Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[Acme]

 

In fact that is not all you are doing. For lack of a better term, I'd call your posting in this thread 'trolling'.

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.

 

More non sequitar. Just because I don't like 'it' doesn't make 'it' right either and nothing I have said leads to the logical conclusion that all I want is people to agree with me. I have made a number of debatable suggestions directly related to the OP, none of which have received reasoned rebuttal or approval from you or other posters. Thanks for more of nothing but hyperbole.

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

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.

 

On the contrary, I have the highest respect for the courts. Unlike your illogical assumptions, I take the law at face value, not under interpretation. I don't see it written anywhere that a well regulated militia means that kids dying from negligent gun deaths is an acceptable coincidence, especially at a time when no civil unrest, military actions or disasters are in effect.

 

It's very telling how your grasp the wording of an amendment as "inalienable", when by virtue of the term itself meant the law was revisited for change. On every other issue, the word "unchallenged" rolls off your tongue as to be dismissive or unspeakable. So which one is it? You seem to go back and forth as it suits you, but suffice it to say, appears hypocritical on every level.

 

 

United States was founded by revolutionaries, you say. Oh boy, thank you for opening this little history can of worms lesson from a malcontented American revisionist. Who'd have thought a revolutionary takeover was something so unique and exceptional to America that nobody ever thought or adopted it themselves, no less lead by that example. All the countries who did in history, including mine... Canada don't have even remotely the per capita death rate from guns as your homeland. I have lots of guns. Hunting guns, target guns, spud guns, nail guns, clam guns but no hand guns, automatic, semi automatic or military weapons. I never pointed a gun at another person, nor will I, unless I intend to use it. You see, you are not much different than me in reality, other than you have chosen to live in a much more dangerous place than me.

 

No sir, I don't think you are a bad person. I have no reason to think you'd intentionally harm anyone. However, I think you are selfish person. A paranoid and cowardly person with a penchant for discord rather than resolution or conciliation. A troll.

 

Get over yourself, the law isn't on "your" side, it's on everyone's side. In fact, you've openly advocated thwarting, ignoring and defying many laws currently on the books. Nowhere in this thread do I see proponents of gun control suggest anyone act illegally or in open defiance of protecting kids in the meanwhile. If a single child got killed by a terrorist, your ilk would be screaming from the rooftops how the government is not doing enough to keep us safe.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Lagoon Island Pearls

[overtone]

Unless your the leader or member of a "well regulated militia" with legitimate standing

He is, of course. Many Americans are.

 

 

Cliven Bundy was mentioned, as if he's something to be revered or respected example to uphold the law, when in fact they're lawless, self serving and outright dangerous to anyone outside their realm.

Militia do not uphold the law. Militia are often dangerous, undisciplined, and unreliable - the very reason the commanders (on both sides) in the American Revolution did not respect them, especially at first. And nobody here has mentioned Cliven Bundy with respect - merely pointed out that he and that militia formed around him existed, very recently if not even now; also, the standoff he instigated demonstrated the occasional effectiveness of small arms and common militia grade weapons in a confrontation with much larger governmental forces.

 

 

"Well regulated" requires rigorous government involvement,

No, it doesn't. Not even close.

 

 

But I already pointed that out and you think you would win against an army that spends more than the next dozen or so put together.

No, I don't. I've posted nothing like that. I have specifically and with examples contradicted that claim. More than once. Right here.

 

You guys need to find a tactic other than insult based on reading comprehension failures and idiotic presumption. Seriously. It's a very large fraction of your posting. One should be able to discuss this issue without having to correct blatantly false assertions about one's previous posts each and every blessed time.

 

How many times does a poster have to repeat their take, and their half dozen examples, and their general analysis, before the gun control promoters here can get it through their heads that the US Army is not what they are talking about? That examples such as the Rodney King riots and the KKK terrorism and the Cliven Bundy standoff - ok, maybe the Bundy standoff does touch a bit - and all the Latin American examples and Rwanda and Indonesia and AIM and so forth and so on, specifically and explicitly illustrating the typical means by which freedom is lost in real life, do not typically involve the Army of the State. That's not the problem, especially in the US.

Edited September 17, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

 

waitforufo, on 16 Sept 2015 - 8:37 PM, said:

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.

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:

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.

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.

"Well regulated" requires rigorous government involvement, not the absence of it as gun advocates and republicans would have it.

 

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.

 

 

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.

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...

 

 

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

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?

 

 

to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms

 

And how is the Court's interpretation confirmed?

 

 

The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.

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.

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.

So you see, you have a very difficult nut to crack.

[dimreepr]

 

 

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.

 

 

Your steadfast objections to any and every proposal, to limit access, will inevitable lead you and your fellows down a path that will end in the thing you most fear.

 

You can plug up the compassion well in favour of your immediate needs and wants but all you will achieve is pressure, an ever increasing pressure (that something/anything must be done to alleviate the suffering) and when that pressure is relieved, the torrent will wash away your guns and freedom.

 

Can you not see, all you need to keep your guns and freedom is a little concession; you’re no doubt an intelligent/responsible gun owner, the real criminals are the suppliers and the lobby they enrich?

[waitforufo]

Your steadfast objections to any and every proposal, to limit access, will inevitable lead you and your fellows down a path that will end in the thing you most fear.

 

You can plug up the compassion well in favour of your immediate needs and wants but all you will achieve is pressure, an ever increasing pressure (that something/anything must be done to alleviate the suffering) and when that pressure is relieved, the torrent will wash away your guns and freedom.

 

Can you not see, all you need to keep your guns and freedom is a little concession; you’re no doubt an intelligent/responsible gun owner, the real criminals are the suppliers and the lobby they enrich?

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.

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

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".

How can "well regulated" not involve government? Regulations are imposed by government. Gun locks, permits etc. are regulations. What does "well" even mean? Well can mean healthy or it can mean abundant. The founding fathers meant health, while the gun nuts think abundant. It perverts the meaning in the same way terrorists pervert the term jihad. Both cause death, but domestic guns kill infinitely more, yet nary a peep from gun advocates. Far be it they'd be silent if a terrorist killed a kid.

 

I don't see "self regulated" written there, which is what you spinning this to be. So don't come in here and preach comprehension when you make an exception for it yourself.

 

You have failed to address the title of this thread. Instead parroting the statute repeatedly with your biased version of it, how about presenting some real facts explaining the causes of childhood mortality.

 

In return I will do the same. In 2011, the CBSA (Canadian Border Service) seized 673 illegal firearms from Americans. However, in that same year the RCMP seized 33,727 weapons. Of that, 3/4 were brass knuckles, butterfly knives etc. Here's were it gets telling... of the remaining eight thousand, more than half were taken from individuals who were permitted in the United States. Given that sheer volume, tells me that even the majority of so-called responsible gun owners are not. Of the 33,727 weapons, more than 90% of them were undeclared. Some plead ignorant, which is no excuse under any law. Some thought it was legal by reciprocal agreement, which it's not. Others knew it to be wrong, but thought it tolerable nonetheless. We put them in prison for a long time, because they are negligent criminals, nothing less.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Lagoon Island Pearls

[dimreepr]

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.

 

 

Ordinarily I’d say ‘good luck to you sir’ but since you willingly align with the real and heartless criminals I say ‘I hope you get what you wish for’.

[waitforufo]

How can "well regulated" not involve government? Regulations imposed by government. Gun locks, permits etc. are regulations. What does "well" even mean? Well can mean healthy or it can mean abundant. The founding fathers meant health, while the gun nuts think abundant. It perverts the meaning in the same way terrorists pervert the term jihad. Both cause death, but domestic guns kill infinitely more, yet nary a peep from gun advocates. Far be it they'd be silent if a terrorist killed a kid.

 

I don't see "self regulated" written there, which is what you spinning this to be. So don't come in here and preach comprehension when you make exceptions for it yourself.

 

You have failed to address the title of this thread. Instead parroting the statute repeatedly with your biased version of everything, how about presenting some facts instead of ideology.

 

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

Edited September 17, 2015 by waitforufo

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Oh I'm late, therefore my right to free speech is removed by a non-admin contributor.

 

Thanks for demonstrating that little bit of fascism though, it speaks volumes to the issue.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Lagoon Island Pearls

[waitforufo]

Oh I'm late, therefore my right to free speech is removed by a non-admin contributor.

 

Thanks for demonstrating that little bit of fascism though, it speaks volumes to the issue.

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.

 

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.

 

 

So the prefactory clause has no bearing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Edited September 17, 2015 by waitforufo

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

the prefactory clause has no bearing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

 

You parrot repeatedly, but say nothing.

 

What does any of that have to do with irresponsible gun owners killing their kids?

[waitforufo]

 

You parrot repeatedly, but say nothing.

 

What does any of that have to do with irresponsible gun owners killing their kids?

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.

Edited September 17, 2015 by waitforufo

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

I'm simply challenging the proposed regulations legal impressibility. No one else on this topic seems to be willing to do that.

 

If that's what you are doing, fine, but you are not. You've shown to be a contrary, irrational pro-gun advocate at any cost by default, not a legislate, lawyer nor judge. An amateur's take on law is not worth the spit that uttered it, although it stands as proof of the ongoing conspiracy to shape the issue into something it's not. To satisfy that agenda, numerous gun advocates are entrenched in a fight-at-all-cost bias, not predisposed to solutions. Solutions require compromise, not tyranny or intransigence. The laws you claim are unchangeable are changeable whether you like it or not, that's why they call them "amendments". "Inalienable" can be thrown out at the stroke of a pen and there'd be nothing anyone can do about it except to revisit or live with it. The latter, is workable and used in pretty much every other civil country on the planet, despite how gun advocates claim otherwise through willful ignorance

 

Gun lobbists may equivocate to the end of time, but it's that not-so-scientific "yankee doodle dandy stick-to-your-guns" harbinger that kills kids yet does NOTHING to prevent it and EVERYTHING to exacerbate it. Gun advocates largely choose to belittle those who oppose, with an infantile interpretation of the law and a draconian way to function within it. Counting myself, I know multiple gun owners who view this issue a tragedy. and rightly so, They have been greatly proactive in securing their weapons that children may not access them, often at a cost of another level of security as a priority, no other reason.Gun nuts refuse to give up that right and a such, knowingly put their own children at risk to suit adult ideologies.The defense argument is weak at best. Robbers don't teleport directly to the bedroom of a strange house in the dark in every case. If I hear an intruder downstairs, I'll have plenty of time to access the Remington pump Simply put, by not raising a singular shred of a pro-active solution and suggesting gun owners hang loaded guns on nails by the door, demonstrated unwillingness to be lawful (in most states) and children are acceptable collateral damage in the ill perceived war on gun control.

 

Beside that, a well regulated militia or inalienable rights are not the prerequisite to self defense. Here in Canada, (among numerous other civil countries) we have strict gun laws, but self defense comes under the same rule of law as the USA, so all the drivel pointing to the constitution as the standard, is moot. A false premise. A non-issue.

 

It's not objective saying no to everything by default. You've only derided the one's presented, automatically not thoughtfully nor sincerely. That is not discussion, it's tyranny. The very thing the gun laws were meant to prevent. Look around, kids are dead. There's nothing imagined here, it a very real scenario based upon sound data from multiple sources, agencies and institutions, yet those most responsible are the least proactive or more often, dismissive and contrary. Not one shred of scientific evidence has been presented by the gun lobby to suggest otherwise, only opinions.

 

 

I'll ask it again for the umpteenth time, seeing how your little video and rude comments didn't contribute anything meaningful (other than set a bad example to otherwise responsible gun owners). WTF does a well regulated militia or inalienable rights have to do with preventing child mortality, as opposed to enabling it? Respond if you like, but never mind actually, don't waste your breath and our ears with more cowardly, nonsensical spin. Let me answer, if you will. It has nothing to do with it and the parallels drawn to test the law are little more than propaganda for the purposes of deflection, not resolution. "That could never win" isn't a process in law you can throw out there as to cause everyone to surrender to this issue. It's pulled out of the butt and wiped over everything as truth, but it at the end of the day, it's just more $hit. Therein lies the rub. Until the gun lobby themselves say stop, kids will continue to die with same callous indifference, so clearly demonstrated in this thread.

 

Giving/selling/permitting crazy people guns is even crazier, but quite acceptable by the gun lobby because it's profitable and perpetrates their agenda, while in the same breath lay it back at the feet of the government to manage, despite otherwise irrational claims that the government is already too big or too incapable to address social issues effectively.

[iNow]

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.

I wonder if you'd be so kind as to share a link (or at the very least a specific post number) of the argument you feel is strongest on this "well-regulated" issue.

 

I trust you're entirely sincere that this subject has been addressed robustly and with something beyond mere assertion and willful obstinance, but also recognize that confirmation and evidence of that suggestion would help us all to move the conversation forward.

[waitforufo]

WTF does a well regulated militia or inalienable rights have to do with preventing child mortality, as opposed to enabling it?

 

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.

 

I wonder if you'd be so kind as to share a link (or at the very least a specific post number) of the argument you feel is strongest on this "well-regulated" issue.

 

I trust you're entirely sincere that this subject has been addressed robustly and with something beyond mere assertion and willful obstinance, but also recognize that confirmation and evidence of that suggestion would help us all to move the conversation forward.

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.

Edited September 18, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Yeah, I had a feeling that you'd simply refuse to support your claim. That's unfortunate.

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

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.

 

I did that. They didn't fit, weren't comfortable and seem to get stuck in the mouth a lot.

 

This is a science forum where facts are accepted based upon sound studies and rigourous testing. Rhetorical gibberish or ideological epithets are discarded as falsehoods or irrelelvent. Unilateral terms of reference hatched up by you are not the rules for discourse. Not just because your facts are not germain to the topic, but meant to control the narrative and steer away from the issue in a discordant mannner. Just because you say so, does not make so. Beating around the bush, brash assertions, obstinate positioning is not a discussion, so don't pretend to be having one here.

 

In the absence of answering pointed questions, you're merely soapbox preaching as though the title of the this thread is false, or worse not up for change, or even worse yet unspeakable and unassailable. You are not interested in common ground, by walking in other's shoes. I've not seen you do it on other's behalf. (even though you'd demand it of them) You've made it quite clear that some people want more guns and less rules even if it means more kids will die. As to revisiting law, you claim to say "good luck" on one hand, yet spew "not happening" on the other. Any fool could see, your version of good luck was sarcastic, not genuine. Fail.

 

I put myself in your shoes on the nails over the door thing. While I was in the bathroom, the crook kicked in the door an low and behold, what was the first thing he found?.... my loaded gun hanging there. That's really bright, duh huh?

Edited September 18, 2015 by Lagoon Island Pearls

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

First of all, requests for citations and links is a reasonable request. Ignoring such requests is not acceptable.

Second of all, berating people, e.g.

WTF is wrong with you that you cannot understand that.
is too lazy
shake his sloth

!

Moderator Note

 

is not an acceptable substitute for actual discussion.

 

Do not respond to this modnote in the thread.

 

[waitforufo]

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.

Edited September 18, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

I feel that your reading of Heller is largely correct in terms of trigger locks, but only on rifles and shotguns. That's specifically what was struck down from the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, as well as restrictions on handgun ownership.

 

While I agree it wouldn't likely be hard to extend the ruling and state that trigger locks on handguns are also unconstitutional, I don't believe they've been ruled unconstitutional on handguns thus far in existing case law. I stipulate it could be either.

 

That said, it's handguns that tend to cause most harm to children, not rifles and shotguns, so it seems like an appropriate item to consider and pursue, IMO.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?pagewanted=all

While about 60 percent of the accidental firearm deaths identified by The Times involved handguns as opposed to long guns, that number was much higher — more than 85 percent — when the victims were very young, under the age of 6. In fact, the average handgun victim was several years younger than long gun victims: between 7 and 8, compared with almost 11.

<snip>

About a quarter of the victims shot themselves, with younger children again especially susceptible. More than half of the self-inflicted shootings involved children 5 or under; the most common age was 3.

[waitforufo]

I feel that your reading of Heller is largely correct in terms of trigger locks, but only on rifles and shotguns. That's specifically what was struck down from the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, as well as restrictions on handgun ownership.

 

While I agree it wouldn't likely be hard to extend the ruling and state that trigger locks on handguns are also unconstitutional, I don't believe they've been ruled unconstitutional on handguns thus far in existing case law. I stipulate it could be either.

 

That said, it's handguns that tend to cause most harm to children, not rifles and shotguns, so it seems like an appropriate item to consider and pursue, IMO.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?pagewanted=all

Previously in post 617 I also gave this reference.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Didn't you read it?

 

 

 

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.

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

 

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.

 

 

 

Are not handguns lawful firearms?

Edited September 18, 2015 by waitforufo

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

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.

 

A question followed by an assertion. Normally I'd view that as controlling the narrative, but in this case it speaks to the problem.

 

The last time I checked, criminal negligence causing death is not legal.

 

What's worse, when one's right to be paranoid or violently defensive trumps the life and liberty of one's children, one has stooped to the lowest form of human being and the society that enabled it.

 

You see, legality has nothing to do with any of it. It's irresponsible to hide behind the law if it puts kids in danger. In the absence of morality, a parent ceases to be so. Even worse, children are pawns in the never ending circle of violence you've created for yourselves.

 

America's biggest enemy is not terror. It's other Americans.

[waitforufo]

 

A question followed by an assertion. Normally I'd view that as controlling the narrative, but in this case it speaks to the problem.

 

The last time I checked, criminal negligence causing death is not legal.

 

What's worse, when one's right to be paranoid or violently defensive trumps the life and liberty of one's children, one has stooped to the lowest form of human being and the society that enabled it.

 

You see, legality has nothing to do with any of it. It's irresponsible to hide behind the law if it puts kids in danger. In the absence of morality, a parent ceases to be so. Even worse, children are pawns in the never ending circle of violence you've created for yourselves.

 

America's biggest enemy is not terror. It's other Americans.

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

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

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

 

Au contraire, mon frère. I made it quite clear.

 

I am a scientist, by academia and trade. I'm quite certain, I know the difference, as such I'll consider that as berated.

 

In fact, all you've discussed is your version of the letter of the law, from an amateur viewpoint (you're not a lawyer, right?), with a questionable (if not entirely absent) version of the spirit of the law. Gun advocates don't have exclusive interpretation on either point, so what you say only stands at face value, not necessarily reality. Nowhere have you repudiated irresponsibility under any moral authority nor offered proactive steps for resolution. Likewise, you were asked to support several points with scientific facts by other posters and an administrator, but continue skirting the issue.

 

As to law. I reviewed an early post. I take back "criminal negligence" on the hooks thing. If a gun on hooks is legal in some states, there's no criminal intent. However, I will replace that with "negligence, gross negligence, reckless endangerment or contributing to a minor" when accidents happen.