member
LOL Those prayers are about as effective as the gun control.
Giving up is lame. Simple minds want simple answers. They give up if there aren't any, but they are more likely to accept a simple bad answer than give up. I think the issue is very complex. I think we probably don't have enough info to find the proper solution. With how the US is structure, it would make sense to let the states trying their own methods of handling it. At least we have 50 different testbeds for the issue. We have a pretty bad track record for fixes on this issue. 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.
Bite me
Aurora Illinois seems to be doing something in the right direction:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/...urora-in-2012/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/1302244...ess-story.html
Active Member
Your point? I assume your bolding is an attempt to point out that there CAN be limits on the TYPE of weapon. No disagreement there! I'd note that things like an AR-15 are extremely common.
Active Member
The US is rooted in a culture of violence and war. Talking to you made me realize that you are indeed way over your head with this problem. The "right" is not interested in legislating or enforcing current legislation in any shape or form. The NRA is way too powerful and I suspect that Obama will do little to enforce anything Biden may come up with.
The far right is even more paranoid with their conspiracy theory of government taking the guns away for whatever reasons they may come up with.
My view is simple. Guns should only be used by a law enforcing agents and for hunting. That's it. An ordinary citizen should not feel the need to carry a gun.
Bite me
The bold text points out the PRECEDENT cases, which is the basis of the SCOTUS opinion.
See also the entire Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (edit: Take a look at the DISSENTS, which takes up the majority of the document)
Pp. 55-57.We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874)
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable. As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.
Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid. See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
Curious: Are you in law?
Last edited by allegro; 01-10-2013 at 07:30 PM.
Active Member
Definitely! Though, I'd give it a couple years to make sure. I would also like to see all the violent crime stats (not just guns). Targeting gangs and repeat criminals seems like it would massively drop violent crime. It certainly goes along with the national stats this guy dug up:
Gang's don't seem related to the crazy fuckers who walk into schools and public places and start shooting though. It will be difficult to find a fix there because of how infrequent they are.
Active Member
The left and the right are all extremely fucked up. Our whole government is pretty fucked right now. I'm sure you are very well aware of that! Compared to that, guns are the least of our issue.
Unless you are going to massively bump up law enforcement, I'd have to disagree. There just aren't enough of them to protect everyone. Hell, the Sandy shooting took the police TWENTY minutes to show up. Guns can be a great equalizer for those who are more prone to being victims. Our police are not able to protect everyone.
Active Member
There is nothing in there that I disagree with. My point is that Stewart's interpretation about muskets and militias is very off-base compared to the people who's job it is to interpret the Constitution.
I'm not in law. I'm an IT geek who believes in testing and releasing solid products. I'll research the hell out of anything that interests me. Politics has always been an interest. I've seen how horribly our politicians can fail us. How laws can be signed without reading them. How politicians can know nothing about a topic and produce horrible legislation (SOPA/PIPA, Assault Weapons, Patriot Act, NDAA, etc). I also enjoy learning through debate!
Reply With Quote
