waitforufo

The problem is the political class. They are all out of touch with the people. They all think we are incompetent in making our own decisions and create laws to force there ways upon us. They all work drive us apart instead of together. Ask any of them to list the goals they are attempting to achieve through politics and nowhere on that list will you find the word prosperity.

Before we can start such a journey we have to decide where our current starting place is. Unless someone posts before I complete, this will be post 659, and this discussion has still not reached a consensus on where we are starting from. We are still quibbling about the meaning of words used in our founding documents, the constitution, and the second amendment of the bill of rights. Furthermore, some like you, continue to suggest that 5 to 4 Supreme court rulings should have little bearing on the debate. Until this is resolved little progress can be made to your goal for more regulation to reduce child deaths by firearms. Perhaps you should publicly state were you think we stand with regard to our guaranteed constitutional rights based on our founding documents, the second amendment, impacting supreme court rulings, and the debate we have had to this point. Perhaps that would move things along. As an example of confusion on the meaning of words I give you Pearl. Above Pearl insists that the word Regulation defines the word regulate. While above, the word regulate simply helps define the word regulation. The word regulate stands on its own in definition #1. Can laws be passed with the intention of putting conduct in good order? Sure. Are regulations required to put a militia in good order? no. Regulation does not define the word regulated. So all Pearl has to do is click on the word regulate (or regulated) from his own post to find out what word regulate means. Once that definition is provided he can select the most appropriate definition from the provided list of definitions. Not the one he likes the most. To determine the most appropriate definition, one needs to look at how the word was used and the historical context of its use by the author. One would think that a scientist with knowledge about the law would understand that. Here Pearl provides the the definition of the word inalienable as if I am in disagreement with this definition. I am not. Sure my firearms may be taken from me or freely given away by me. But my right to to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away from or given away by me or any other human being. It is an inalienable right. I have made a suggestion. I suggested that children in k through 12 public schools receive mandatory gun safety training. This training would of course have to be age or grade appropriate. For example kindergartner's simply need to be taught to not touch guns, run away from them, and tell and grown up about the gun. I believe this would save the lives of some children. You never know where a child may find a gun. At a friends house, or simply on the street when thrown away by a criminal. You have pointed out many times how many guns Americans own. This number continues to increase, particularly when gun control is mentioned. This makes training children gun safety all the more important.

Scientist but not a lawyer right? So by your own standard what is your opinion worth? So you really think defendants get convicted when they follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. Canada must have interesting courts proceedings. I can just hear the prosecutors closing arguments. "Sure the defendant showed that he followed the letter of the law, but he just didn't follow the vibe." That might convince the courts in Canada, but I doubt they would in the US. By the way, I love your country and visit it often. British Columbia has many great motorcycle adventures and wonderful hot springs. No, I was asked to provide a definition for the term well regulated. Scientific facts may help you pass a law, support your position about a law, or help you get a law changed, but they have no bearing on a laws that are in place. Laws are what they are. By the way, you can always read DC v. Heller to find out what well regulated means. But since you won't read it, here it is. Nothing there about controlled by government. So people need to own arms so they know how to shoot them. A simple amendment with simple meanings. First, it wasn't me that recommended putting guns on hooks. It was overtone that said "Some of my relatives kept a shotgun on nails over the kitchen door (overlooked the garden and chicken coop)". Use the search engine at the top of the page to look it up. Seems like a reasonable thing for a farmer with a chicken coop to do. Protecting your next meal from the fox is a form of self defense. I am happy to see you concede that such a practice is not criminal. I concede that it may lead to negligence after an accidental shooting. Negligent homicide even. That fact leads to deterrence of such practices for most except in time of need. Where I am sure you and I part ways is that DC v. Heller makes such practices legal in every state. If I could only convince you to read DC v. Heller yourself. But I guess by not reading it you can deny it exists. Edit ---------------------------------------------- On a happy note. Dick Heller is back at it again. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-one-gun-a-month-law-in-district/2015/09/18/137fa290-5e22-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

You seem to have a hard time understanding that science, morality, and law are different things that operate under different rules.

Previously in post 617 I also gave this reference. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php Didn't you read it? I'm not quite sure why the people at the Library of Congress would disagree with your interpretation but they sure seem too. Perhaps you are confused by the phrase on your Wiki quote "all firearms including rifles and shotguns ". I'm not quite sure why you would think "all firearms" would not include handguns simply because the phrase also states "including rifles and shotguns." Perhaps if you found a quote directly from Heller. The link to Heller is provided within Library of Congress link. From Heller I find Are not handguns lawful firearms?

How about we get back on topic. My reading of DC v. Heller, October term 2007, says that Americans are free to have loaded guns readily available in there homes without trigger locks or similar devices, because individuals have the right to keep and bear firearms for self defense as guaranteed by the second amendment. Here is DC v. Heller for your reading enjoyment. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf Now am I reading that wrong? Do you disagree with my interpretation? Is my citation not sufficient? Now I appreciate that this ruling could be overturned, but I believe that is rather unlikely. The opinion seems rather well reasoned to me. I also appreciate that the constitution could be amended to either nullify or modify the second amendment, but again, to me, that seems unlikely. So if we all have to live with this ruling, at least for a time, what regulations do you think will reduce child firearms mortality, either accidental or intentional? Remember that it is legal to leave loaded guns lying around the house.

We are talking about passing laws with the goal of preventing accidental firearm child mortality. Laws have to be pass constitutional muster to be put into effect. WTF is wrong with you that you cannot understand that. Nah, life does not start and stop at the convenience of Pearl. He can put his own work in. It is all within the topic. He he can search the topic and read it. Besides I have provided DC v. Heller to Pearl at least twice now. If he doesn't get that the prefactory clause has no limiting impact on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" then let him live in his abstinence. But since Pearl is too lazy to catch up on the blog maybe he has never heard me tell those that wish to change the constitution good luck. It is completely within the rights of those that wish to do so to give it a try. Again, I wish such individuals good luck. Pearl, if he could shake his sloth and review the topic, he would also know that the conversation has moved on from trying to change the second amendment and reverse standing Supreme Court rulings to trying to find regulations that would fit within them. To have an effective conversation about that, one has to listen to and respect the contrarians. In fact one should try on the contrarians shoes and walk around in them a bit. Without respecting contrarians and occasionally playing there role, the proposed regulations will be weak and easily dismissed. That is something all educated mature adults understand. At least those with a well regulated temperament.

Okay, let me catch you up again. We are discussing what government regulations would be permissible under the US constitution and Supreme Court rulings so that fewer child firearms accidents would occur. I'm simply challenging the proposed regulations legal permissibility. No one else on this topic seems to be willing to do that. It is important that someone does, otherwise those making the proposals will simply waste time and money while making fools of themselves.

I'm simply suggesting that you catch up by reading up to the point in time that you entered. We have covered this "well regulated" phrase ad infinitum, and you are on the losing side of the argument. To speed that process up, here is a suggestion. Search each of the 32 pages of this topic for "well regulated." If you don't know press <ctrl>F and a little search box will appear. Besides I quoted from Heller. A recent Supreme Court ruling. Here it is again. So the prefactory clause has no bearing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Like I said before, you are a latecomer to the party. Like Walter said to Donnie in The Big Lebowski "Life does not stop and start at your convenience." Here is a link to the "First book of astronomy" Please explain how the 'well regulated' clock they are talking about is controlled by government. Good luck. https://books.google.com/books?id=KFJYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=well+regulated+clock&source=bl&ots=5T3_Zl1oSx&sig=hSW7YLQy5X554alQU38tk8pkkrI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE0Q6AEwB2oVChMI4O225O7-xwIVzDqICh3rBQN0#v=onepage&q=well%20regulated%20clock&f=false

I'm not worried. I understand that the the common flaw in human beings is to run willingly into chains. You seem to be saying that a lack of resistance to this flaw will bring those chains about slower and make them more comfortable. I'll take my chance on the other path.

You are, of course, quite correct. I agree with you completely. Your point is valid, logical, and accurate. The challenge, though, is that we know some regulation and restriction is acceptable. We know that the situation can be improved. We know that there is a problem that must be addressed. Unfortunately, we have otherwise intelligent people like yourself standing in the way of addressing it. We have a whole cabal of people who would rather argue on ideological abstractions and mental masturbations and unrealistic perceptions of the world around us than to argue that some deaths can and very much should be avoided, especially those of adolescents that are the direct result of unregulated firearms. I would love to go shooting with you someday. I'd love to share a beer and some whiskey someday. I'd also love if you would become an ally in this understandable desire to reduce needless gun death while in parallel giving deference and protection of the liberties I suspect we equally cherish. waitforufo, on 16 Sept 2015 - 8:46 PM, said: Indeed. IMO, you are again here entirely correct. Thank you. This topic on this forum has little tolerance for a foil pointing out the flaws in your arguments and the limits of your desired regulations based on the constitution and rulings of the Supreme Court. It is full of compassion, feelings, insults, and willful ignorance, none of which will advance your cause. You neglect to understand that a foil can be your ally. Do you want to fail in your endeavor? Do you really think I'm better at this than the NRA will be? I'm sure you and I would pick different members of the Supreme Court that we like and dislike, but I think we can agree that none of them are stupid. So I suggest that those participating in this topic to start looking at the Constitution, the plane reading of the second amendment, the history of the second amendment and it's constant confirmation by Congress as it admitted States into the Union, and all Supreme Court rulings on the subject. There really is little else worth talking about. You seem to be having a hard time reaching the link I provided on the DC v. Heller. Perhaps some additional quotes from the ruling will help you. So while you are wrong on the meaning of "well regulated" and government involvement, it does not matter because the prefactory clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", does not limit or expand the operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". With regard to who is in the militia the Supreme Court says... That sounds a bit sexist to me, so I think we can assume that women can be considered part of the militia as well. This may however, let females opt out of the militia to attend to other important societal maters. I am in fact male and physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, so I am in fact in the militia. And why the need for the second amendment? And how is the Court's interpretation confirmed? So you see, you have a very difficult nut to crack.

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it wrong, or trolling. If all you want is a bunch of people agreeing with you, then you are on the wrong forum.

This is getting rather tiresome, but all i'm doing is explaining to you the US constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court. You may not like the US Constitution, or the rulings of the Supreme Court, but that really does not matter. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Your opinion may also be that the US Constitution and the current modern rulings of the Supreme Court don't make any logical sense, but again that doesn't matter either. You see there is no requirement that it make logical sense. What matters is what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court rules. You have to live with that just like Kentucky clerk Kim Davis does. I think maybe your forgetting that the United States was founded by revolutionaries. People that picked up there own guns and went to war with one of the worlds greatest powers. They weren't cowardly loser wimps like Che Guevara. They were winners that tipped over the worlds order based on the principle of natural human rights. Personally I think we are all better off for it. While I'm sure you think I a bad person, I'm happy that our founders were smart enough to remember what made it all possible, armed citizens willing to tell there government to drop dead, and then making them dead. I'm also happy that the Supreme Court, with it's recent rulings, affirmed the founders judgement. I'm glad to see the system set up by the founders continues to function properly.

I took another look at DC v. Heller. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php Sorry people, no trigger locks. I seems simple to assume that would also apply to gun safes. You are a latecomer to the party, but your comments have all been covered. I live in a free state ruled by law. In the main I have simply been pointing out the law. The US Constitution protects my natural rights. One of which is the right to keep and bear arms. Spew your vitriol, all you like. I have the law on my side.

Feel better now? If a gun is to be used of self defense, a right recognized by the Supreme Court, it should be ready to use. Which means loaded. You know, for times when the police stop doing their job because they don't want to be the next national media pariah. So the gun locks you mention require the gun to be unloaded which diminishes there self defense effectiveness. The problem with trigger locks like the Identilock show above is that the lock touches or is near the trigger. Not a good idea if the gun is loaded. A lock on the gun is a better idea but likely requires a key which can be lost or unavailable at the time of need.

For some they might be a feel good thing to do but do they really reduced deaths? http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-02-25/news/0002280626_1_committed-with-guns-accidental-gun-gun-locks Here is an idea. How about mandatory firearms safety training in public schools to teach kids to avoid firearms and tell an adult. The NRA has a program. https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

Forgive me. I misunderstood what you meant by biometric locks. I assumed incorrectly that you were referring to biometric safety mechanisms integrated into the firearm. So when you pull the trigger they wont shoot. It is the biometric safety that police have been looking for. Not the lock you show above. I wonder if that lock will come with a warning like this one from Master Lock. DO NOT USE THIS LOCK ON A LOADED GUN! Attempts to use on a loaded gun may result in an accidental discharge. A loaded gun must always be regarded as dangerous. If the lock becomes damaged in any way do not attempt to use on your firearm - refer to guarantee information for replacement. Before attempting to use, carefully read all of the following instructions along with the firearms safety tips. IMPORTANT: We do not guarantee that this product will lock all firearms. It will block access to many guns when properly attached. Some lever action rifles, firearms without trigger guard surrounding the triggers, guns with extra light or extra wide triggers or guns with trigger shoes or extensions may not be able to be effectively locked with this gun lock. NO GUN LOCK CAN OFFER COMPLETE PROTECTION AGAINST THE ACCIDENTAL OR INTENTIONAL MISUSE OF FIREARMS. Keep guns unloaded and out of children's reach. Master Lock Company is not responsible for incidental or consequential damages.

I have no problem with your first two sentences. Proves you can't make a logical argument, but I'm okay with that. With regard to your third sentence, my right to bear arms ins guaranteed by the constitution. We have gone over this for hundreds of posts. Please pay attention. Yet to be challenged regulations. Thank you. Great information. What would you have them study that is not provided with every firearm and easily found on the internet. http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

In the United States, the government can only do what it is empowered to do by the constitution. The people can do as they choose with the exception of things forbidden by the constitution or by constitutionally acceptable laws. I live by the rule of law. Don't you? You may live by some higher calling. In the United States we call that religion. Check the first amendment about my guaranteed freedom regarding religion.

Many States and Counties in the US required people to take literacy tests in order to vote. Since people have the right to vote, such testing is forbidden. They are in large part forbidden because of the biases of the testers. The militia is a reality in law in the United States. Your or my opinion of the militia is meaningless. The Supreme Court has ruled that US citizens have the right to own firearms for self defense. Your or my opinion of this self defense right is meaningless. I'm not hiding behind the law. The law is what it is. I'm not afraid of losing my guns. I live in the United States and have guaranteed rights that shall not be infringed. I would have no problem passing such a test. What right does the government have in requiring me to take one? Where is the government so empowered?

First, thank you for your proposals. Now lets hear you play NRA lawyer and pick them apart. You know, simple things like the people in the United States are permitted to own weapons in ordinary military use (Miller). Do military weapons have biometric locks? Would your proposals impact the effectiveness of the militia, once called upon? Also, people have the right to use firearms for self defense (Heller, McDonald) and locks ans safes reduce the self defense effectiveness of firearms thereby diminishing there rights. Finally, that tests are simply a means to intimidate people from exercising there rights and infringes on people who fail. Don't forget the you won't be going up against someone participating on a blog for entertainment. You will be going up against the best lawyers money can buy. With regard to biometric locks, I have never seen one for sale. It is my understanding that the primary group interested in effective biometric weapons locks are the police. The police don't want their weapons used against themselves or the public. The police represent one of the largest firearms markets world wide. So where are they? You might as well propose that people can only own phasors set permanently to stun. Finally, do firearm safety devices actually make firearms safer, or are they too a source of firearms accidents?

It doesn't really matter what I do. Have all the cooperative meetings and write all the "reasonable" regulations you want. The NRA, not a member by the way, and people like Alan Gottlieb, not a member of his groups either, will challenge each regulation in court. Sure it might take time for them to find someone with standing, a good case, and who is willing to cooperate, but when they do, they will sue. How long were the "reasonable" regulations in effect In DC before Heller? How long were the "reasonable" regulations in place in Chicago before McDonald? Years if not decades if I recall correctly. They have good highly paid lawyers. They won in DC and Chicago didn't they? I would however love to hear what these "reasonable" regulations might be. We are on post 581 now and I haven't seen any yet. Not that we haven't had quite a bit of productive debate. I have enjoyed many or your posts. What have we learned? First that the second amendment is easily understood by anyone. We have leaned that "well regulated" does not mean controlled by government. That the militia exists and and can be brought to duty quickly because we have an armed populous. The the public health is served because the militia protects the security of our free state. That our government must recognize our natural human right to bear arms and not infringe upon this right. We also learned that our right to keep and bear arms was recently clarified by the Supreme Court to be an individual right that permits all citizens to own firearms for personal protection. What we have yet to here are "reasonable" regulations that are in keeping with the above understanding. Let's hear them. We should all find it enjoyable to play NRA lawyer to see if we can pick them apart. If we can do it, believe me the NRA will sure figure out a way.

To your comment "So, still not facing up to the fact that the amendment, as currently used, is based on an outdated idea", John, I responded that it does not matter. You replied... I'm sure it does. The law however, is the law. Feelings about a law don't matter. The belief by some, that the ideas upon which a law is based are outdated doesn't matter. All that matters is that the law is in force. Now if you can reach the requirement to change a specific law then that matters, and the law is changed. Those requirements for changing firearms laws in the United States is rather high. Currently the US constitution, State constitutions and Supreme Court rulings, recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right of human beings. That is a very high hurdle for change. A hurdle not likely to be reached currently, if ever, in the United States. Even Red Leader now concedes this point. That is why I responded to your post that it doesn't matter if the second "amendment, as currently used, is based on an outdated idea." I hope you also appreciate that by leaving the constitutional recognition of and individuals natural human right to keep and bear arms in place, that all of those regulations you wish for will be challenged. Recent history indicates that many will fail that challenge. Those that pass that challenge will not likely produce the results you are seeking. For example. Safe storage laws. It has been pointed out previously that a firearm stored in a safe negates the effective self defense use of that firearm. The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms for the explicit purpose of self defense. So, in my opinion, such a regulation is likely to fail. By the way the Lanza home had a gun safe. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/warrants-released-newtown-investigation-article-1.1301082. Also, one needs to consider the cost to individuals of the regulations you are seeking. If the right to keep and bear arms is to be available to all, regardless of financial circumstances, then government regulations must not make the exercise of that rights cost prohibitive. That would be denying the right to keep and bear arms to the poor. So inexpensive guns cannot be prohibited, nor can expensive safe storage devices be required. the road to perdition is paved with good intentions. No I think Trump is a misogynistic jerk with the temperament of a 5 year old. But why even ask?

So, still not facing up to the fact that it doesn't matter. Here, by the way, is an image of what happens to children who don't live securely in a free state.