Gun control, which side wins?

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, rangerx said:

That's not my opinion or what I said at all, quit putting words in my mouth.

I said DID (in the past tense) NOT DOES in the present and future. FFS.

6 hours ago, rangerx said:

You've identified a problem. Would you agree, that removing the states legislative ability to thwart federal laws on safety is a workable solution?

After all, the states still have the power to enforce and to charge for federal crimes in any case, not just guns.

 

 

So if you were only talking about past tense, and you weren't suggesting they could do it now, then why would you bother proposing a solution to a non-existent problem in your opinion?

 

 

 

Edit after downvotes:

I did not put words in your mouth. You said it was a problem that states had the ability to thwart federal laws on safety. I pointed out that they can't, and suggested that perhaps you don't fully understand the U.S. legal system, which is okay. It's not me being a Canadian racist, it's me suggesting something that's true. 

Then, after I stated that states can't thwart the federal government you try to tell me you never said it. Yet, I've quoted you directly saying that we might have to remove their ability to do so. Your posts have created a contradiction with themselves. You could always explain what you said better rather than trying to assert that you didn't say it at all, and downvoting the person for pointing it out.

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

So if you were only talking about past tense, and you weren't suggesting they could do it now, then why would you bother proposing a solution to a non-existent problem in your opinion?

By your own admission to this thread, you've very clearly said your state government was complicit in thwarting federal laws. Corrupt was the exact word.

So invoking any measures (legal, moral, education or otherwise) to prevent your state legislatures from even attempting to thwart the law is off the table then?

You seem to be upholding the status quo, not a catalyst for change is how that reads.

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

By your own admission to this thread, you've very clearly said your state government was complicit in thwarting federal laws. Corrupt was the exact word.

So invoking any measures (legal, moral, education or otherwise) to prevent your state legislatures from even attempting to thwart the law is off the table then?

 

 

No. I didn't. Read again.

6 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

States do have the right to put pretty much whatever restrictions they like on guns unless deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. I've participated a little in judiciary programs, however, I am not familiar with a case where the Supreme Court ruled that states had to repeal a gun law of any kind. I could be mistaken.

So if the politics on a national level are too corrupt, states do have the ability to place their own laws. That being said, my state in particular is pretty corrupt. 

 

You've taken the line out of context. However, I've placed it back into context so hopefully, this confusion will be cleared up.

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You seem to be upholding the status quo, not a catalyst for change is how that reads.

 

I fail to see how this adds anything to the discussion at hand.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

First you you said the states have the ability to place their own laws if they think the federal laws are corrupt. Then said the states can't because the supreme court will over-rule them.

Then I suggested and asked if you supported proactive measures to prevent your state from doing that in the first place. You responded with a no,  by putting reliance on the federal courts to correct it instead.

Meanwhile, kids die waiting for the status quo to be maintained, rather than dealing with the underpinnings of the problem. THAT is what I'M saying.

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

You could always explain what you said better rather than trying to assert that you didn't say it at all, and downvoting the person for pointing it out.

 

And who said I downvoted your comment?

That's an outright lie and a personal attack.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Please stop the bickering around down votes. Raider5678, you have no way of knowing who gave you those points without their admission or the advice of staff, so please do not go around accusing people of things when you do not have the evidence to support your claims. Trust that if it is truly undeserved that someone will likely reverse it, as they have in this particular instance, and move on. 

 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, rangerx said:

First you you said the states have the ability to place their own laws if they think the federal laws are corrupt. Then said the states can't because the supreme court will over-rule them.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. The states can pass gun restrictions. The Supreme Court can rule them to be unconstitutional. I don't think there's anything controversial in that position.

 

 

 

[Raider5678]

10 hours ago, rangerx said:

First you you said the states have the ability to place their own laws if they think the federal laws are corrupt. Then said the states can't because the supreme court will over-rule them.

Then I suggested and asked if you supported proactive measures to prevent your state from doing that in the first place. You responded with a no,  by putting reliance on the federal courts to correct it instead.

Meanwhile, kids die waiting for the status quo to be maintained, rather than dealing with the underpinnings of the problem. THAT is what I'M saying.

4

Again, I'm not sure you entirely understand it.

There are state laws and federal laws. Let's say the federal law has no gun restrictions at all. A state, individually, can pass laws saying there are gun regulations in that particular state. The laws don't conflict with federal laws, they're simply adding to them. Unless the supreme court rules it unconstitutional, the laws stay.

 

 

Now let's say the federal government outlaws automatic rifles. States can't legalize automatic rifles because the federal government has made it illegal. The state might not arrest people, but the federal government could at any time because they are breaking the federal law. Just not the state law. And if the supreme court rules that by repealing the federal law in that state that they've violated the constitution, they must repeal the law that repealed the federal law in their state. 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, rangerx said:

In countries with well-regulated gun laws, there are no "sides".

 

There are always sides, however benign and well-thought-out the regulation, the only real difference is when they aren't well thought out or benign, there are no guns to take revenge on the pricks...

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't think that's a fair assessment. The states can pass gun restrictions. The Supreme Court can rule them to be unconstitutional. I don't think there's anything controversial in that position.

That's not a fair assessment either. My comment (a suggestion and a question) were spun into something else entirely.

Raider raised the issue, speaking from the standpoint of corruption detracting gun safety laws by his state legislature by thwarting or straying from gun safety measures. He even went as far to suggest his state does it because "they believe the feds are corrupt". I suggested and asked if they agreed upon taking legal (no less social) measures to nip it in the bud, but responded as no, being solely reliant on SCOTUS to sort it out. To me, that read as maintaining the status quo, not pro-activity as they claim to be, because controversial laws can take years to resolve or may not be resolved at all and in the meantime, people may die.

I also prefixed the comment, that state and local police still make arrests and detain suspects, irrespective of which level of laws were broken. It's not as though anyone has to give up protection from law enforcement and It's not as though they turn a blind eye, in anticipation of maybe the feds figuring it out.

In opening their response, they had the audacity to insult my intelligence by suggesting I don't understand American law, thus perpetuating their pretense my opinion has no bearing in this or any discussion. Even going as far as claiming to have taken some so-called 9 month course, making them the legal authority in the this discussion. Subsequently, proven themselves as a wrongfully accusatory and needlessly hyberbolic.

I fought a long, acrimonious class action in an American court to infer negligence and maintain standing, not for the money. They tried every underhanded tactic and procedural obstacle they could present and spared no expense trying, yet I prevailed. That's considerably more experience with the American legal system than probably the greater part of this forum and certainly the average American would ever endure. Their assertion (not the only one on this board) that I am anti-American is patently false.

[Phi for All]

Arms dealers have played both "sides" for centuries. The trick is to make it seem like you aren't a "side", you're just helping a bunch of people who are trying to stand up for themselves, or defend their homeland. Hopefully they don't figure out you're making money off both sides. 

The trick they've learned lately (since mass media) is that when anyone starts talking about regulating your business in any way, they start complaining that it will ALL be taken away. It works for guns, it works for extreme wealth, it works for racial reform, and it works for social welfare. It also helps if the voting public doesn't have a very good education in critical thinking, so you can get them to help you with your agenda (which is actually quite bad for them).

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Again, I'm not sure you entirely understand it.

There are state laws and federal laws. Let's say the federal law has no gun restrictions at all. A state, individually, can pass laws saying there are gun regulations in that particular state. The laws don't conflict with federal laws, they're simply adding to them. Unless the supreme court rules it unconstitutional, the laws stay.

 

 

Now let's say the federal government outlaws automatic rifles. States can't legalize automatic rifles because the federal government has made it illegal. The state might not arrest people, but the federal government could at any time because they are breaking the federal law. Just not the state law. And if the supreme court rules that by repealing the federal law in that state that they've violated the constitution, they must repeal the law that repealed the federal law in their state. 

You're just talking in circles about something has nothing to do with anything I've suggested.

And just who knows "entirely". Even the most learned judge's knowledge isn't entire. Why does that standard only apply to me, if not for being singularly dismissive?

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You're just talking in circles about something has nothing to do with anything I've suggested.

And just who knows "entirely". Even the most learned judge's knowledge isn't entire. Why does that standard only apply to me, if not for being singularly dismissive?

Actually, my posts have been addressing what you've said but I'm done now. You're too worried about your intelligence being insulted.

If you respond to the section I put in explaining about how the state can't just thwart federal law, then fine. Otherwise, you're refusing to accept anything.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Actually, my posts have been addressing what you've said but I'm done now. You're too worried about your intelligence being insulted.

If you respond to the section I put in explaining about how the state can't just thwart federal law, then fine. Otherwise, you're refusing to accept anything.

I doubt you are done and who in the hell are you to tell me I am too worried about anything? I will not stand for you insulting my intelligence on any level.

Refusing to accept anything? Another blatant lie.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, rangerx said:

That's not a fair assessment either. My comment (a suggestion and a question) were spun into something else entirely.

I was not summarizing your comment, I was summarizing Raider5678's.

"States do have the right to put pretty much whatever restrictions they like on guns unless deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court." and "So if the politics on a national level are too corrupt, states do have the ability to place their own laws."

Quote

Raider raised the issue, speaking from the standpoint of corruption detracting gun safety laws by his state legislature by thwarting or straying from gun safety measures. He even went as far to suggest his state does it because "they believe the feds are corrupt". I suggested and asked if they agreed upon taking legal (no less social) measures to nip it in the bud, but responded as no, being solely reliant on SCOTUS to sort it out. To me, that read as maintaining the status quo, not pro-activity as they claim to be, because controversial laws can take years to resolve or may not be resolved at all and in the meantime, people may die.

I think you may be reading way too much into the statements.

Quote

I fought a long, acrimonious class action in an American court to infer negligence and maintain standing, not for the money. 

So you're a lawyer?

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

So you're a lawyer?

No, but I've consulted with my lawyers and other pro se claimants during the case and with other lawyers and legislators about the case, subsequent to it's conclusion. I also sat on a royal commission by our government about this incident to apprise both legal and legislative authorities in this country about the proceedings and that no layperson such as myself should be caused to make this kind of representation on behalf of my county, in absence of our government or the assistance needed to undertake it. Being a representative in a class action lawsuit for an international incident (that originated in the USA) on my own dime is about as high level as it gets for just about anyone.

The assertion my knowledge doesn't exist or not entire is beside any point.

I understand this is a science forum and citations are necessary to support assertions. To dispel any doubt, I am willing to do so, but not publicly, because the case is my name v defendant and my home can be deduced by it, hence I have fears my life could be threatened. The case is public record and I will gladly post the links to you in PM, where you'll be able to match the name with the email address when I signed up for this forum.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, rangerx said:

No, but I've consulted with my lawyers and other pro se claimants during the case and with other lawyers and legislators about the case, subsequent to it's conclusion. I also sat on a royal commission by our government about this incident to apprise both legal and legislative authorities in this country about the proceedings and that no layperson such as myself should be caused to make this kind of representation on behalf of my county, in absence of our government or the assistance needed to undertake it. Being a representative in a class action lawsuit for an international incident (that originated in the USA) on my own dime is about as high level as it gets for just about anyone.

So IOW your expertise is as a participant, in one narrow area of law.

 

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So IOW your expertise is as a participant, in one narrow area of law.

Maritime and Admiralty law, the right to volunteer, the right to clean air and water, the right to seek compensation for injuries and loss of opportunity, the right to intervene in international incidents are scarcely one narrow area of the law. I'm certain you understand proving negligence is no small task, it's massive and burdensome.

Does it apply to gun laws? Not directly, but it might or could apply in under some circumstances but that's not the point I'm getting at either. My point being it's an underhanded tactic of dismissal from the discussion in the absence of facts and intellectual dishonesty, by presuming my knowledge is less than theirs or others. They are still attacking me personally. by suggesting I refuse to accept anything. Even going laying down conditions that whether I respond or not is contingent on my acceptance.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

If you respond to the section I put in explaining about how the state can't just thwart federal law, then fine. Otherwise, you're refusing to accept anything.

That's objectionable, especially in light of the fact I've been introspective and admonished on points in the past. Take MigL, for example. Largely, we have polar opposite view points and I was unduly harsh. Once he articulated his view on gun control, did I realize there are no sides when it comes to gun control in Canada (only fringes, but certainly not across the board) and took back what I said about him in earlier discussions. Ten Oz objectively deconstructed my assertion on why I and others may believe why Trump was elected largely because of his lack of PC. On revisiting that, realized my point was rhetorical and took it back.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

You're too worried about your intelligence being insulted.

That is also objectionable, as needlessly offensive. He is attacking me personally, not the points I make. I am critical of what he says, not who he is. It's not fair.

Edited February 23, 2018 by rangerx

[Strange]

On 22/02/2018 at 8:12 PM, HB of CJ said:

This entire discussion at hand is irrelevant.  What should be discussed, (if possible) is the significance of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  It is not about hunting.  It is about the required necessity of a armed citizens ability to overthrow a bad tyrannical government.

You have no idea how bizarre this argument sounds to those outside the USA. It might have made some sense at the time, because of the history of the colonies, but now it just sounds ridiculous.

America boasts about the importance of democracy and about being a great democracy. And yet you cannot trust the democratic system.

Most other democracies work very well without the constant threat of civil war or revolution to keep their politicians in line. 

There are certainly countries that depend on armed militias to maintain some semblance of order. But do you really want to compare the USA with third-world countries run by local warlords?

The times when American democracy has gone horribly wrong (for example the internment of Japanese-Americans during the war, the McCarthy witch-hunts) no one rose up to use their weapons overthrow the government.

And when, arguably, "the people" did use their weapons (the civil war) it was one bunch of politicians (and wealthy businessmen) against another group, both of them just using the people for their own ends.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

You have no idea how bizarre this argument sounds to those outside the USA. It might have made some sense at the time, because of the history of the colonies, but now it just sounds ridiculous.

To me, it's always been a Br'er Rabbit tactic, from the Uncle Remus stories, with us cast as the "cunning" Br'er Fox and those in power playing the "trapped" rabbit. "Whatever you do, don't keep guns around so you can overthrow us if we ever go bad...."

The moment those 2A guns start being used to overthrow the government is the moment those people become terrorists and the full weight of the US military and law enforcement rides to the rescue.

[CharonY]

I have mentioned earlier that gun-related deaths and injury are an underreseached subject. The RAND corporaton (and independent think tank) has made a similar point. However, they also have collected a summary of existing studies to synthesize at least some of the findings, incomplete as they may be (link here).

The strongest evidence seem to indicate that child-access prevention laws might decrease suicide as well as unintentional injuries and deaths. Background check may have a moderate impact in decreasing suicide and violent crime. Likewise, there is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase violent crime.

For other outcomes the evidence was inconclusive.

 

 

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I have mentioned earlier that gun-related deaths and injury are an underreseached subject.

I found out the other day that the NRA has passed legislation (*) that means government funding cannot be used to research many topics related to gun deaths (like, is mental health a risk factor). And that it is not possible to have a searchable database of gun owners. People have to search the paper records - they can be scanned but if that is done, they can't be OCR'd because that would make them searchable.

(*) A slight exaggeration. They obviously didn't pass the legislation. They paid others to do it for them.

[CharonY]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

I found out the other day that the NRA has passed legislation (*) that means government funding cannot be used to research many topics related to gun deaths (like, is mental health a risk factor). And that it is not possible to have a searchable database of gun owners. People have to search the paper records - they can be scanned but if that is done, they can't be OCR'd because that would make them searchable.

(*) A slight exaggeration. They obviously didn't pass the legislation. They paid others to do it for them.

I mentioned that earlier, there are restrictions on research in place, including preventing CDC to collect relevant information.  And the lack of these data is hampering research aside from the lack of actual funding.

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I mentioned that earlier, there are restrictions on research in place, including preventing CDC to collect relevant information.  And the lack of these data is hampering research aside from the lack of actual funding.

Hypothetically, say there was a foreign billionaire interested in thwarting the efforts regarding  the CDC  research, would they be allowed to fund the organisation in those areas the republican administration and NRA are trying to supress?

Edited March 2, 2018 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

Yes, they can. The issues is that many studies rely on accurate statistics collected by agencies such as CDC to document gun deaths, for example. Without those you 'll have to try to estimate these numbers from other public sources (say, police reports) which can be difficult and less accurate.

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Yes, they can. The issues is that many studies rely on accurate statistics collected by agencies such as CDC to document gun deaths, for example. Without those you 'll have to try to estimate these numbers from other public sources (say, police reports) which can be difficult and less accurate.

Right.