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

[MigL]

Funny how people who often accuse others of having a 'black and white' view of the world, and not having a nuanced enough position, with all the shades of gray, often succumb to the exact same temptation when trying to make their own point.

 

Not that I agree with your 'simplification' of the arguments presented by other members, John, but the gun laws in America will only change when it is no longer mostly disadvantaged kids ( black, Hispanics, poor, immigrant, etc. ) who are getting killed every day.

When and if it starts happening with rich, affluent kids from the suburbs, that's when we'll see action.

 

Disadvantaged kids die everyday, but, as soon as you have one school shooting of white affluent kids, even the NRA is apologizing amidst the calls for stricter gun laws.

Edited July 28, 2015 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

OK

When it comes down to it, America still has a lot of guns because many people think that a dead disadvantaged poor kid every day is an acceptable price to pay for owning guns.

All the rest of the debate is window dressing to that fact.

It still seems odd to me.

[iNow]

Disadvantaged kids die everyday, but, as soon as you have one school shooting of white affluent kids, even the NRA is apologizing amidst the calls for stricter gun laws.

I appreciate your larger point, but unfortunately this comment isn't true, either. See: Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/us/connecticut-school-shooting/

The National Rifle Association responded Friday to a chorus of voices calling for gun control in the wake of last week's horrific mass shooting in Connecticut by doubling down on its own position: more guns, not fewer, provide true security.

 

After one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history -- 20 children and seven adults killed, not including the gunman -- polls show that a slight majority of Americans favor restrictions on guns. Conservative Democrats and even some Republicans who have supported gun rights have said they are open to discussing gun control.

 

But the NRA made its position clear: The prominent gun rights organization will not budge an inch toward discussion of gun control. To the contrary, the group announced it will fund a team that will design a program to get armed security personnel on school grounds across the country.

[waitforufo]

I appreciate your larger point, but unfortunately this comment isn't true, either. See: Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/us/connecticut-school-shooting/

And if Adam G. or his mom had taken a gun safety course would the outcome at Sandy Hook Elementary been any different? I think not.

 

I'll say it again. If people are allowed to keep guns and ammo in there homes, no amount of background checking, training, registering, or permitting is going to stop crazies from shooting up public places. People move from sane to insane quickly. The only things you need to know about gun safety can be learned in 15 minutes by googling "gun safety." Here you go. http://www.nssf.org/safety/basics/. Even better from the people who know http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

Edited July 28, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

I'll say it again. If people are allowed to keep guns and ammo in there homes, no amount of background checking, training, registering, or permitting is going to stop crazies from shooting up public places.

The objective here is not zero gun deaths, but fewer.

 

I promise there's a reasonable compromise to be found here if only the people engaged in the discussion would act more reasonably and with less rigidity and recalcitrance.

[Arete]

I'll say it again. If people are allowed to keep guns and ammo in there homes, no amount of background checking, training, registering, or permitting is going to stop crazies from shooting up public places.

 

In the 20 years before Australia brought in tighter controls on gun ownership there were 73 people killed in mass shootings. In the 20 years following tighter regulations, there were 2, and zero in the 12 years following a second round of gun law reforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

 

Reforms included stricter licensing and permitting of firearms.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

And if Adam G. or his mom had taken a gun safety course would the outcome at Sandy Hook Elementary been any different? I think not.

 

I'll say it again. If people are allowed to keep guns and ammo in there homes, no amount of background checking, training, registering, or permitting is going to stop crazies from shooting up public places. People move from sane to insane quickly. The only things you need to know about gun safety can be learned in 15 minutes by googling "gun safety." Here you go. http://www.nssf.org/safety/basics/. Even better from the people who know http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

A safety catch wouldn't have helped at Sandy Hook either- but it's still a good idea for some other circumstances. It's silly to condemn training because it doesn't help in every possible case.

But this

"People move from sane to insane quickly."

is a good reason not to let anyone have guns.

[overtone]

I promise there's a reasonable compromise to be found here if only the people engaged in the discussion would act more reasonably and with less rigidity and recalcitrance.

Start here:

 

Looking back through this thread, it's fascinating (sad??) how many of these arguments regarding interpretation of the amendment and SCOTUS rulings currently being used I already dismantled more than 15 months ago.

 

 

You didn't. You just refused to acknowledge the validity of the responses you received.

 

Here's another:

 

"And more here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3222390/ "

 

What that argues is that the Bill of Rights does not necessarily restrict State governments as a whole, but only the specific provisions in it that have been explicitly extended to restrict State governments (by Supreme Court rulings, in practice) do so. The "interpretation" (plain reading) of the 2nd Amendment is not affected, only its application to State law.

 

In other words, you are proposing dismissal of the 2nd Amendment in practice (because most gun laws are State laws) on the idea that State governments are not necessarily bound by the Bill of Rights.

 

That is an extremist, radical, dangerous position. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are going to, and should, meet intransigent and uncompromising opposition to that approach to gun control. And the casualness with which it is put forward illustrates my central point in this debate: of all the issues in US politics, this is the one that actually fits the description of being dysfunctionally polarized by extremists on both sides. Usually that's a Fox canard, used for debates in which one side is nuts and the other is reasonable and reality based. In this matter, and this matter alone afaik, both sides are dominated by crazy. And the huge, effective, low-fruit area of agreement among reasonable adults is wasted.

Edited July 29, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

What that argues is that the Bill of Rights does not necessarily restrict State governments as a whole, but only the specific provisions in it that have been explicitly extended to restrict State governments (by Supreme Court rulings, in practice) do so. The "interpretation" (plain reading) of the 2nd Amendment is not affected, only its application to State law.

 

 

Washington State Constitution;

 

Section 24 - Right to Bear Arms

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men..

 

Shall not be impaired. There are those pesky words again, shall not.

[dimreepr]

This zealous adherence to words written down centuries ago, for selfish reasons and at the expense of others suffering, reminds me of something... hmmm... what could it be? I know I’ll kick myself.

Now I remember, doh , it's a religious extremist.

Edited July 29, 2015 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

This zealous adherence to words written down centuries ago, for selfish reasons and at the expense of others suffering, reminds me of something... hmmm... what could it be? I know I’ll kick myself.

Now I remember, doh , it's a religious extremist.

"All Hail to the Holy Constitution"

[iNow]

"All Hail to the Holy Constitution"

Even though the people directly in place to interpret it (SCOTUS Justices) have consistently and almost universally agreed for centuries with the position that regulations are entirely acceptable until roughly 30 years ago when NRA lobbying efforts replaced hundreds of years of shared understanding!

[waitforufo]

Not 30 years ago. If I recall correctly it started on about November 22, 1963.

Edited July 29, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

The article below offers a decent summary of one of the arguments I've made in this thread and in others... That the modern reading of the 2nd amendment is a recent phenomenon and one that differs from the interpretation offered by the SCOTUS itself for 200 years.

 

Adding some weight to this view is the fact that the article was not written by some agenda-driven advocate, blogger, or columnist, but instead by a former SCOTUS Justice... Justice Stevens who sat on the bench for 35 years until very recently (2010):

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that 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.

 

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia.

 

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

 

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

The article goes on to discuss how this ideological shift became further entrenched by the Heller and McDonald decisions and also suggests a minor edit to the amendment's text that would help us address these national tragedies that have become so common, but the point I'm making is much simpler...

 

Until only very recently, the text of the 2nd amendment didn't mean what many people now seem to think it means.

 

[waitforufo]

In this topic there have been several post about changing the US constitution. I believe there was also some mention of just how difficult that can be. It's actually not difficult at all. All you have to do is get five justices on the Supreme Court to set a precedent in a case ruling. With regard to the second amendment this was done with Heller and McDonald. Both of those rulings said that individuals had the right to bear arms in their homes. This was not an entrenchment, it was a precedent which defined the meaning of the second amendment.

 

I'm sure iNow knows this. In fact he is very much in favor of the Supreme Court making precedent setting rulings.

Heller and McDonald are very important rulings. Stare decisis makes these rulings as, if not more, important than the second amendment itself.

Not some ancient document, but recent modern rulings.

Edited July 29, 2015 by waitforufo

[overtone]

Even though the people directly in place to interpret it (SCOTUS Justices) have consistently and almost universally agreed for centuries with the position that regulations are entirely acceptable

Regulations are still entirely acceptable. Constitutional ones, that do not conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

 

The attempted employment of that to discard the 2nd Amendment is not reasonable. Absence of ruling, and centuries of acceptance of the straightforward reading without comment, cannot be reasonably taken to support the kind of bizarre interpretation of the wording that extremists in the anti-gun factions want to enforce. There were no rulings on the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment in the old days, because there was no challenge to them and no controversy - everybody knew what a militia was and what a well regulated one looked like, the implications were direct.

 

As for the Justice Stevens essay, which has been posted now a few times and responded to in detail before on this forum, its central thesis is that there was a long tradition of interpreting the Bill of Rights as applying to Federal government only. This is true.

 

The extension of the Bill of Rights to restricting State governments is indeed recent and by steps. But the implications of reversing that are extreme. In this modern age of NSA etc, do the anti-gun folks really want to free the States from restrictions imposed by the Bill of Rights? Do they not recognize the "States Rights" argument, and its implications for human rights, in all other contexts?

 

Especially, and this is important, in light of the fact that it is not necessary. A great deal of effective and beneficial regulation of firearms is available without touching the 2nd Amendment's applicability to State law. It is thereby available federally, as well. The extremist position, invalidating the 2nd Amendment's applicability to State law, polarizes the debate and threatens even well meaning and reasonable people while reducing the potential scope and effectiveness of the promoted legislation.

Edited July 29, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

Why do people say that reversing an amendment is "extreme" ?

It happened before.

[iNow]

To poison the well

[overtone]

Why do people say that reversing an amendment is "extreme" ?

Example needed.

 

What is "reversing an amendment", and who says it's extreme?

 

I don't want to assume that the reference is to this,

 

 

The extension of the Bill of Rights to restricting State governments is indeed recent and by steps. But the implications of reversing that are extreme.

because the response to someone who doesn't realize what is meant by extending Constitutional restrictions to State law, and what that meant in terms of civil rights and liberties in the US, at this level, would be inevitably insulting - it's kind of basic.

 

Yes, I think establishing as a new precedent that State law can violate the US Constitution is an extreme approach, dangerous and ill supported and very poorly reasoned - folly. The fact that is also unnecessary just puts the folly on stilts.

Edited July 30, 2015 by overtone

[StringJunky]

An amendment can be amended, by definition. What qualified the founding fathers to make amendments but not today's lawmakers?

[dimreepr]

A country where the culture is heavily influenced by a media pushing the idea that revenge is good and good and bad are black and white with no grey and with almost free access to fire arms for all.

 

With that considered I think the citizenry should be congratulated, for their basic decency, because the death toll could be so much higher.

 

Just a thought.

[waitforufo]

An amendment can be amended, by definition. What qualified the founding fathers to make amendments but not today's lawmakers?

The bill of rights was added to the constitution in order to assure passage by the States. Many of the founders argued against adding the bill of rights. So why was it added?

 

The constitution defines the powers of government and defines the restrictions of the people. The government can only do what they are empowered to do by the constitution. The people can do everything they want with exception of the restrictions defined by the constitution and laws derived from the constitustion. So forget the bill of rights. Where in the body of the constitution is the government empowered to control guns? Where are the people restricted from owning guns? You cant find either. Hence I am free to own guns and the government has no power to restrict them. Well the States were not happy that the courts would properly rule when it came to government restrictions and individual liberty so they insisted on the bill of rights. In some respects the bill of rights acts as a substitute for history of case law defined by court rulings. Since the nation was new, there was no case law to rely on.

 

To change the constitution there are three methods. First, you can get the courts to set precedent. Second, you can add amendments. Third, you can call for a constitutional convention and rewrite all or part of the constitution. All methods are available to today's lawmakers.

 

Why don't lawmakers use the second and third methods mentioned above? Because they want to get re-elected and they want their party to be in power.

[zapatos]

Where in the body of the constitution is the government empowered to control guns? Where are the people restricted from owning guns? You cant find either. Hence I am free to own guns and the government has no power to restrict them.

While I really liked your post (+1) you seem to have failed to connect your logic from the top part ('where in the body of the Constitution... hence... the government has no power to restrict them') with your answer in the second part ('To change the constitution there are three methods. First, you can get the courts to set precedent.).

 

The reason the government can restrict guns is in part due to precedent. You don't have to look any further than District of Columbia v Heller to see that.

[overtone]

 

 

An amendment can be amended, by definition. What qualified the founding fathers to make amendments but not today's lawmakers?

Is somebody saying any different?

 

We have basically universal agreement that 2nd Amendment can be changed, reworded, even discarded completely. The only objection has been to ignoring it or excluding it from application.

 

As far as amending it, several things better qualified the Founding Fathers than today's ratpack of wingnuts and feebs. There's obvious risk. But it's a valid route.

[dimreepr]

In this topic there have been several post about changing the US constitution. I believe there was also some mention of just how difficult that can be. It's actually not difficult at all. All you have to do is get five justices on the Supreme Court to set a precedent in a case ruling. With regard to the second amendment this was done with Heller and McDonald. Both of those rulings said that individuals had the right to bear arms in their homes. This was not an entrenchment, it was a precedent which defined the meaning of the second amendment.

 

I'm sure iNow knows this. In fact he is very much in favor of the Supreme Court making precedent setting rulings.

Heller and McDonald are very important rulings. Stare decisis makes these rulings as, if not more, important than the second amendment itself.

Not some ancient document, but recent modern rulings.

 

 

Recent modern rulings that are based on an ancient document and a general refusal to believe an amendment can be amended (a logical fallacy BTW); also noted is the lack of a significant response to my accusation of your selfishness in maintaining this, obviously (to the outside world), ridicules argument.

Edited July 30, 2015 by dimreepr