|
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2008 04:23 UmmTheHobo wrote:
Banning guns would NEVER work in the US of A. The only reason no gun laws work in japan is because why would japanese use guns when they have ninja skills. Seriously though, no gun laws only work in japan because the US military owned japan for a while, and we were like, "DROP GUN OR DIE!!!!" Then once they had no guns we were like " Now make a constitution, IF YOU DON'T PUT NO GUN LAW IN IT YOU DIE!!" Then japanese criminals were like "Hey let's just ship guns from china!" Then they got to china, got guns, started going back to japan, and then the US navy noticed they had guns and sunk them to the bottom of the sea.
Japan was pretty gun heavy in the 17th century and then banned them all because of the hazard to society + political issues with samurai. Trained samurai swordsman < idiot with gun.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
let's be serious here. the attachment to guns there is quite arbitrary and historically contingent. there is no serious reason to protect gun rights with a standalone amendment if the thing was written today. most of the force of 'gun rights' stuff is wrapped up in constitutional worship. taking a dispassionate policy view, it is bad form to specify historically contingent things like guns and such. do make basic warrants of say privacy or even liberty.
the straightforward problem with the 2nd is this. the agent with rights is not individuals, nor govt, but spontaneously organized groups. these groups existed as concrete political forms way back in the day. but, that kind of armed mob thing is long dead. there are no people nor societal elements to receive the rights specifically. it is a vestigial piece of bad law writing.
taking the 'lawl can't you read position' qualifies you as a nut, so see ya. the rest can discuss the substance of things. i dont really care about gun rights so i'll just abstain from that. as for the present case, an outright ban on the gunz was perhaps too smug for the scotus to bear. gotta do your regulations the soft way.
|
On June 27 2008 05:11 Romance_us wrote:
LOL @ 5-4
Our country is so fucked up. The people with the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE OUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!
A lot of votes are 5-4 these days, e.g. another decision just recently is the decision to not allow the death penality for child rapists. you basically have souter, ginsburg, stevens, and breyer on the left. alito, scalia, roberts, and thomas on the right. Anthony Kennedy usually in the middle with the swing vote. If you want to win a Supreme Court case, Kennedy is the one you gotta convince most of the time
|
United States22883 Posts
It's sad that we divide it between left and right, when being a justice should have nothing to do with political leanings.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
has been that way since people realized the political nature of legal theory. the left/right thing is rather the outsider's view, however. even though there is a definite division, and a bipolar one at that, when it comes to specific issues are not as simple as left vs right.
|
On June 27 2008 10:44 Jibba wrote:
I'm too tired to get into this. I'll just say that Funchucks is the only person that puts forth a comprehensive and respectable argument. rpf is a nut.
I was also surprised that it was 5-4 and not 9-0, but I do think Congress needs to step up restrictions and enforcement of handgun and rifle laws. Defending yourself from an attack is such an overused example based purely on rationalization. Academic research is not on the NRA's side.
I'm not on the NRA's side, either, so what exactly is your point?
And why am I a nut for being able to read with comprehension? I'm capable of something that four Justices aren't capable of. That makes me crazy? Interesting.
|
I believe guns are unnecessary. I’ve lived in the District for over 5 years and have successfully defended my home from armed intruders with a Samurai sword on two separate occasions. Throwing stars and nun-chucks are also very effective against guns. If you practice two to three hours a day and are fearless, you will not fail.
|
On June 27 2008 10:54 oneofthem wrote:
let's be serious here. the attachment to guns there is quite arbitrary and historically contingent. there is no serious reason to protect gun rights with a standalone amendment if the thing was written today. most of the force of 'gun rights' stuff is wrapped up in constitutional worship. taking a dispassionate policy view, it is bad form to specify historically contingent things like guns and such. do make basic warrants of say privacy or even liberty.
the straightforward problem with the 2nd is this. the agent with rights is not individuals, nor govt, but spontaneously organized groups. these groups existed as concrete political forms way back in the day. but, that kind of armed mob thing is long dead. there are no people nor societal elements to receive the rights specifically. it is a vestigial piece of bad law writing.
taking the 'lawl can't you read position' qualifies you as a nut, so see ya. the rest can discuss the substance of things. i dont really care about gun rights so i'll just abstain from that. as for the present case, an outright ban on the gunz was perhaps too smug for the scotus to bear. gotta do your regulations the soft way.
Sorry, all I hear is "lalala I can't read."
"The right of the people shall not be infringed."
Let's change a law every time it's over 25 yrs. old!
|
United States22883 Posts
Your reading comprehension failed you as there were two parts to that post in separate paragraphs, the second having nothing to do with you.
You're a nut because you argue endlessly and rather poorly for the removal of gun restrictions (oh lord, you had to give up a freedom to have a background check done.) The last time we had this discussion, you ended up quieting down because you had nothing of merit to add, and Funchucks deftly finished what you started. Honestly, all I need to do is point out how ridiculous your signature is, and I'm sure you believe in it 100%.
If you want to talk about the case, I'll agree with you and say their interpretation has legs to stand on. I'd rather play Assassin's Creed than talk gun policy atm, but I think the situation in the US is a complete mess and from the academia I've read, most crime experts and researchers agree.
And the Second Amendment needs to be revised by Congress, whether you think it should exist or not. The fact that part of the Court's discussion came down to grammar and prefatory clauses shows how shitty it is. The technology shift is also a consideration. If your intent is personal protection or even protection from the government, there's far more ways to arm yourself besides a gun.
|
The last time we had this discussion, FakeSteve showed up, said I didn't cite any sources (so I re-posted everything), and then ordered me to stop talking.
To clarify, since your memory has faded: Nobody else but myself and a couple of others (iNc, Bangaa, and a couple others) made any valid points. Either I disproved it using fact, or they did. I didn't quiet down about anything; I was ordered to.
The academia I've read usually criticizes the fuck out of frauds like Kellerman, whom the anti-gun crowd clings to. Maybe we just read different stuff. Oh, and academia isn't the only legitimate source of information.
My signature isn't ridiculous: Hitler disarmed a lot of people; then he put them in ovens. The KKK didn't want blacks to be armed, hence gun control. It's pretty fucking difficult to lynch someone when they're shooting at you.
Sorry for being so correct it bothers you.
And if the 2nd needs to be revised, so does the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. I mean, fuck, those no-knock warrants need to be made legal, so let's get rid of the laws you don't like.
P.S. Assassin's Creed fucking owns. You'll love the last level; it's ridiculous.
|
On June 27 2008 10:45 Luddite wrote:
A militia isn't just some random guy worried about thieves- they're a group of people, at least somewhat organized, trying to protect the state. One could argue that the national guard/national reserve is the militia. In that case, only they could own guns, and regular people wouldn't even be able to own a hunting rifle.
Except that the courts have continuously ruled that this ISN'T the case. Even in this decision it was reiterated that the militia is defined as all males of a fighting age. It is the FAILURE of Congress for not doing its duty to create the standards of readiness.
However, that isn't an issue. The first clause was a 'reminder' of sorts to us as to WHY the right to keep and bear arms is important. It is the right that ultimately ensures all the rights. If government becomes tyrannical, a well armed and drilled population could take up arms just as we did when we got rid of the British Crown. It is not something that any of us would LIKE to happen, but it is also not something we should ever WISH we could do. Google "Appleseed Rifle Training" for an idea of a grass roots effort to train the population to become good shooters in the spirit of the forefathers that took up arms in 1775.
On June 27 2008 10:45 Luddite wrote:
I really think we need to amend this amendment, first because it makes no sense, and second because even if it did make sense, weapons have changed so much in the last 250 years that it's rediculously out of date. For those guys "military grade weapons" meant like, a musket. There's a bit of a dfference between owning a musket and an Uzi. I'm not saying ban all weapons, but clearly we have to ban SOME weapons, right?
Uh-huh... And what churches shall we ban? What books? What other category of rights are you so ready to just throw away?
The founding fathers may not know what an Uzi is, but they did see one of the greatest invention in firearms during their lifetime. The British army and other armies fought at that time with unrifled guns. Because of this, they fired as a group at close range just to be sure to get some kind of hit. The colonists had newer rifled guns that were very accurate at range and they could be assured of each shot being a hit. You can be sure that the draftees of the Constitution knew that technology would improve.
In the Miller decision back in the 1930's (and the decision that most anti groups point to for their "collective" argument) the court stated that arms "useful to the Militia" would be protected. Well, in 2008, the US military use select fire assault rifles. Civilians can not buy new guns of this type. Instead we have semi-auto versions.
People who obey laws do not cause problems. People who commit crimes do not obey laws.
Did all the drug laws and the BILLIONS of dollars spent on the "War on Drugs" stop anything? If criminals can import illegal drugs by the ton, do you really think for a moment that it would be at all hard for them to traffic in guns too?
So, if the laws will not keep the guns from the people we don't want to have them, why punish the people who don't commit crimes?
Look at ANY prohibition. They have not only FAILED, but always INCREASE crime. Every city in the US that had a gun ban has a HIGHER crime rate than cities that do not.
But don't take my word for it. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Don't just read statistics, look up the sources. Read how 20 year old gang bangers are included to get the "9 kids a day are killed". How so called "studies" are found to be bogus science. How one researcher is fired because he made up data to 'prove' his point. How the media bias is so against legitimate firearm use that MILLIONS of prevented crimes every year are never reported. Learn that violent criminals are released back on the street. Find out that in some 80% of the cases, a violent criminal not only has a prior record that prohibits gun ownership, but would have still been in jail if the CURRENT laws were enforced.
The problem isn't firearms. It's a complete reluctance of government to keep the 1% of society that can not be trusted in a prison where they belong.
Oh, and when the Justice Department polled thousands of criminals and asked "What is your biggest fear when committing a crime?" The most common reply at almost 70% was "encountering an armed victim".
Isn't it about time we put FEAR into the criminals instead of the victims?
|
On June 27 2008 12:03 Gun Dude wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 10:45 Luddite wrote:
A militia isn't just some random guy worried about thieves- they're a group of people, at least somewhat organized, trying to protect the state. One could argue that the national guard/national reserve is the militia. In that case, only they could own guns, and regular people wouldn't even be able to own a hunting rifle. Except that the courts have continuously ruled that this ISN'T the case. Even in this decision it was reiterated that the militia is defined as all males of a fighting age. It is the FAILURE of Congress for not doing its duty to create the standards of readiness. However, that isn't an issue. The first clause was a 'reminder' of sorts to us as to WHY the right to keep and bear arms is important. It is the right that ultimately ensures all the rights. If government becomes tyrannical, a well armed and drilled population could take up arms just as we did when we got rid of the British Crown. It is not something that any of us would LIKE to happen, but it is also not something we should ever WISH we could do. Google "Appleseed Rifle Training" for an idea of a grass roots effort to train the population to become good shooters in the spirit of the forefathers that took up arms in 1775. Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 10:45 Luddite wrote:
I really think we need to amend this amendment, first because it makes no sense, and second because even if it did make sense, weapons have changed so much in the last 250 years that it's rediculously out of date. For those guys "military grade weapons" meant like, a musket. There's a bit of a dfference between owning a musket and an Uzi. I'm not saying ban all weapons, but clearly we have to ban SOME weapons, right? Uh-huh... And what churches shall we ban? What books? What other category of rights are you so ready to just throw away? The founding fathers may not know what an Uzi is, but they did see one of the greatest invention in firearms during their lifetime. The British army and other armies fought at that time with unrifled guns. Because of this, they fired as a group at close range just to be sure to get some kind of hit. The colonists had newer rifled guns that were very accurate at range and they could be assured of each shot being a hit. You can be sure that the draftees of the Constitution knew that technology would improve. In the Miller decision back in the 1930's (and the decision that most anti groups point to for their "collective" argument) the court stated that arms "useful to the Militia" would be protected. Well, in 2008, the US military use select fire assault rifles. Civilians can not buy new guns of this type. Instead we have semi-auto versions. People who obey laws do not cause problems. People who commit crimes do not obey laws. Did all the drug laws and the BILLIONS of dollars spent on the "War on Drugs" stop anything? If criminals can import illegal drugs by the ton, do you really think for a moment that it would be at all hard for them to traffic in guns too? So, if the laws will not keep the guns from the people we don't want to have them, why punish the people who don't commit crimes? Look at ANY prohibition. They have not only FAILED, but always INCREASE crime. Every city in the US that had a gun ban has a HIGHER crime rate than cities that do not. But don't take my word for it. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Don't just read statistics, look up the sources. Read how 20 year old gang bangers are included to get the "9 kids a day are killed". How so called "studies" are found to be bogus science. How one researcher is fired because he made up data to 'prove' his point. How the media bias is so against legitimate firearm use that MILLIONS of prevented crimes every year are never reported. Learn that violent criminals are released back on the street. Find out that in some 80% of the cases, a violent criminal not only has a prior record that prohibits gun ownership, but would have still been in jail if the CURRENT laws were enforced. The problem isn't firearms. It's a complete reluctance of government to keep the 1% of society that can not be trusted in a prison where they belong. Oh, and when the Justice Department polled thousands of criminals and asked "What is your biggest fear when committing a crime?" The most common reply at almost 70% was "encountering an armed victim". Isn't it about time we put FEAR into the criminals instead of the victims?
Epic first post.
|
I'm happy 5 of the 9 justices know how to read.
|
United States22883 Posts
Inc cited D.C.'s crime rates and then I pointed out the decade long discrepancy in time frames and all the other fallacies associated with the D.C. Crime vs. Hand gun prohibition argument. It basically came down to a historical debate at the very end.
The other amendments don't deal directly with technology, and commas aren't as crucial to their meaning unless you, type, them, like, this,. Anyone that reads Scalia's opinion would agree that grammar played a major role, and it's stupid that it did. The two different versions of it have distinct comma placements which inherently change the meaning of the Amendment.
|
Yes, it's stupid that psycholinguistics have become the major topic of debate surrounding the Second Amendment, but keep in mind people who like being free and want to stay that way never brought the issue up. Ever.
It was some yahoo without a brain who one day decided he was terrified (read: crying like a little baby) because other people possess inanimate objects that could potentially hurt him if misused. So, like any good politician, they abused grammar, used rhetoric, and used fear against the citizens to make them think that guns are bad.
So, we've gone from a country that embraced safety and education (as the NRA promotes first and foremost) to a country that can't defend itself because you might hurt the poor little criminal.
People only argue semantics when they have no other options, hence why the Brady Campaign to Adulterate Statistics (oops) constantly attacks it. I hope Paul Helmke is fucking crying right now. I really do. He can take his "How to become a victim" campaign and shove it up his ass.
On June 27 2008 12:07 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I'm happy 5 of the 9 justices know how to read.
I'm pretty depressed that 4 of the 9 can't.
|
United States22883 Posts
The founding fathers may not know what an Uzi is, but they did see one of the greatest invention in firearms during their lifetime. The British army and other armies fought at that time with unrifled guns. Because of this, they fired as a group at close range just to be sure to get some kind of hit. The colonists had newer rifled guns that were very accurate at range and they could be assured of each shot being a hit. Alright, that's just wrong. The rifled musket was certainly a breakthrough, but every gun was still inaccurate as shit until the minie ball. That's why the Civil War was such a blood bath.
EDIT: Wait a second, that's not even right. Rifled muskets came in the 19th century. The primary weapon of the Revolutionary War was a flintlock musket with shitty ammunition.
I'd bet $5 and my life that you couldn't hit me from 100yds with a Revolutionary rifle (British or French, take your pick.) There's probably a greater chance of it blowing up and killing you than there is of the bullet touching me.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 27 2008 11:46 rpf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 10:54 oneofthem wrote:
let's be serious here. the attachment to guns there is quite arbitrary and historically contingent. there is no serious reason to protect gun rights with a standalone amendment if the thing was written today. most of the force of 'gun rights' stuff is wrapped up in constitutional worship. taking a dispassionate policy view, it is bad form to specify historically contingent things like guns and such. do make basic warrants of say privacy or even liberty.
the straightforward problem with the 2nd is this. the agent with rights is not individuals, nor govt, but spontaneously organized groups. these groups existed as concrete political forms way back in the day. but, that kind of armed mob thing is long dead. there are no people nor societal elements to receive the rights specifically. it is a vestigial piece of bad law writing.
taking the 'lawl can't you read position' qualifies you as a nut, so see ya. the rest can discuss the substance of things. i dont really care about gun rights so i'll just abstain from that. as for the present case, an outright ban on the gunz was perhaps too smug for the scotus to bear. gotta do your regulations the soft way. Sorry, all I hear is "lalala I can't read." "The right of the people shall not be infringed." Let's change a law every time it's over 25 yrs. old!
if all the scotus needs to do is reading comprehension, oy.
|
I agree with the decision. First of all you all should remove the idea from your minds that the supreme court should decide what is right or wrong, that is NOT the judges work, thats the job of your lazy congress. Im saying this because eventough i dont like the idea of people bearing arms (not because of crime, afaik theres no evidence to support the increase in crime rate on the right to bear arms alone) i find the supreme court interpretation to match the idea of the constitution.
This is purely from the stand point of a law student.
Meh was gonna write more but got bored -_-
|
On June 27 2008 10:54 oneofthem wrote:
let's be serious here. the attachment to guns there is quite arbitrary and historically contingent. there is no serious reason to protect gun rights with a standalone amendment if the thing was written today. most of the force of 'gun rights' stuff is wrapped up in constitutional worship. taking a dispassionate policy view, it is bad form to specify historically contingent things like guns and such. do make basic warrants of say privacy or even liberty.
the straightforward problem with the 2nd is this. the agent with rights is not individuals, nor govt, but spontaneously organized groups. these groups existed as concrete political forms way back in the day. but, that kind of armed mob thing is long dead. there are no people nor societal elements to receive the rights specifically. it is a vestigial piece of bad law writing.
taking the 'lawl can't you read position' qualifies you as a nut, so see ya. the rest can discuss the substance of things. i dont really care about gun rights so i'll just abstain from that. as for the present case, an outright ban on the gunz was perhaps too smug for the scotus to bear. gotta do your regulations the soft way.
If the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, our Constitution does include a method for revision and it's not judicial fiat.
|
On June 27 2008 12:42 skindzer wrote:
I agree with the decision. First of all you all should remove the idea from your minds that the supreme court should decide what is right or wrong,
Yeah totally. The Judicial branch of the government deciding what is and what isn't constitutional? Who the hell came up with that stupid idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
