Captain Irrelevant wrote:WHy do Australia and Canada have so much less gun crime?
Why does that matter? I see that question asked a lot. I fail to see the relevance.
Does it matter what means criminals use to attack people?
Steve 41oo wrote:OGIONIK wrote:virginia tech without guns: guy doesnt have gun finds a new way to kill people, whats easier than buying a gun? MAKING A FREAKIN BOMB. 300 dead.yay gun control.
What's easier than buying a gun? Dreaming up stupid fantasies like this. Unless you meant a nuclear bomb...now they're really easy. Or perhaps he will invent a new weapon which kills everyone he doesnt like by mind-power alone.
Hardly a stupid fantasy. Bombs can be made quite easily, and criminals who want to massacre people have demonstrated a willingness to use bombs in the past.
Advocate wrote:Since the legality of gun control is in question, I propose bullet control.
I can think of no legal challenge to this,
There is the fact that it would be unconstitutional....
Advocate wrote:OSD, you say that the founders were very explicit in discussing guns. I agree, and this is clear in the second amendment, which explicitly states that the right to bear is in the context of a militia.
If you want the government to start setting up a militia system again, I'm with you.
Advocate wrote:The founders thought that guns only included muskets. Thus, if there is an unfettered right to bear, only muskets could be carried.
Nope. The Framers did not want militiamen constrained to obsolete weaponry.
Advocate wrote:Gunga, the recent decision is less than a blockbuster. It was by a majority of a three-person PANEL of the circuit court. The decision only applies within the area covered by the circuit court's jurisdiction, and it will, as was said, be appealed. Every other court case, other than a single minor lower-court one, supported the militia interpretation.
What do you mean by "militia interpretation"? The "individual right viewed in the context of the militia" or the "collectivist interpretation"?
I know of two trial courts that have rejected the collectivist interpretation: the original 1939 Miller case, and the Emerson case a few years back.
I know of two appeals courts that have rejected the collectivist interpretation: the Emerson case, and the one just recently in the DC district.
And most importantly, the US Supreme Court rejected the collectivist interpretation in the 1939 Miller ruling.
Advocate wrote:OSD, you say that the founders required people to own weapons. What is your support for that statement?
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I don't see how anyone can read the above and say that it refers to an individual right.
The Supreme Court does a good job of explaining it in the Miller ruling.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html
Advocate wrote:You can't escape that the militia clause is dependent. Thus, it is clear that the right to bear is in the context of a militia.
It is true that the individual right is in the context of the militia. However, this is not because of the first part of the Second Amendment (which is entirely independent of the second half).
The individual right is in the context of the Militia because throughout the history of the right it has always been tied to the militia.
Steve 41oo wrote:the point remains that there is no conceivable need for a civilian to go about armed with a 9mm Glock semi automatic pistol. If you are determined that civilians have the right to be armed, then at least keep the armament proportional to the threat. A six shot revolver will stop a mugger.
What about an 8-shot revolver?
Or a 10 shot Glock semi-auto?
(Not that I agree with the proposed restriction, but.... )
oralloy wrote:Advocate wrote:Gunga, the recent decision is less than a blockbuster. It was by a majority of a three-person PANEL of the circuit court. The decision only applies within the area covered by the circuit court's jurisdiction, and it will, as was said, be appealed. Every other court case, other than a single minor lower-court one, supported the militia interpretation.
What do you mean by "militia interpretation"? The "individual right viewed in the context of the militia" or the "collectivist interpretation"?
I know of two trial courts that have rejected the collectivist interpretation: the original 1939 Miller case, and the Emerson case a few years back.
I know of two appeals courts that have rejected the collectivist interpretation: the Emerson case, and the one just recently in the DC district.
And most importantly, the US Supreme Court rejected the collectivist interpretation in the 1939 Miller ruling.
If you were correct, there would be no gun control. Gun control contradicts any absolute right to bear.
Advocate wrote:oralloy wrote:Advocate wrote:Gunga, the recent decision is less than a blockbuster. It was by a majority of a three-person PANEL of the circuit court. The decision only applies within the area covered by the circuit court's jurisdiction, and it will, as was said, be appealed. Every other court case, other than a single minor lower-court one, supported the militia interpretation.
What do you mean by "militia interpretation"? The "individual right viewed in the context of the militia" or the "collectivist interpretation"?
I know of two trial courts that have rejected the collectivist interpretation: the original 1939 Miller case, and the Emerson case a few years back.
I know of two appeals courts that have rejected the collectivist interpretation: the Emerson case, and the one just recently in the DC district.
And most importantly, the US Supreme Court rejected the collectivist interpretation in the 1939 Miller ruling.
If you were correct, there would be no gun control. Gun control contradicts any absolute right to bear.
Not exactly.
The "individual right in the context of the militia" interpretation put forward by the Supreme Court is in no way incompatible with all forms of gun control.
Also, even when gun laws do contradict the Supreme Court's rulings on the issue, that doesn't mean there can be no such gun laws. Unfortunately many courts do not uphold the Supreme Court's rulings on the issue, and the Supreme Court seems content to let them get away with it. Thus it falls to organizations like the NRA to step in and do the courts' job for them.
I have no idea what "absolute right to bear" means, so cannot comment on it.
BTW, you are wrong about "Miller." The decision merely said that Miller's shotgun was not a weapon such as those covered by the second amendment's right to bear arms.
Quote:Thus it falls to organizations like the NRA to step in and do the courts' job for them.
Not that they have any rights to do anything of the sort at all.
Cycloptcihorn
Advocate wrote:BTW, you are wrong about "Miller." The decision merely said that Miller's shotgun was not a weapon such as those covered by the second amendment's right to bear arms.
Nope. That is one thing the ruling did NOT do.
They merely said there had been no evidence given that it was such a weapon, and sent it back to the trial court, where the question of whether it was such a weapon could have been argued.
They also gave the guidelines for the lower courts to use in deciding whether it was such a weapon, and they gave their reasons behind their decision.
All of it boils down to a ruling in support of the "individual right in the context of the militia" interpretation.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Oralloy wrote:Thus it falls to organizations like the NRA to step in and do the courts' job for them.
Not that they have any rights to do anything of the sort at all.
First Amendment says they have every right.
oralloy wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Oralloy wrote:Thus it falls to organizations like the NRA to step in and do the courts' job for them.
Not that they have any rights to do anything of the sort at all.
First Amendment says they have every right.
Well, lol, they can talk all they like about the issue
But that's it.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:oralloy wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Oralloy wrote:Thus it falls to organizations like the NRA to step in and do the courts' job for them.
Not that they have any rights to do anything of the sort at all.
First Amendment says they have every right.
Well, lol, they can talk all they like about the issue
But that's it.
Cycloptichorn
NRA members can write letters and make calls to congressmen, and they can vote en mass for whoever the NRA endorses, giving the NRA quite a bit of power over moderate congressmen who win elections by small margins.
well this is an American hosted website so I will refrain from saying
that American gun lovers can go sh**t themselves
er ok overstepped the mark a little there, I meant they can go and play with each other's tools.
Chicken sheeple like steve are a huge problem worldwide. Yet we continue to defend their ass. What a waste of money.
oralloy wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:oralloy wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Oralloy wrote:Thus it falls to organizations like the NRA to step in and do the courts' job for them.
Not that they have any rights to do anything of the sort at all.
First Amendment says they have every right.
Well, lol, they can talk all they like about the issue
But that's it.
Cycloptichorn
NRA members can write letters and make calls to congressmen, and they can vote en mass for whoever the NRA endorses, giving the NRA quite a bit of power over moderate congressmen who win elections by small margins.
The NRA can and does make contributions to the political campaigns of those who oppose gun control legislation, or whose opponents support it--quite apart from providing lists of approved candidates whom they encourage their membership to support. They can and do spend money on lobbyists who oppose gun control legislation. That is why they do not have status as a charitable, not-for-profit organization in the view of the IRS. The NRA is classified as a 501(c)(4) organization, which is allowed under IRS regulation to spend a substantial portion of their income on lobbying and political campaigns, and it is for that reason that most donations to the NRA
are not tax deductible.
To attempt to imply that the NRA are simply a public interest group which can influence public opinion and no more is either naively stupid or disingenuous.
Interesting gun-related news story on another thread:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=93923
Oral, you are dead wrong on Miller. This is from US v. Miller (1939):
"The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
Thus, the Supreme Court clearly states that the second amendment provides for the right to bear in the context of a militia.
