McDonald v. Chicago

@OCCOM BILL,

I will not be drawn into your stupid game of straw man charges. I am not obliged to answer your unfounded accusations. Have fun, there, playing with yourself.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Thomas wrote:
For a trivial example, banning the sale of firearms to violent psychotics
does not violate the Second Amendment -- and would have
made the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting less likely.
Agreed; he who's been deemed to be a violent psychotic hasn't been denied
due process in route to being denied his constitutional right to bear arms.

A competent way to CONTROL the danger inherent
in that situation is to ISOLATE the violent psychotic.
Let 's not blame spoons for obesity, nor blame forgery on ballpoint pens.
The problem is BETWEEN THE EARS of the violent psychotic.

It is a foregone conclusion that if a violent psychotic is free
to roam around America he 'll get anything he wants,
if he puts his mind and his money to it.

David

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Straw man charges is an interesting way of describing legitimate questions, but suit yourself; you're no fun in bob & weave mode anyway.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David, unless you advocate life sentences or executing all violent psychotics on their first offense, there's bound to be some on the streets. Better to at least try to slow down their gun aquisition, no? Question: would you sell a firearm to someone you believed was a violent psychotic?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

David, unless you advocate life sentences or executing all violent psychotics
on their first offense, there's bound to be some on the streets.

That must depend on the severity of the offense,
as to life sentences or death for a first offense, sane or not.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Better to at least try to slow down their gun aquisition, no?

I believe that is only a futile, feel-good solution that tends to disarm future victims.
People did not wait until guns were invented to begin committing violent felonies.
The worst thing that government can do is encourage more violence,
by disarming the victims (soft, attractive targets).

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Question: would you sell a firearm to someone you believed was a violent psychotic?

No, but I know that will not stop him if his malice is persistent.
He can use any of many options, ax, knife, club, Molotoff Cocktail, bomb
run victim over with car, truck; all it takes is a little imagination.
The actual weapon is behind the bad guy 's eyes;
what proceeds therefrom is only the outward manifestation.

If he sits down, earnestly with evil intent and plans an ambush
of some kind, taking as much time as he needs, and giving attention
to detail, I doubt that his victim will have much of a chance.
He can do this either with different weapons, or he can get a gun
on the blackmarket or robbing a solitary police officer from behind.

1 Reply

In defense and support of known facts of American history,
I wanna take cognizance that the Bill of Rights was ALREADY
incorporated against the power of the State governments
(more than once). The reasoning of BARRON v. BALTIMORE (1833)
is shockingly poor, ultimating in the doctrine that the Constitution
does NOT mean what it says and that the Founders were too dum
to figure out how to express themselves intelligently, so as to make themselves understood.

Be that as it may.

It is very clearly established in the Congressional Record,
by the author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment,
Congressman John Bingham, that he wrote it to OVERTHROW
BARRON by applying the Bill of Rights directly against the jurisdiction
of the State governments.

The bill authorizing the 14th Amendment was introduced into
the US Senate by Senator Jacob Howard, who read each of
the first 8 amendments into the Congressional Record,
declaring that thay 'd curtail the power of the States for libertarian reasons.
The 14th Amendment was enacted, incorporating the Bill of Rights
to curtail State authority. Then, in the SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES,
the US Supreme Court decided to ignore the incorportion,
ignore the "privileges or immunities" clause. By judicial fiat,
the Bill of Rights got UNincorporated, as a policy decision.
The court has been disinclined to correct that mistake so far.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
David, unless you advocate life sentences or executing all violent psychotics
on their first offense, there's bound to be some on the streets.
That must depend on the severity of the offense,
as to life sentences or death for a first offense, sane or not.

You're pushing too far, too fast. Answer the question regarding the least severe that nonetheless reveals a violent, psychotic disorder?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Better to at least try to slow down their gun aquisition, no?
I believe that is only a futile, feel-good solution that tends to disarm future victims.
People did not wait until guns were invented to begin committing violent felonies.
The worst thing that government can do is encourage more violence,
by disarming the victims (soft, attractive targets).

Really? There's never been a guy with a violent psychotic disorder who caught up with his cool before acquiring a weapon? Focus David; this hypothetical doesn't involve a gun ban; it involves a restriction against people with documented violent psychotic disorders. None of them ever caught their cool after being turned down by you or someone like you to purchase a gun? That's too fantastic and you know it. And we're not all soft and helpless, you know.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Question: would you sell a firearm to someone you believed was a violent psychotic?
No, but I know that will not stop him if his malice is persistent.
He can use any of many options, ax, knife, club, Molotoff Cocktail, bomb
run victim over with car, truck; all it takes is a little imagination.
The actual weapon is behind the bad guy 's eyes;
what proceeds therefrom is only the outward manifestation.

If his malice persists. What if it doesn't? And I don't mind telling you I'd rather take my chances against the psycho with an axe, knife, club, and am aware enough to realize the psycho's who lose it seldom think to make a Molotoff Cocktail or bomb, etc. How much easier would it be for you to blow his head off if he wasn't as armed as you?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If he sits down, earnestly with evil intent and plans an ambush
of some kind, taking as much time as he needs, and giving attention
to detail, I doubt that his victim will have much of a chance.
He can do this either with different weapons, or he can get a gun
on the blackmarket or robbing a solitary police officer from behind.

I'd rather take my chances against the psycho who has to go the extra mile to plan or arm... as common sense mandates he'll likely be deadly less often. And don't forget; I don't advocate gun prohibition.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The Court has been correcting that error pretty regularly for over half a century. Your favorite amendment just hasn't gotten its turn yet.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Your questions were only legitimate in the sense that they were questions--however, they bore no relevance to anything i was saying. For example, your latest bullshit what to imply that i oppose the concept of incorporation--i only said that i thought it inappropriate for the second amendment--you just wanted to ramp up the hysteria. All of your other efforts were straw men, too. They bore no relationship to the opinions i expressed, and were just an opportunity for you to puke up your hatefulness. Even you are not so stupid as to believe that i would intend to honor your bullshit with serious consideration.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDavid wrote:

I don 't get the point, Thomas. Is it that u rely on violent psychotics to obay the anti-gun laws as thay prepare for their murders -- that thay will NOT use the blackmarket?

No, I'm relying on gun control making it harder for them to obtain guns. And that's enough to save at least some lives. Gun control doesn't have to make it impossible to obtain guns in order to be useful. Only harder.

OmSigDavid wrote:

Do u believe that murders were LESS LIKELY before guns were invented ?

Other things being equal -- yes. At the very least, attempted murders were less likely to succeed.

OmSigDavid wrote:

Have u ever heard of ANY crime that was not perpetrated because a criminal coud not find a weapon? I have not.

Neither have I. But that isn't proving anything, because newspapers don't report crimes that could have conceivably been committed, but weren't for some reason.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

OmSigDavid wrote:
I don 't get the point, Thomas. Is it that u rely on violent psychotics to obay the anti-gun laws as thay prepare for their murders -- that thay will NOT use the blackmarket?

No, I'm relying on gun control making it harder for them to obtain guns. And that's enough to save at least some lives. Gun control doesn't have to make it impossible to obtain guns in order to be useful. Only harder....

But a law which makes it immensely difficult for a law abiding citizen to obtain a gun is a violation of the Constitutional edict that the government may not infringe upon gun ownership. Reasonable precautions are one thing, but an immense barrier is something else.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

I agree. I am not arguing against the likely outcome of McDonald v. United States. I am just against the NRA's fundamentalist position that all gun control is evil. Including a ban on sales to violent psychotics, as proposed after the Virginia Tech shooting. This would not have made it immensely difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy a gun: law-abiding citizens don't usually show up in a violent-lunatic registry.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
David, unless you advocate life sentences or executing all violent psychotics
on their first offense, there's bound to be some on the streets.
That must depend on the severity of the offense,
as to life sentences or death for a first offense, sane or not.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You're pushing too far, too fast. Answer the question regarding the least severe
that nonetheless reveals a violent, psychotic disorder?

If I were the judge sentencing a violent psychotic who has been convicted of at least one crime,
I 'd do the best I coud within the law to isolate him for as long as possible.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Better to at least try to slow down their gun aquisition, no?
I believe that is only a futile, feel-good solution that tends to disarm future victims.
People did not wait until guns were invented to begin committing violent felonies.
The worst thing that government can do is encourage more violence,
by disarming the victims (soft, attractive targets).

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Really? There's never been a guy with a violent psychotic disorder
who caught up with his cool before acquiring a weapon?

Clearly, I can 't say "never". There probably have been instances
wherein the bad guy was distracted, or passed out, or
got arrested or got killed, etc.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Focus David; this hypothetical doesn't involve a gun ban;
it involves a restriction against people with documented violent psychotic disorders.

OK. Candor moves me to admit
that it is possible that the Founders woud approve of such a law,
tho it moves us close to a slippery slope of discrimination as to WHO
is good enuf to possess life saving equipment and who just has to
take his (or her) chances helpless against possible predatory violence.
I doubt that a law will yield more than a brief delay in the lunatic
arming himself, but I must admit that, theoretically, he might
forget about violence, in some instances.
I remain very concerned about future victims coming to grief
because government slowed down their defensive efforts.

Bear in mind that this is my concern for my fellow citizens,
not for myself. I 've had sufficient guns for quite a long time.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Question: would you sell a firearm to someone you believed was a violent psychotic?
No, but I know that will not stop him if his malice is persistent.
He can use any of many options, ax, knife, club, Molotoff Cocktail, bomb
run victim over with car, truck; all it takes is a little imagination.
The actual weapon is behind the bad guy 's eyes;
what proceeds therefrom is only the outward manifestation.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

If his malice persists. What if it doesn't?

I have conceded that possibility.
Incidentally, if a person has led a peaceful life, yet has crazy
or stupid beliefs, his moral, natural right of self defense
shoud not be forfeit.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

And I don't mind telling you I'd rather take my chances against the psycho with an axe,
knife, club, and am aware enough to realize the psycho's who lose it seldom think
to make a Molotoff Cocktail or bomb, etc.

I saw on TV that history 's worst massacre
in a school was from a disgruntled school employee in Upstate NY
who used a bomb to blow up the school in the early 1900s.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

How much easier would it be for you to blow his head off if he wasn't as armed as you?

Violent criminals are not usually willing to co-operate qua being unarmed.
Thay frequently re-arm themselves within a few hours
of release from prison and go back into business, robbery, etc.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If he sits down, earnestly with evil intent and plans an ambush
of some kind, taking as much time as he needs, and giving attention
to detail, I doubt that his victim will have much of a chance.
He can do this either with different weapons, or he can get a gun
on the blackmarket or robbing a solitary police officer from behind.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'd rather take my chances against the psycho who has to go the extra mile to plan or arm...
as common sense mandates he'll likely be deadly less often. And don't forget; I don't advocate gun prohibition.

I admit that I don 't know what the Founders, the authors of the Bill of Rights,
Madison and other members of the First Congress had in mind about such jurisdiction.
I do not know whether there had been a law against selling guns or swords to mentally
unbalanced citizens in Colonial Times. I have not heard of any.
I have no knowledge qua any consensus on this point, tho it IS possible.
Alternatively, thay may have preferred simply to isolate & confine such men and let it go at that.
I 'm gonna see if I can get some information on that point.

David

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade, spurred by the Virginia Tech campus killings and buttressed by National Rifle Association help.

The bill was the outcome of weeks of negotiations between Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the most senior member of the House and a strong supporter of gun rights, and the NRA, and in turn, with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun-control advocate.

"This is good policy that will save lives," McCarthy said.

The NRA has always supported the NICS, said the organization's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. "We've always been vigilant about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, and equally vigilant about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective and people who shouldn't have them."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19209310/

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The Court has been correcting that error pretty regularly for over half a century.
Your favorite amendment just hasn't gotten its turn yet.

Just from the perspective of an American citizen:
we know that people shoud buckle their seatbelts and keep their fire extinguishers in good condition, accessible.
I wonder how many Americans have perished from the predatory violence of man or beast because other
emergency equipment was not available because of government interference.
People shoud be encouraged to be proficient in the use of emergency equipment.

How many citizens have lived out their lives with this right having been violated?
Its a scandal.

David

0 Replies

@Irishk,

I stand corrected then. I shouldn't have argued from memory without checking the newsreports of the time first. Thanks for pointing out my error to me!

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I agree. I am not arguing against the likely outcome of McDonald v. United States. I am just against the NRA's fundamentalist position that all gun control is evil. Including a ban on sales to violent psychotics, as proposed after the Virginia Tech shooting. This would not have made it immensely difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy a gun: law-abiding citizens don't usually show up in a violent-lunatic registry.

Ted Kennedy was prevented from flying
when he showed up on a no-fly list.

David

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your questions were only legitimate in the sense that they were questions--however, they bore no relevance to anything i was saying. For example, your latest bullshit what to imply that i oppose the concept of incorporation--i only said that i thought it inappropriate for the second amendment--you just wanted to ramp up the hysteria. All of your other efforts were straw men, too. They bore no relationship to the opinions i expressed, and were just an opportunity for you to puke up your hatefulness. Even you are not so stupid as to believe that i would intend to honor your bullshit with serious consideration.

Get over yourself Setanta. You got caught running your mouth without a clue and backpedaled into your usual holier than thou nonsense, with the predictability of a cartoon.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Thomas wrote:
I agree. I am not arguing against the likely outcome of McDonald v. United States. I am just against the NRA's fundamentalist position that all gun control is evil. Including a ban on sales to violent psychotics, as proposed after the Virginia Tech shooting. This would not have made it immensely difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy a gun: law-abiding citizens don't usually show up in a violent-lunatic registry.

Ted Kennedy was prevented from flying
when he showed up on a no-fly list.

Not the best example of a law-abiding citizen. Wink

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I stand corrected then. I shouldn't have argued from memory without checking the newsreports of the time first. Thanks for pointing out my error to me!

You're welcome. I hope it didn't appear that I was hounding you by posting two articles ... I only looked it up because I couldn't believe any organization (even the evil NRA) would actively lobby to allow guns being purchased by individuals such as Cho. I don't know a whole lot about that case, but just from reading the Wiki entry, it kinda seems that it was the university that kept his history of mental illness from those sources that would have prevented him from buying the guns. Something about privacy issues.

1 Reply

McDonald v. Chicago

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know