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

[MigL]

the Dick Act of 1902 ?

That's almost as funny as the Diet of Worms !

[iNow]

I'm fully aware of Heller. You said "It's funny how every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA disagrees with you." Please list those cases prior to the formation of the NRA that disagree with me.

First, saying "before the formation of the NRA" is misguided. As we all know, the NRA was founded in 1871 and for nearly a century was one of the foremost pro-gun control organizations in the country, focusing primarily on safety and training.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

 

Let's not forget also how among countless others former president of the NRA, Karl Frederick, advocated heavily for firearm ownership restrictions and came out strongly in favor of sensible protections:

 

Clearly, we're not referring to the time of their formation, but instead to the sharp turn in focus and propaganda that was seen from the NRA starting in 1977 (and bolstered by the Reagan administration):

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/when-the-nra-promoted-gun_b_992043.htmlu

In fact, the Second Amendment is remarkably absent from the NRA's signature publication, American Rifleman, until the 1960s. You can go to the library and peruse decades of issues and not see any mention of the constitutional provision thought to be the heart and soul of the organization.

 

All that changed in 1977. That year, the leadership of the NRA decided to retreat from political lobbying and refocus on recreational shooting and outdoors activities. This sparked a backlash among a group of hardline gun rights advocates who were upset that the NRA had endorsed the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- the first significant federal gun legislation since the 1930s. Motivated by the belief that guns weren't primarily for hunting but for personal protection in an era of rising crime rates, the hardliners staged a coup at the annual meeting of the membership, ousting the old leaders and committing the organization to political advocacy.

 

From then on, American Rifleman featured the Second Amendment on almost every other page.

Second, you asked folks to cite the cases that disagreed with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment prior to Heller. I already answered this myself almost 2 years ago in this same thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/page-4#entry794642

The answer is basically every decision before Heller in 2008, with maybe the exception of Emerson in 2002. It was not until 2008 in the Heller case that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of the individual rights theory, though. It was a BFD precisely because it was so contrary to existing precedent.

 

Here are three cases in support of my point that stand out immediately:

* United States v Miller

* Presser v Illinois

* Logan v. United States

 

You are basically here trying to impose a revisionist history to meet some agenda of your own. You can argue that those previous cases... cases prior to Heller... involved mistaken interpretations, but you cannot argue that their interpretations were aligned with your own (regarding protected right of individual ownership and inability of federal government to impose regulation).

 

While you are not alone in your interpretation, my point is that your interpretation is a relatively recent one... found really only during modern times... Your interpretation... your "opinion" on this... is contrary to that of our own supreme court and the justices sitting on it precisely to offer such interpretations... Justices beyond just Chief Justice Berger who favored an interpretation of the 2nd amendment contrary to the one you're here now suggesting is somehow fact and which you are here now suggesting has historically been so.

 

A better review can be found here: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=lawreview

 

Frankly, this is all a bit overkill (or, at least it ought to be). You took a position and asserted your position was fact, not interpretation based. I have shared that you are mistaken. While you are welcome to your opinion and whle you are welcome to your personal interpretation, you cannot assert it as fact, especially since the opinions of Supreme Court Justices were contrary until the very recent past.

And as shared almost 3 months prior to that, again in this same thread, we have further support of this from the former Chief Justice of SCOTUS (not just any piddly ole regular justice, but the head honcho himself) Chief Justice Warren Burger himself said largely the same thing, as well.

 

Read more here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/?p=789430

 

 

But yeah, you're clearly right that I'm the unreasonable one who is obfuscating or being willfully ignorant.

Edited October 27, 2015 by iNow

[waitforufo]

It's funny how every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA disagrees with you.

 

 

First, saying "before the formation of the NRA" is misguided. As we all know, the NRA was founded in 1871 and for nearly a century was one of the foremost pro-gun control organizations in the country, focusing primarily on safety and training.

 

iNow I was not challenging you. I was challenging ydoaPs. He made a claim. I challenged him not you. He should back up is claim or be an adult and admit he was wrong. He should also list the SCOTUS rulings he is referring to. If he cannot, he should admit he is wrong. After admitting he was wrong he should at least list every SCOTUS ruling that disagrees with me. ydoaPs's "every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA" implies there were several. I want to know each and every one of them. Do I really need to ask the moderator in intervene? Don't you agree that is my next course of action should ydoaPs not reply to my request?

.

By the way, I and many like me don't have much respect for Warren Berger. He was instrumental in interning Japanese Americans during WWII.

 

http://www.fofweb.com/History/HistRefMain.asp?iPin=EJA566&SID=2&DatabaseName=American+History+Online&InputText=%22Earl+Warren+Japanese+American+internment+and%22&SearchStyle=&dTitle=Earl+Warren%2C+Japanese+American+internment+and&TabRecordType=All+Records&BioCountPass=0&SubCountPass=1&DocCountPass=0&ImgCountPass=0&MapCountPass=0&FedCountPass=&MedCountPass=0&NewsCountPass=0&RecPosition=1&AmericanData=Set&WomenData=&AFHCData=&IndianData=&WorldData=&AncientData=&GovernmentData=

 

 

 

Warren never publicly apologized for his role in the World War II removal and detention of Japanese Americans.

He was also a homophobic.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger

 

Burger was opposed to gay rights as he wrote a famous concurring opinion in the Court's 1986 decision upholding a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy (Bowers v. Hardwick), in which Burger purported to marshal historical evidence that laws criminalizing homosexuality were of ancient vintage. Chief Justice Burger pointed out that the famous legal authorWilliam Blackstone wrote that sodomy was a "'crime against nature'... of 'deeper malignity than rape', a heinous act 'the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature' and 'a crime not fit to be named'".^[11]

Edited October 27, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Yes, I understand it was ydoaps who introduced the time period re: formation of NRA. Was correcting everyone while in parallel providing additional and useful context.

 

Also, suspect he'll gladly clarify his intended meaning and also retract or support his comments as appropriate, and all without the need to imply he's childish / needs to act like "an adult" and without asking if mod involvement is needed after only 4 hours have passed since your request for him to do so.

 

Appreciate too your actual, couldn't have represented it more accurately, textbook example of the ad hom fallacy in terms of your comments against Chief Justice Burger.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Edited October 27, 2015 by iNow

[overtone]

Anyone who has read the Constitution knows what the militia is: the National Guard.

The National Guard is not mentioned. It did not exist, and nothing like it existed.

 

The closest thing to the modern National Guard would have been the Continental Army - and the prospect of making that a permanent standing force was not favored. Militias were favored, at the time, by people who deeply opposed creating things like the modern National Guard. It was only years later - after baby steps such as West Point, the debacles of the War of 1812, and finally the Civil War, that the flaws of militia were seen as unavoidable and the necessity of a standing army recognized.

 

Second, you asked folks to cite the cases that disagreed with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment prior to Heller. I already answered this myself almost 2 years ago in this same thread:

As demonstrated to you then, you were wrong then and now - none of those three cases disagreed with the standard reading of the 2nd Amendment, which was then and always has been a guarantee of the right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms.

 

And your use of them conflicts with other arguments you have made.

 

You are, for example, citing a decision that the government could ban sawed-off shotguns without Constitutional conflict as if it contradicted the plain reading of "the people to keep and bear arms"; that cite completely undermines your alternative assertion that the individual right to keep and bear arms is subject to restriction just as all other Constitutional rights are. A suitable restriction on a Constitutional right does not deny it, or rewrite the Constitution.

 

Also, suspect he'll gladly clarify his intended meaning and also retract or support his comments as appropriate,

No, he won't. Edited October 27, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

The National Guard is not mentioned. It did not exist, and nothing like it existed.

Except, you know, the militia.

 

You were wrong then and now - none of those three cases disagreed with the standard reading of the 2nd Amerndment.

While I appreciate your attempt to move the goal posts, you're arguing against a strawman. I never claimed those cases disagreed with the second amendment. I shared that your interpretation is a recent one that differs from the reading SCOTUS itself had for centuries, specifically that regulations and restrictions are wholly acceptable. Edited October 27, 2015 by iNow

[overtone]

Except, you know, the militia.

Which were established directly in stead of things like the National Guard. Because the Founders were opposed to things like the modern National Guard, and preferred to rely on militia. This was explicit, in their writings.

 

 

 

While I appreciate your attempt to move the goal posts, you're arguing against a strawman. I never claimed those cases disagreed with the second amendment.

You claimed the rulings in those cases conflicted with the reading of the 2nd Amendment as establishing an individual right to keep and bear firearms suitable for bringing to a militia call.

 

That was your evidence for claiming such a reading was a recent innovation. Your evidence is bogus, and your claim an obvious error.

 

I shared that your interpretation is a recent one that differs from the reading SCOTUS itself had for centuries, specifically that regulations and restrictions are wholly acceptable.

No, you tried to assert that with those cases as evidence - which since they are not, means your claim was without evidence, and your claim of possessing such evidence in the form of Court decisions was false.

 

You have no evidence of any official reading of the 2nd Amendment other than this one you call "recent".

 

You are, for example, attempting to argue that a Court ruling allowing the State to restrict the lengths of shotgun barrels in the interests of public safety conflicts with the plain reading of the 2nd Amendment as establishing an individual right to keep and bear firearms. That is nonsense.

 

And you have yourself pointed out the absurdity of such a claim - you have many times made the plain and plainly correct observation that all Constitutional rights are restricted, without being thereby denied. That claiming the people of the United States have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms - the plain reading of the 2nd Amendment - does not require a claim that sawed-off shotguns are protected devices that cannot be banned. And you were of course completely correct.

 

But this has been pointed out to you several times now, without effect. As has the observation for ydoaPs that the modern National Guard is a branch of the regular State military, and the like. And so the issue of gun control is a waste of time in this thread.

 

Anyone sincerely interested in reducing gun violence in the US will be examining other approaches.

Edited October 27, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

 

The National Guard is not mentioned. It did not exist, and nothing like it existed.

 

The closest thing to the modern National Guard would have been the Continental Army - and the prospect of making that a permanent standing force was not favored. Militias were favored, at the time, by people who deeply opposed creating things like the modern National Guard. It was only years later - after baby steps such as West Point, the debacles of the War of 1812, and finally the Civil War, that the flaws of militia were seen as unavoidable and the necessity of a standing army recognized.

 

 

As demonstrated to you then, you were wrong then and now - none of those three cases disagreed with the standard reading of the 2nd Amendment, which was then and always has been a guarantee of the right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms.

 

And your use of them conflicts with other arguments you have made.

 

You are, for example, citing a decision that the government could ban sawed-off shotguns without Constitutional conflict as if it contradicted the plain reading of "the people to keep and bear arms"; that cite completely undermines your alternative assertion that the individual right to keep and bear arms is subject to restriction just as all other Constitutional rights are. A suitable restriction on a Constitutional right does not deny it, or rewrite the Constitution.

 

 

No, he won't.

 

The National Guard is not mentioned specifically and nothing like it existed. That is an interesting argument. The word "gun" is not mentioned specifically either and nothing like an AR-15 existed.

 

In the 2nd amendment what precedes "the right of the people " ; "being necessary to the security of a free State". Stating "necessary" and for the "security of a free state" provides additional and necessary detail. "Necessary" does not read the same as "preferred" and "security of a free state" does not translate to "any purpose an individual shall choose".

[MonDie]

The National Guard is not mentioned specifically and nothing like it existed. That is an interesting argument. The word "gun" is not mentioned specifically either and nothing like an AR-15 existed.

 

In the 2nd amendment what precedes "the right of the people " ; "being necessary to the security of a free State". Stating "necessary" and for the "security of a free state" provides additional and necessary detail. "Necessary" does not read the same as "preferred" and "security of a free state" does not translate to "any purpose an individual shall choose".

 

If it isn't necessary to the security of a free state, does that invalidate the amendment?

If some justification is given for maintaining that right, and the justification can be undercut, is it really a fundamental right?

Edited October 27, 2015 by MonDie

[ydoaPs]

First, saying "before the formation of the NRA" is misguided. As we all know, the NRA was founded in 1871 and for nearly a century was one of the foremost pro-gun control organizations in the country, focusing primarily on safety and training.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

 

Let's not forget also how among countless others former president of the NRA, Karl Frederick, advocated heavily for firearm ownership restrictions and came out strongly in favor of sensible protections:

 

Clearly, we're not referring to the time of their formation, but instead to the sharp turn in focus and propaganda that was seen from the NRA starting in 1977 (and bolstered by the Reagan administration):

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/when-the-nra-promoted-gun_b_992043.htmlu

Second, you asked folks to cite the cases that disagreed with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment prior to Heller. I already answered this myself almost 2 years ago in this same thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/page-4#entry794642

 

And as shared almost 3 months prior to that, again in this same thread, we have further support of this from the former Chief Justice of SCOTUS (not just any piddly ole regular justice, but the head honcho himself) Chief Justice Warren Burger himself said largely the same thing, as well.

 

Read more here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/?p=789430

 

 

But yeah, you're clearly right that I'm the unreasonable one who is obfuscating or being willfully ignorant.

My bad, but the time I said, as iNow pointed out, is still correct. Until 2008, the "plain reading" was the opposite of the one the gun nuts give it.

[overtone]

The National Guard is not mentioned specifically and nothing like it existed. That is an interesting argument.

No, it isn't. It's an observation. It's meant to enlighten some folks who are having a lot of trouble wrapping their minds around the concept of a militia.

 

The Founders, or at least a large and controlling faction of them, wanted the security of the US to depend on militia rather than State - or god forbid, Federal - armies, "guards", regular military available at command. Among other reasons, they wanted to deprive the central government - and especially the President - of the ability to make war against others or impose military rule at home on his own recognizance. With a militia, that isn't realistically possible. With a National Guard, a President can invade Iraq.

 

 

If it isn't necessary to the security of a free state, does that invalidate the amendment?

No. Christ no. WTF is wrong with you guys?

 

 

If some justification is given for maintaining that right, and the justification can be undercut, is it really a fundamental right?

The entire point of the Bill of Rights, its entire reason for being written into the Constitution, the motivation of the several States who refused to ratify the Constitution without its promised inclusion, was to prevent the US Government from making that kind of argument and thereby taking away the people's rights.

y bad, but the time I said, as iNow pointed out, is still correct. Until 2008, the "plain reading" was the opposite of the one the gun nuts give it.

Which would, if it weren't obviously false, create something of a mystery around the fact that the 2008 decisions overturned no precedents.

 

There is not one single example of a Supreme Court decision based on anything other than the plain reading of the 2nd Amendment, which forbids the US government from infringing on the right of the people of the US to keep and bear arms. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Regulating the length of the barrels on shotguns is - by ruling - not an infringement. No aberrant interpretation of that plain language is involved in that determination. Nor would (or do) various other common sense restrictions in the public interest "infringe" on that basic right. That is normal. All rights are subject to such restrictions. The plain language remains.

 

As does the hopelessness of the extremist deadlock illustrated here, and consequent irrelevancy of gun control to this thread.

Edited October 27, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

My bad, but the time I said, as iNow pointed out, is still correct. Until 2008, the "plain reading" was the opposite of the one the gun nuts give it.

So are you going to provide me with all the the SCOTUS cases that disagree with me then? It sounds like you have a whole list. I think they would be important to this discussion. You made a claim that you had SCOTUS cases that disagreed with me. Please follow the rules of the forum and back up you claim. Don't worry about the dates.

Here is your post again.

It's funny how every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA disagrees with you.

Again from your post. I would like to see "every SCOTUS case" that "disagrees" with me.

Can't you find even one?

[ydoaPs]

Again from your post. I would like to see "every SCOTUS case" that "disagrees" with me.

See iNow's post I quoted. You know, the one with several examples. He already gave a few. What, you want me to copy/paste?

 

This is getting ridiculous.

[MonDie]

No. Christ no. WTF is wrong with you guys?

 

Wait, hold on here. The prefatory clause supposedly justifies the operative clause, and it makes a testable claim. Whether or not all rights must be given supporting reasons, these ones were. If that claim is false, then the reasoning is erroneous. Indeed, the very amendment could be interpreted as conditional. Sort of like...

 

"Your dog being hungry, you should feed it."

 

What if my dog isn't hungry?

Edited October 27, 2015 by MonDie

[MigL]

Seems to me Waitforufo just loves his guns. But I get the impression that he agrees the death toll due to shootings is unacceptable. But he considers gun ownership a natural right and is not willing to give it up.

Overtone is all for gun control, but is afraid of an authoritarian Republican government turning the USA into a dictatorship with concentration camps. He may then have to use his handgun to overthrow the government's armed forces.

I'm not making fun or trivializing their positions.

 

But these are two people that we've been trying to convince to our point of view for 44 pages and almost two years.

Its not going to work, and trying to find ways around the Constitution's Second Amendment is even more futile.

 

Accidental gun shootings are due to two causes.

The large number of guns in circulation in the US is a contributing factor, but one that we seem to be stuck on. So lets forget about getting rid of all the guns.

The other cause for the shootings, is the accidents themselves, whether due to lack of training in the operation of the weapon, improper storage and accessibility to young kids, or possession by an unstable individual. And I'm sure there are others. None of these require the re-opening of the Constitution to tackle.

So can we leave the Second Amendment to the Constitution in the other thread, and concentrate on measures to avoid gun fatalities ?

[overtone]

Overtone is all for gun control, but is afraid of an authoritarian Republican government turning the USA into a dictatorship with concentration camps. He may then have to use his handgun to overthrow the government's armed forces.

? You have to start from a resemblance, to parody - that isn't even in the right direction. I'm the guy, for example, who has repeatedly pointed out that the handgun - above all - is the loose cannon in this issue. It is the most dangerous gun, the least useful, and the most likely candidate for allowable restriction (not being a militia weapon, not dating back to the Founding, etc). I'm also the guy repeatedly objecting to the strawman of "fighting off the government's armed forces", describing this as loonies deadlocking with wingnuts to no good consequence.

 

Fortunately, the thread topic remains, largely unaffected (gun control in the US is hardly likely to have much effect on the deaths of children by gunfire - outside of the preventable mass school shootings by identifiable psychos, anyway, and they are a small percentage).

 

 

But these are two people that we've been trying to convince to our point of view for 44 pages and almost two years.

And this is your point of view:

 

- - None of these require the re-opening of the Constitution to tackle.

So can we leave the Second Amendment to the Constitution in the other thread, and concentrate on measures to avoid gun fatalities ?

Which is identical to mine, over dozens of posts and months now. Good luck with it.

 

 

Indeed, the very amendment could be interpreted as conditional. Sort of like...

"Your dog being hungry, you should feed it."

1) It cannot be read as a conditional. 2) It establishes a right, rather than imposing an obligation. The difference between a right and an obligation is significant. Imposing an obligation is not "sort of like" establishing a right.

So to be "sort of like" the 2nd Amendment, but fitting your apparent approach, one would need something like "Dog food being necessary for the sustenance of a dog, the right of the people to keep and bear meat and meat byproducts shall not be infringed". And then somebody invents commercial dog food made from vegetable matter, and others point out that dogs can live on garbage and stuff they find in the streets, and lots of people don't have dogs at the moment (proving that nobody ever needs them), and dogs have been proven to bite innocent people far more often than they bite in legitimate defense, and of course in theory everyone could walk their dogs downtown to a central meat and meat byproduct feeding station, and so forth.

None of that has any effect on the operative clause: until it's formally and legally changed, the right of the people to keep and bear meat and meat byproducts remains established.

Edited October 27, 2015 by overtone

[ydoaPs]

It cannot be read as a conditional.

Why not? It's as valid grammatically as that nonsense pushed in DC v Heller.

[overtone]

 

 

Why not? It's as valid grammatically as that nonsense pushed in DC v Heller.

There's no "if" clause.

 

Grammatically, we have the author asserting a fact as context, and directing an imperative to the government establishing a right for the people of the US. The assertion might be wrong, but the right is still established.

 

btw: If you do indulge in some "interpretation", say that the Founders intended to write "If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, then the right of the people etc - ", you still face the difficulty that denial of the premise does not falsify or invalidate the consequent. At that time, one would be thrown back on the discussion at the time of writing - whereupon one would find that many then opposed the inclusion of the Bill of Rights because its redundancy carried a risk: every right established in it was already in the Constitution, and so were many others, so that enumerating those few was both unnecessary and possibly dismissive of the others. And the Constitution does not feature any such conditional, yielding the inescapable conclusion that the right is established on its own.

 

The biconditional, that is (if and only if), is not an available interpretation without significantly altering or "interpreting" some other language in the Constitution besides the 2nd Amendment.

[swansont]

So are you going to provide me with all the the SCOTUS cases that disagree with me then? It sounds like you have a whole list. I think they would be important to this discussion. You made a claim that you had SCOTUS cases that disagreed with me. Please follow the rules of the forum and back up you claim. Don't worry about the dates.

Here is your post again.

Again from your post. I would like to see "every SCOTUS case" that "disagrees" with me.

Can't you find even one?

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Sufficient information has been offered to substantiate the claim, and this has been pointed out to you. A list of cases is not the only way to do this; one is not compelled to provide a specific set of evidence.

 

Go read the links provided (in the post that includes the Berger pic and quote, and the link right before that pic), and once there, go to the bloomberg article in iNow's post that says

"Until remarkably recently, almost all federal judges have agreed. It is striking that before its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court had never held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns."

 

Stop demanding evidence for a claim that has already been supported. If you want further information, you are capable of finding it yourself.

 

Don't derail things further by responding to this modnote

[waitforufo]

Seems to me Waitforufo just loves his guns. But I get the impression that he agrees the death toll due to shootings is unacceptable. But he considers gun ownership a natural right and is not willing to give it up.

Overtone .....

 

But these are two people that we've been trying to convince to our point of view for 44 pages and almost two years.

This topic was started in January of 2014. I joined this topic on post 169 on July 15, 2015. So you can only implicate me for 4 months. I had been reading the topic from the start and It was hopelessly lost at the point that I joined. Now we have a gun control topic that has spun off the history of the constitution and the origin of our rights as if those topics are not important to this conversation, even though SCOTUS rulings are frequently based on these topics. We are not to talk about supreme court rulings even when they would prohibit the gun control proposals at hand, because laws change and rulings can be overturned. I guess the plan is to find politicians willing to promote bills contrary to our traditions in law, and obviously in violation of the constitution and supreme court rulings and then hope that the supreme court ignores stare decisis and overturns at least Heller if not the 2nd amendment. First, you won't find the politicians, and second they won't make it to the Supreme Court because the lower courts will appreciate stare decisis.

 

Even with all of that I have seen no proposal that would prevent the mentally ill from mass shootings. Nor have I seen a single proposal that would reduce firearms accidents accept safety training from K through 12.

 

Its not going to work, and trying to find ways around the Constitution's Second Amendment is even more futile.

Agreed. Same goes for Heller.

Accidental gun shootings are due to two causes.

The large number of guns in circulation in the US is a contributing factor, but one that we seem to be stuck on. So lets forget about getting rid of all the guns.

Agreed. Americans love guns. We keep buying more. Especially when politicians are pushing gun control.

 

The other cause for the shootings, is the accidents themselves, whether due to lack of training in the operation of the weapon, improper storage and accessibility to young kids, or possession by an unstable individual. And I'm sure there are others. None of these require the re-opening of the Constitution to tackle.

Safe storage violates Heller. Oops, I'm not supposed to bring that up. Previously stable individuals become unstable every day. How do you prohibit someone from exercising their rights in a nation that believes that people are innocent until proven guilty? Individuals don't have to prove that they have good mental health to purchase firearms, the government has to prove that they have mental health problems to prohibit them from exercising there rights. Pair that with prohibitions on self incrimination and requiring proof of mental health becomes impossible. We could however encourage if not require medical professionals to report mental instability. Wait, there is doctor-client privilege. That was a crucial consideration in Griswold, and Roe. Probably cant require doctors to report their patients either.

So can we leave the Second Amendment to the Constitution in the other thread, and concentrate on measures to avoid gun fatalities ?

While I do believe it is possible I don't think so with this group. Here's the problem. Someone will make a proposal. Then someone will challenge the constitutionality of the proposal. Then instead of seriously considering the constitutional objection or moving on to other proposals we will have another month long argument about the definition of the word militia, and the meaning of the phrase "well regulated", argue about the National Guard and piss and moan about SCOTUS rulings.

 

Their is a reason why this has been going on for nearly two years.

Edited October 28, 2015 by waitforufo

[overtone]

There is no significance in the Supreme Court never having ruled on the language of the 2nd Amendment until 2008 - it is simple, plain, and had never been challenged, is all.

 

To conclude from cases such as those cited that some implication hidden in their rulings overrides the language plainly visible and uncontradicted in the rulings themselves, is puzzling.

 

To conclude from a lack of relevant rulings that the interpretation before 2008 was other than appears obvious, and other than was stated in the 2008 case, and other than most Americans have always assumed, and other than - frankly - any reasonable "interpretation" allows, is bizarre.

 

And especially in a thread purporting to address gun violence in general, and child victimization in particular.

 

What is the motivation?

Edited October 28, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

There is no significance in the Supreme Court never having ruled on the language of the 2nd Amendment until 2008 - it is simple, plain, and had never been challenged, is all.

 

To conclude from cases such as those cited that some implication hidden in their rulings overrides the language plainly visible and uncontradicted in the rulings themselves, is puzzling.

 

To conclude from a lack of relevant rulings that the interpretation before 2008 was other than appears obvious, and other than was stated in the 2008 case, and other than most Americans have always assumed, and other than - frankly - any reasonable "interpretation" allows, is bizarre.

 

And especially in a thread purporting to address gun violence in general, and child victimization in particular.

 

What is the motivation?

 

 

Bolded mine:

 

Throughout this thread your position has remained ambiguous, to say the least; on one hand, you seem to suggest a solution and then you seem, equally, determined to argue and discredit every possible solution. So I must ask, is this question ironic or confused?

[MonDie]

There's no "if" clause.

 

An if/then would be clearer, but it's clearly a because/therefore. Regardless, falsifying the premise calls the conclusion into question. They clearly thought the premise was true, and their judgment arguably supersedes ours. However they were judging the state of affairs in 1789, not 2015. By denying this point, you deny half the amendment, junking it as though superfluous rubbish.

btw: If you do indulge in some "interpretation", say that the Founders intended to write "If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, then the right of the people etc - ", you still face the difficulty that denial of the premise does not falsify or invalidate the consequent. At that time, one would be thrown back on the discussion at the time of writing - whereupon one would find that many then opposed the inclusion of the Bill of Rights because its redundancy carried a risk: every right established in it was already in the Constitution, and so were many others, so that enumerating those few was both unnecessary and possibly dismissive of the others. And the Constitution does not feature any such conditional, yielding the inescapable conclusion that the right is established on its own.

 

The biconditional, that is (if and only if), is not an available interpretation without significantly altering or "interpreting" some other language in the Constitution besides the 2nd Amendment.

Falsifying the premise doesn't falsify the conclusion, but it does call it into question.

1) It cannot be read as a conditional. 2) It establishes a right, rather than imposing an obligation. The difference between a right and an obligation is significant. Imposing an obligation is not "sort of like" establishing a right.

 

1) It can be read as an argument. Suppose you're told, "The garbage being full, take it out." If it's actually empty, you should not obey anyway, but inform your fallible boss, who then reconsiders.

 

2) As we can see from amendments I and IV additionally, a right is often established with the statement that it must not be "abridged", "infringed", or "violated", thus the operative clause establishes a right. Why a right cannot be revoked should be elaborated.

[overtone]

Falsifying the premise doesn't falsify the conclusion, but it does call it into question.

No, it doesn't.

 

In this case, there was no premise, no argument, and no conclusion, anyway.

 

 

 

 

1) It can be read as an argument. Suppose you're told, "The garbage being full, take it out."

It cannot be read as an argument. And that is your second or third failure at parallel construction of an argument - which should tell you something.

 

Once again, you have presented a condition justifying an imposed obligation as being somehow similar or parallel to a context informing an established right. Once again, as in post 866 above, we can try to rewrite your scene in actual parallel with the 2nd Amendment:

 

"Well regulated removal of garbage being necessary for the cleanliness of an occupied dwelling, the right of the occupants to keep and employ garbage cans shall not be infringed"

 

Do you see the difference? It is not small. The 2nd Amendment imposes no obligations, gives no orders, makes no arguments. It establishes a right.

 

And as long as the issue of gun control is in deadlock between

1) people who think the right of free speech means not only can one shout "fire" whenever, but set them at will; and

2) people who think the right of the people to keep and bear arms actually means the right of the State to arm a National Guard,

 

it will never be a likely or effective approach to dealing with anything , let alone gun injury to children.

Edited October 29, 2015 by overtone

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Child 1- What's that thing above the door?

Child 2- Daddy says it's necessary for the security of a free state.

Child 1- How does it do that?

Child 2- I don't know, something about a well regulated militia.

Child 1- Why?

Child 2- Because Obama wants to take our guns.

Child 1- If he wants to take the gun, why is it just hanging there for him to take it?

Child 2- Maybe we should hide it then. Grab that end.

Child 1- What does this button do?

Child 2- I don't know, but if you look in the end, tell me if you see anything moving.

Child 1- K