|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 10 2013 01:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:35 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 01:27 Kaitlin wrote:On April 10 2013 00:33 Djzapz wrote:
From the other graphs, it seems like law enforcement doesn't believe that gun control is an effective way of reducing crime, but they also don't think it's socioeconomic, even though we know that it pretty much is. Too often, people refer to the opinion of "police chiefs" as if they knew what they were talking about... But how in hell can only 1.6% of them think that it's economic and related to social inequality? It's ridiculous... I used to read the comics in the Sunday newspaper, but no longer. I find that reading posts like this on TL satisfy my appetite for comedy. So, the opinion of a large quantity of people who dedicate their lives to public service, who see these issues play out every day, differs from what you've been told, and your conclusion is that what you've been told is "right" and "it's ridiculous" that their opinion differs from that. Yep, that about sums up what I've come to expect in these threads. Does anyone ever take a step back and consider that maybe they've been sold a bill of goods by people with an agenda and they are wrong ? I guess that comes with life experience, something that is lacking here. People who dedicate their lives to solving crime and enforcing law don't necessarily know the reasons why this crime exists. I don't know why you would think that they somehow have a better grasp than the researchers who dedicate their lives to understanding the source of the problem... In many cases, it's the research that leads to policy, because statistics gathered by professionals, PhD's who have dedicated their lives to social sciences, are possibly better than the opinion of grunts who go out and catch bad guys. Law enforcement are just that. They enforce laws. Law makers on the other hand, should build laws based on expertise. Not the feeling of the guys who obey. You try to discredit what I said by pretending to be amused by it, but really all you're doing is putting too much faith on the opinions of the dudes who follow orders. They work in the streets so they know some stuff, but don't expect a police officer to give much thought to the economic and social conditions of the people they have to deal with. They're excellent at dealing with the front of criminality, but they're not the ones who study the roots. It isn't either or. Its not police's opinions are the only ones that matter OR police opinions don't matter. Police opinions matter--but a good study uses lot of opinions from different groups.
Nah, a good study doesn't use opinions at all 
|
On April 10 2013 02:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 10 2013 01:35 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 01:27 Kaitlin wrote:On April 10 2013 00:33 Djzapz wrote:
From the other graphs, it seems like law enforcement doesn't believe that gun control is an effective way of reducing crime, but they also don't think it's socioeconomic, even though we know that it pretty much is. Too often, people refer to the opinion of "police chiefs" as if they knew what they were talking about... But how in hell can only 1.6% of them think that it's economic and related to social inequality? It's ridiculous... I used to read the comics in the Sunday newspaper, but no longer. I find that reading posts like this on TL satisfy my appetite for comedy. So, the opinion of a large quantity of people who dedicate their lives to public service, who see these issues play out every day, differs from what you've been told, and your conclusion is that what you've been told is "right" and "it's ridiculous" that their opinion differs from that. Yep, that about sums up what I've come to expect in these threads. Does anyone ever take a step back and consider that maybe they've been sold a bill of goods by people with an agenda and they are wrong ? I guess that comes with life experience, something that is lacking here. People who dedicate their lives to solving crime and enforcing law don't necessarily know the reasons why this crime exists. I don't know why you would think that they somehow have a better grasp than the researchers who dedicate their lives to understanding the source of the problem... In many cases, it's the research that leads to policy, because statistics gathered by professionals, PhD's who have dedicated their lives to social sciences, are possibly better than the opinion of grunts who go out and catch bad guys. Law enforcement are just that. They enforce laws. Law makers on the other hand, should build laws based on expertise. Not the feeling of the guys who obey. You try to discredit what I said by pretending to be amused by it, but really all you're doing is putting too much faith on the opinions of the dudes who follow orders. They work in the streets so they know some stuff, but don't expect a police officer to give much thought to the economic and social conditions of the people they have to deal with. They're excellent at dealing with the front of criminality, but they're not the ones who study the roots. It isn't either or. Its not police's opinions are the only ones that matter OR police opinions don't matter. Police opinions matter--but a good study uses lot of opinions from different groups. Nah, a good study doesn't use opinions at all
Everything's an opinion until peer review
lol
touche though, good call 
|
On April 10 2013 01:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:35 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 01:27 Kaitlin wrote:On April 10 2013 00:33 Djzapz wrote:
From the other graphs, it seems like law enforcement doesn't believe that gun control is an effective way of reducing crime, but they also don't think it's socioeconomic, even though we know that it pretty much is. Too often, people refer to the opinion of "police chiefs" as if they knew what they were talking about... But how in hell can only 1.6% of them think that it's economic and related to social inequality? It's ridiculous... I used to read the comics in the Sunday newspaper, but no longer. I find that reading posts like this on TL satisfy my appetite for comedy. So, the opinion of a large quantity of people who dedicate their lives to public service, who see these issues play out every day, differs from what you've been told, and your conclusion is that what you've been told is "right" and "it's ridiculous" that their opinion differs from that. Yep, that about sums up what I've come to expect in these threads. Does anyone ever take a step back and consider that maybe they've been sold a bill of goods by people with an agenda and they are wrong ? I guess that comes with life experience, something that is lacking here. People who dedicate their lives to solving crime and enforcing law don't necessarily know the reasons why this crime exists. I don't know why you would think that they somehow have a better grasp than the researchers who dedicate their lives to understanding the source of the problem... In many cases, it's the research that leads to policy, because statistics gathered by professionals, PhD's who have dedicated their lives to social sciences, are possibly better than the opinion of grunts who go out and catch bad guys. Law enforcement are just that. They enforce laws. Law makers on the other hand, should build laws based on expertise. Not the feeling of the guys who obey. You try to discredit what I said by pretending to be amused by it, but really all you're doing is putting too much faith on the opinions of the dudes who follow orders. They work in the streets so they know some stuff, but don't expect a police officer to give much thought to the economic and social conditions of the people they have to deal with. They're excellent at dealing with the front of criminality, but they're not the ones who study the roots. It isn't either or. Its not police's opinions are the only ones that matter OR police opinions don't matter. Police opinions matter--but a good study uses lot of opinions from different groups.
I didn't say that police was wrong about everything, but I was pointing out a glaring obvious flaw in law enforcement views which goes against some of the best established conclusions that research has come to.
On April 10 2013 02:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 10 2013 01:35 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 01:27 Kaitlin wrote:On April 10 2013 00:33 Djzapz wrote:
From the other graphs, it seems like law enforcement doesn't believe that gun control is an effective way of reducing crime, but they also don't think it's socioeconomic, even though we know that it pretty much is. Too often, people refer to the opinion of "police chiefs" as if they knew what they were talking about... But how in hell can only 1.6% of them think that it's economic and related to social inequality? It's ridiculous... I used to read the comics in the Sunday newspaper, but no longer. I find that reading posts like this on TL satisfy my appetite for comedy. So, the opinion of a large quantity of people who dedicate their lives to public service, who see these issues play out every day, differs from what you've been told, and your conclusion is that what you've been told is "right" and "it's ridiculous" that their opinion differs from that. Yep, that about sums up what I've come to expect in these threads. Does anyone ever take a step back and consider that maybe they've been sold a bill of goods by people with an agenda and they are wrong ? I guess that comes with life experience, something that is lacking here. People who dedicate their lives to solving crime and enforcing law don't necessarily know the reasons why this crime exists. I don't know why you would think that they somehow have a better grasp than the researchers who dedicate their lives to understanding the source of the problem... In many cases, it's the research that leads to policy, because statistics gathered by professionals, PhD's who have dedicated their lives to social sciences, are possibly better than the opinion of grunts who go out and catch bad guys. Law enforcement are just that. They enforce laws. Law makers on the other hand, should build laws based on expertise. Not the feeling of the guys who obey. You try to discredit what I said by pretending to be amused by it, but really all you're doing is putting too much faith on the opinions of the dudes who follow orders. They work in the streets so they know some stuff, but don't expect a police officer to give much thought to the economic and social conditions of the people they have to deal with. They're excellent at dealing with the front of criminality, but they're not the ones who study the roots. It isn't either or. Its not police's opinions are the only ones that matter OR police opinions don't matter. Police opinions matter--but a good study uses lot of opinions from different groups. Nah, a good study doesn't use opinions at all
Can't believe I didn't think of mentioning that.
Indeed.
|
On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags...
They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws.
|
On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags... They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws.
It's unconstitutional for a police officer behave as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad.
Tribunals decide what's constitutional and what isn't. A complete gun ban would be obviously unconstitutional, but not all gun-related legislation is obviously against the constitution, which is why jurists need to study the question, not fat Sam who likes to hit people in the head with a big stick.
|
On April 10 2013 02:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags... They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. It's unconstitutional for a police officer to think of himself as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad.
They have a duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, both as a citizen and as a public servant. Their loyalty lies first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States and with the constitution of their respective state. It's no different from soldiers refusing to extra-judicially murder civilians, because it's an unconstitutional order.
|
On April 10 2013 02:10 Arctic Daishi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:06 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags... They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. It's unconstitutional for a police officer to think of himself as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad. They have a duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, both as a citizen and as a public servant. Their loyalty lies first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States and with the constitution of their respective state. It's no different from soldiers refusing to extra-judicially murder civilians, because it's an unconstitutional order.
Well that's not technically true, it's just how it's done. I think it's strange because police commit a bunch of crimes and do unconstitutional stuff to increase their conviction rates, so I don't think it's a particularly good method.
I'm fine with police officers refusing to do stuff which is obviously unconstitutional but if they start to use their gut feeling with every issue to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't, then we might as well get rid of the judiciary branch and bow down to the police state. They're already known for abusing power, let's keep them on a reasonable leash at least.
If the tribunals are fine with any given gun law, the police should absolutely enforce it.
|
On April 10 2013 02:10 Arctic Daishi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:06 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags... They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. It's unconstitutional for a police officer to think of himself as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad. They have a duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, both as a citizen and as a public servant. Their loyalty lies first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States and with the constitution of their respective state. It's no different from soldiers refusing to extra-judicially murder civilians, because it's an unconstitutional order.
Where in the Constitution does it say that all branches of government operate alongside the same constitutional prerogative as citizens in challenging laws they consider unjust?
|
On April 10 2013 02:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:10 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 02:06 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags... They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. It's unconstitutional for a police officer to think of himself as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad. They have a duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, both as a citizen and as a public servant. Their loyalty lies first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States and with the constitution of their respective state. It's no different from soldiers refusing to extra-judicially murder civilians, because it's an unconstitutional order. Where in the Constitution does it say that all branches of government operate alongside the same constitutional prerogative as citizens in challenging laws they consider unjust?
Immigration safe havens ? There are plenty of examples of government entities, of various levels, choosing not to enforce particular laws.
|
On April 10 2013 02:42 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:21 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:10 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 02:06 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags... They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. It's unconstitutional for a police officer to think of himself as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad. They have a duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, both as a citizen and as a public servant. Their loyalty lies first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States and with the constitution of their respective state. It's no different from soldiers refusing to extra-judicially murder civilians, because it's an unconstitutional order. Where in the Constitution does it say that all branches of government operate alongside the same constitutional prerogative as citizens in challenging laws they consider unjust? Immigration safe havens ? There are plenty of examples of government entities, of various levels, choosing not to enforce particular laws.
Sure there are, but the majority of them at least drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the Constitution.
|
On April 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:42 Kaitlin wrote:On April 10 2013 02:21 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:10 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 02:06 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags... They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. It's unconstitutional for a police officer to think of himself as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad. They have a duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, both as a citizen and as a public servant. Their loyalty lies first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States and with the constitution of their respective state. It's no different from soldiers refusing to extra-judicially murder civilians, because it's an unconstitutional order. Where in the Constitution does it say that all branches of government operate alongside the same constitutional prerogative as citizens in challenging laws they consider unjust? Immigration safe havens ? There are plenty of examples of government entities, of various levels, choosing not to enforce particular laws. Sure there are, but the majority of them at least drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the Constitution.
Sort of...
The American Constitution does not say women are equal to men--but the law still acts as if the constitution does. And yet constitutional rights are given to women simply because it makes sense.
So it's not exactly true that they "drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the constitution" but I do agree with you for the most part
|
On April 10 2013 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:42 Kaitlin wrote:On April 10 2013 02:21 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:10 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 02:06 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags... They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. It's unconstitutional for a police officer to think of himself as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad. They have a duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, both as a citizen and as a public servant. Their loyalty lies first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States and with the constitution of their respective state. It's no different from soldiers refusing to extra-judicially murder civilians, because it's an unconstitutional order. Where in the Constitution does it say that all branches of government operate alongside the same constitutional prerogative as citizens in challenging laws they consider unjust? Immigration safe havens ? There are plenty of examples of government entities, of various levels, choosing not to enforce particular laws. Sure there are, but the majority of them at least drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the Constitution. Sort of... The American Constitution does not say women are equal to men--but the law still acts as if the constitution does. And yet constitutional rights are given to women simply because it makes sense. So it's not exactly true that they "drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the constitution" but I do agree with you for the most part
Well, allow me to clarify what I was aiming at. Arctic Daishi among a host of other 2nd-amendment fans are liable to chalk every single thing they do in the pursuit of an unfettered right to bear arms up to the Constitution in some way, as though saying so permits them to ignore every other governmental/societal consideration. This "constitutionality challenge" by an average citizen or law enforcement officer is not actually outlined anywhere in the Constitution; I'm not suggesting that this necessarily invalidates their actions, only that it is disingenuous to simply say "Constitution" every time someone asks a pro-gun rights member to justify their actions.
|
On April 10 2013 02:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:42 Kaitlin wrote:On April 10 2013 02:21 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:10 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 02:06 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags... They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. It's unconstitutional for a police officer to think of himself as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad. They have a duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, both as a citizen and as a public servant. Their loyalty lies first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States and with the constitution of their respective state. It's no different from soldiers refusing to extra-judicially murder civilians, because it's an unconstitutional order. Where in the Constitution does it say that all branches of government operate alongside the same constitutional prerogative as citizens in challenging laws they consider unjust? Immigration safe havens ? There are plenty of examples of government entities, of various levels, choosing not to enforce particular laws. Sure there are, but the majority of them at least drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the Constitution. Sort of... The American Constitution does not say women are equal to men--but the law still acts as if the constitution does. And yet constitutional rights are given to women simply because it makes sense. So it's not exactly true that they "drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the constitution" but I do agree with you for the most part Well, allow me to clarify what I was aiming at. Arctic Daishi among a host of other 2nd-amendment fans are liable to chalk every single thing they do in the pursuit of an unfettered right to bear arms up to the Constitution in some way, as though saying so permits them to ignore every other governmental/societal consideration. This "constitutionality challenge" by an average citizen or law enforcement officer is not actually outlined anywhere in the Constitution; I'm not suggesting that this necessarily invalidates their actions, only that it is disingenuous to simply say "Constitution" every time someone asks a pro-gun rights member to justify their actions.
Oh I do agree with you
And I am also in agreement that twisting the constitutional intent and description of the 2nd Amendment just so you can focus on the "bear arms" section and not the "militia" section, as well as skip the part that its about societal defense and not specifically personal defense and was mostly a law to protect the ownership of guns that they already had--being that that was the way of the time and it was not a constitution to regulate the sales and distribution of guns (which the 2nd amendment doesn't talk about at all)
So, taken literally, the 2nd amendment protects guns you have from being taken away by the government--it doesn't prevent the government from making economic policies. This overly literal definition is pointless though since if its not illegal to own guns then it would be disingenuous for the government to ban the sales of guns using the "the second amendment doesn't specifically say _______"
But none of that matters since A.) The US isn't banning the sales of guns and B.) The US is okay with ownership of guns
Which technically means the 2nd amendment isn't being intruded upon at all by gun legislation.
|
On April 10 2013 03:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:56 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:42 Kaitlin wrote:On April 10 2013 02:21 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:10 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 02:06 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags... They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. It's unconstitutional for a police officer to think of himself as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad. They have a duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, both as a citizen and as a public servant. Their loyalty lies first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States and with the constitution of their respective state. It's no different from soldiers refusing to extra-judicially murder civilians, because it's an unconstitutional order. Where in the Constitution does it say that all branches of government operate alongside the same constitutional prerogative as citizens in challenging laws they consider unjust? Immigration safe havens ? There are plenty of examples of government entities, of various levels, choosing not to enforce particular laws. Sure there are, but the majority of them at least drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the Constitution. Sort of... The American Constitution does not say women are equal to men--but the law still acts as if the constitution does. And yet constitutional rights are given to women simply because it makes sense. So it's not exactly true that they "drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the constitution" but I do agree with you for the most part Well, allow me to clarify what I was aiming at. Arctic Daishi among a host of other 2nd-amendment fans are liable to chalk every single thing they do in the pursuit of an unfettered right to bear arms up to the Constitution in some way, as though saying so permits them to ignore every other governmental/societal consideration. This "constitutionality challenge" by an average citizen or law enforcement officer is not actually outlined anywhere in the Constitution; I'm not suggesting that this necessarily invalidates their actions, only that it is disingenuous to simply say "Constitution" every time someone asks a pro-gun rights member to justify their actions. Oh I do agree with you And I am also in agreement that twisting the constitutional intent and description of the 2nd Amendment just so you can focus on the "bear arms" section and not the "militia" section, as well as skip the part that its about societal defense and not specifically personal defense and was mostly a law to protect the ownership of guns that they already had--being that that was the way of the time and it was not a constitution to regulate the sales and distribution of guns (which the 2nd amendment doesn't talk about at all) So, taken literally, the 2nd amendment protects guns you have from being taken away by the government--it doesn't prevent the government from making economic policies. This overly literal definition is pointless though since if its not illegal to own guns then it would be disingenuous for the government to ban the sales of guns using the "the second amendment doesn't specifically say _______" But none of that matters since A.) The US isn't banning the sales of guns and B.) The US is okay with ownership of guns Which technically means the 2nd amendment isn't being intruded upon at all by gun legislation.
Federally, I agree with you. The Federal Government has been pretty good about it all since the AWB expired. The States though, have been hit or miss. NY is absolutely intruding on the 2nd amendment. They've just about banned all pistols, because they have decreed that magazines over 7 rounds are illegal. Since most handguns come with bigger magazines than that, they're pretty much banned. There are bolt-action rifles, that only hold 5 rounds, that are over 100 years old, that are illegal now because you could mount a bayonet. So things are not completely in agreement with the constitution everywhere.
But about the militias:
1) Well-Regulated meant well-trained and effective back in 1776, not strictly watched by the government.
2) Militiamen owned their own weapons, they didn't go to some government armory and get everything. Even cannons and warships were privately owned.
3) Practically everyone was in the militia, so any attempt to say that only militias could have guns is silly.
|
On April 10 2013 03:25 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 03:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 10 2013 02:56 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:42 Kaitlin wrote:On April 10 2013 02:21 farvacola wrote:On April 10 2013 02:10 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 10 2013 02:06 Djzapz wrote:On April 10 2013 02:04 Arctic Daishi wrote:
[quote]
They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. It's unconstitutional for a police officer to think of himself as a judge. A police officer is part of the executive branch, when THEY think they can decide which laws are constitutional or not, they give themselves judiciary power. It's incredibly bad. They have a duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, both as a citizen and as a public servant. Their loyalty lies first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States and with the constitution of their respective state. It's no different from soldiers refusing to extra-judicially murder civilians, because it's an unconstitutional order. Where in the Constitution does it say that all branches of government operate alongside the same constitutional prerogative as citizens in challenging laws they consider unjust? Immigration safe havens ? There are plenty of examples of government entities, of various levels, choosing not to enforce particular laws. Sure there are, but the majority of them at least drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the Constitution. Sort of... The American Constitution does not say women are equal to men--but the law still acts as if the constitution does. And yet constitutional rights are given to women simply because it makes sense. So it's not exactly true that they "drop the pretense of being slavishly in line with the constitution" but I do agree with you for the most part Well, allow me to clarify what I was aiming at. Arctic Daishi among a host of other 2nd-amendment fans are liable to chalk every single thing they do in the pursuit of an unfettered right to bear arms up to the Constitution in some way, as though saying so permits them to ignore every other governmental/societal consideration. This "constitutionality challenge" by an average citizen or law enforcement officer is not actually outlined anywhere in the Constitution; I'm not suggesting that this necessarily invalidates their actions, only that it is disingenuous to simply say "Constitution" every time someone asks a pro-gun rights member to justify their actions. Oh I do agree with you And I am also in agreement that twisting the constitutional intent and description of the 2nd Amendment just so you can focus on the "bear arms" section and not the "militia" section, as well as skip the part that its about societal defense and not specifically personal defense and was mostly a law to protect the ownership of guns that they already had--being that that was the way of the time and it was not a constitution to regulate the sales and distribution of guns (which the 2nd amendment doesn't talk about at all) So, taken literally, the 2nd amendment protects guns you have from being taken away by the government--it doesn't prevent the government from making economic policies. This overly literal definition is pointless though since if its not illegal to own guns then it would be disingenuous for the government to ban the sales of guns using the "the second amendment doesn't specifically say _______" But none of that matters since A.) The US isn't banning the sales of guns and B.) The US is okay with ownership of guns Which technically means the 2nd amendment isn't being intruded upon at all by gun legislation. Federally, I agree with you. The Federal Government has been pretty good about it all since the AWB expired. The States though, have been hit or miss. NY is absolutely intruding on the 2nd amendment. They've just about banned all pistols, because they have decreed that magazines over 7 rounds are illegal. Since most handguns come with bigger magazines than that, they're pretty much banned. There are bolt-action rifles, that only hold 5 rounds, that are over 100 years old, that are illegal now because you could mount a bayonet. So things are not completely in agreement with the constitution everywhere.
Not that I'm lumping you into this category, but doesn't it seem troubling that many of those who most strongly champion the "states rights" cause are also the first to indict the lawmaking processes of Northern states that conflict with their conception of 2nd amendment rights? It doesn't take long to figure out that many of the states that have high numbers of guns and "free" gun laws also have a number of laws on the books that diverge from Constitutional precedent. Roe Vs. Wade be damned, Arkansas will only have one abortion clinic for the entire state. Federal education guidelines in pursuit of 1st Amendment protections be damned, Tennessee WILL teach Creationism and Intelligent Design alongside Evolution as viable science. 1st Amendment rights be damned, Arizona now protects a business owner's right to dictate the standards of gender identity in their establishment. I could go on here, as the list most certainly goes on, but the point is that many states have laws on the books that challenge or subvert the Constitution or it's interpretations.
|
But about the militias:
1) Well-Regulated meant well-trained and effective back in 1776, not strictly watched by the government.
2) Militiamen owned their own weapons, they didn't go to some government armory and get everything. Even cannons and warships were privately owned.
3) Practically everyone was in the militia, so any attempt to say that only militias could have guns is silly.
1.) I don't even know what you mean. If you're simply sticking to 1776 then do you believe in a musket only rule? (Or a 1 bullet per magazine rule?)
2.) Which is why I said the 2nd Amendment is not about gun distribution, it's about gun ownership. However, since gun distribution (now) affects gun ownership it is dishonest for the federal law to pretend that the 2nd amendment doesn't relate to gun distribution laws.
3.) This is false. Between slaves and women more than half the population of the US were not allowed to have guns. Most people also were migrant farmers who did not own guns (or much of anything really) and so they too did not have guns.
When the law was put in place "everyone" was in the militia because it was a revolution. After the revolution when things normalized most people were not in the militia and in fact there were still a fair number of loyalist who wanted to get back with England.
Gun ownership back then was higher per population--but the population was also smaller. The amendment makes a lot of assumptions that we have carried over into modern times but is not actually spelled out in the constitution.
|
I don't think civillians should carry guns. Only police should be allowed to carry guns. Guns just don't suit civillians as they have no reason to own one.
|
On April 10 2013 05:38 Jan1997 wrote:
I don't think civillians should carry guns. Only police should be allowed to carry guns. Guns just don't suit civillians as they have no reason to own one.
Civilians have many reasons to own guns--I think its more important to ask whether society as a whole is better with armed or unarmed civilians.
I personally disagree with all ownership bans. Saying no guns sound very much like no car, or no computer. And I don't like the idea that once we are able to brand something as dangerous that we have the right to immediately ban it. What if they say that books are dangerous? Or interracial marriage? Or whatever.
So although I would LOVE for there to be more gun laws--banning them "because they're dangerous" I believe sets a bad precedent.
|
On April 10 2013 05:38 Jan1997 wrote:
I don't think civillians should carry guns. Only police should be allowed to carry guns. Guns just don't suit civillians as they have no reason to own one.
Behold, Fruscainte's Ten Commandments
1) the use of military grade firearms makes communities safer, militia are highly useful for local peacekeeping, even if they have poor application in war
2) the use of rifles gives a lot of carry over knowledge for armed forces and common sense and SAFETY in general
3) name a country without a shooting tradition that produces quality modern rifles of its own design
4) they are the most effective means of self defense
5) it is a proven fact that POLICE AND MILITARY are PSYCHOLOGICALLY NO DIFFERENT than regular humans, they are not safer in government hands
6) criminals have statistically less lethality when using automatic weapons, compared to semi automatic weapons. they lack the training to do this properly
7) the gun control movement began with the "red scare" its roots are not in public safety, but in counter revolution, and counter communism
8) if there are certain people in society, EG cops, army, government who are considered safe to carry any given type of firearm, then there should logically be an ability, no matter how difficult, to acquire anything the government can acquire provided they can prove they are equally trustworthy
9) there are no governments in the western world that have not broken human rights conventions in the twentieth century. even the united kingdom gunned down peaceful Irish demonstrators in the 70's
10) if average humans cannot be trusted with the power to take life, it cannot be adequately proven that anyone does and therefore if you do not believe in civilian ownership you should not believe in ownership full stop, government or otherwise
And allow me to close with this -- why does anyone need a car that can go over 70mph? That is the maximum legal speed limit on highways in the United States. There is absolutely no functional purpose to going over 70mph. So why do we sell big, scary, black cars that can easily do 100mph over the designated speed limit? There are more deaths per year in the States from automobiles than from guns. Ban cars going over 70mph, make the streets a safer place.
|
There really should be stricter regulations in the US, just read about a 4 year old accidentally shooting a woman during a BBQ. There was even a police-officer present (not his weapon though, although he was showing some guns in a room).
Here's a source I googled, since I read it on a Dutch website.
http://www.newser.com/story/165901/4-year-old-kills-deputys-wife.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
