A collection of gun/gun control/ gun culture links for your research pleasure

[Enoch07]

!

Oh you know I am gonna give an Tom rainbow emoji on that!

Perhaps I exaggerated a bit in my exuberance of your response!

Definitely a high five would be in order though!

 

[Valjean]

Nope, you can look into supreme Court decisions to see that it is about individuals rights.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570(2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

So off with ye militia bullshiz!

I agree, that was the gist of the decision, but I don't believe it was the intent of the original framers of the constitution. The framers were working from an entirely different social and technological perspective.
So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?
And there were very different social considerations in play, especially in the South:
The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


Like the Dred Scott or Korematsu decisions, it was a politically expedient ruling, which ignored historical perspective and the values America was founded on.

 

[Enoch07]

I agree, that was the gist of the decision, but I don't believe it was the intent of the original framers of the constitution.

Unfortunately we have to go by what the Supreme Court decides it means today. The original framers didn't allow for gay people the right to get married either but the Supreme Court decided it is. So this is why we only go by what the Supreme Court says for today. I personally disagree and think the original intent was for individual rights anyways.

And there were very different social considerations in play, especially in the South:
The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

That doesn't make much sense since the south seceded and formed it's own country. So the 2nd amendment of the the U.S. didn't apply to them, because they formed the Confederacy. So it's kind of nonsensical that it was ratified to preserve slavery.

 

[Valjean]

Unfortunately we have to go by what the Supreme Court decides it means today. The original framers didn't allow for gay people the right to get married either but the Supreme Court decided it is. So this is why we only go by what the Supreme Court says for today. I personally disagree and think the original intent was for individual rights anyways.

The original framers didn't rule on net neutrality, either.
Gay rights wasn't a hot issue in the 1700s; militias, slave patrols, and states' rights were.
The era's issues were extensively discussed in the letters, newspapers, the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Congress debates.
The need for organized militias was not a debate over individual gun rights, however much today's Right would have it so.

That doesn't make much sense since the south seceded and formed it's own country. So the 2nd amendment of the the U.S. didn't apply to them, because they formed the Confederacy. So it's kind of nonsensical that it was ratified to preserve slavery.

Slavery and it's threat to public order was a concern long before the South seceded.

 

[suncowiam]

I don't have to. It is a right. Deal with it.

You're right, I have been dealing with it. This will be the norm after every future public school massacre. The answer from gun advocates will be "deal with it" because they can not justify their position when actual statistics and data from other Western nations prove positive correlation with their gun control.

No one has refuted my statistics on gun control and gun violence. People love their guns so much that they're willing to forgo the reality of it.

 

[Enoch07]

You're right, I have been dealing with it. This will be the norm after every future public school massacre. The answer from gun advocates will be "deal with it" because they can not justify their position when actual statistics and data from other Western nations prove positive correlation with their gun control.

No one has refuted my statistics on gun control and gun violence. People love their guns so much that they're willing to forgo the reality of it.

Nope I don't have to justify a right. That is what it is a right and not a privilege. So yeah deal with it.

 

[suncowiam]

Nope I don't have to justify a right. That is what it is a right and not a privilege. So yeah deal with it.

Slave traders loved that argument too.

Good for you.

Time will tell, but yes you are in the right era and country to hold on such beliefs.

 

[Enoch07]

This is why gun control talks always come to a halt. Gun owners are willing to talk and improve the system to help avoid tragedies.

But anti-gun folks only want one thing, to repeal the 2nd amendment and have a total ban. Which is not acceptable for gun owners. So the discussion stops and another tragedy happens just to do it all over again.

You can complain about how people are being killed by guns. But anti-gun folks are the ones preventing any change.

 

[Enoch07]

Slave traders loved that argument too.

Good for you.

Time will tell, but yes you are in the right era and country to hold on such beliefs.

LGBT people love the argument as well.

Are willing to discuss their rights?

 

[Curious George]

Interesting that the decision was so close.
If one had to belong to a militia in order to exercise the right,
but the right to form one is not protected, then government
would be able to prohibit all gun ownership.
So 4 of the justices essentially saw no right at all. But the
framers saw the individual right in English common law,
which suggests the USSC could void all common law too.
All rights exist only with continual vigilance.

Common law is essentially judge made law. So yes the Supreme Court can overturn case law. More importantly legislation can overwrite common law. This is not in dispute. One doesn't necessarily form a militia. The militia exists in the people. The constitution specifically acknowledges the militia but does not grant any branch the power to create a militia. This is specifically contrary to other armed forces. Ultimately the militia is any person of conscription age capable of fighting should the need arise. One needn't be in the militia one is in the militia.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm extremely against violence, but guns let you live the 15 minutes it takes the police to reach you. They might not work every time, nor be a perfect solution, but it's better than the bad guys winning every single time. It's sort of like a fire extinguisher, hopefully, you will never need in your life, but when you do you'll be sure damn glad you had it. The science / opinion is irrelevant, you either survive a violent encounter or you are a victim. Who plays odds with their lives?

So you think it's better to ensure the bad guys are armed, because in the minority of cases where their victims are armed it means they stand a (statistically) marginally better chance of not dying, despite the fact that they stood a (statistically) significantly higher chance of becoming victims anyway because the bad guys can more easily arm themselves and guns tend to be a popular target for thieves and home invasions?

 

[Revoltingest]

Common law is essentially judge made law. So yes the Supreme Court can overturn case law. More importantly legislation can overwrite common law. This is not in dispute. One doesn't necessarily form a militia. The militia exists in the people. The constitution specifically acknowledges the militia but does not grant any branch the power to create a militia. This is specifically contrary to other armed forces. Ultimately the militia is any person of conscription age capable of fighting should the need arise. One needn't be in the militia one is in the militia.

Because the 2nd Amendment is codified explicitly in the Constitution, this makes common law
only the origin. So it's not so easily overturned....that is, if the justices rule based upon original
intent or strict construction. Beware the living document types....all rights are up for grabs.

 

[Curious George]

Because the 2nd Amendment is codified explicitly in the Constitution, this makes common law
only the origin. So it's not so easily overturned....that is, if the justices rule based upon original
intent or strict construction. Beware the living document types....all rights are up for grabs.

I was speaking about your observation that "this means the USSC could void all common law."

I don't understand why that is surprising? Common law is simply judge made law and tradition. It can be voided. It ought to be able to be voided.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was speaking about your observation that "this means the USSC could void all common law."

I don't understand why that is surprising? Common law is simply judge made law and tradition. It can be voided. It ought to be able to be voided.

Traditionally, common law has been quite entrenched.

 

[suncowiam]

LGBT people love the argument as well.

Are willing to discuss their rights?

What does LGBT have to do with this?

Slavery had to do with the legal acceptance of racial superiority.

 

[Shad]

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

So ironic that it makes a better case for gun ownership than against the 2A.

 

[Mindmaster]

So you think it's better to ensure the bad guys are armed, because in the minority of cases where their victims are armed it means they stand a (statistically) marginally better chance of not dying, despite the fact that they stood a (statistically) significantly higher chance of becoming victims anyway because the bad guys can more easily arm themselves and guns tend to be a popular target for thieves and home invasions?

The bad guys are armed, no matter what, they don't follow the law, and even if there were laws against guns, they'd still have guns.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

"By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)"

I'd say that gun ownership, even if you don't own one decreases the possibility of crime being committed against you or your property, period.

 

[Valjean]

This is why gun control talks always come to a halt. Gun owners are willing to talk and improve the system to help avoid tragedies.

But anti-gun folks only want one thing, to repeal the 2nd amendment and have a total ban. Which is not acceptable for gun owners. So the discussion stops and another tragedy happens just to do it all over again.

You can complain about how people are being killed by guns. But anti-gun folks are the ones preventing any change.

Where are you coming up with this? I don't know of anyone pushing for a total ban.

Common law is essentially judge made law. So yes the Supreme Court can overturn case law. More importantly legislation can overwrite common law. This is not in dispute. One doesn't necessarily form a militia. The militia exists in the people. The constitution specifically acknowledges the militia but does not grant any branch the power to create a militia. This is specifically contrary to other armed forces. Ultimately the militia is any person of conscription age capable of fighting should the need arise. One needn't be in the militia one is in the militia.

This was extensively discussed at the time. The 2nd amendment isn't referring to a militia as a general collection of gun owners.

 

[Enoch07]

Where are you coming up with this? I don't know of anyone pushing for a total ban.

Go through the threads, the evidence is all around us.

 

[Revoltingest]

Go through the threads, the evidence is all around us.

Support for gun bans exists in the media & politics, not just on RF.
The only question is how far the ban goes....semi-auto rifles, handguns, etc.
Ref.....
The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars: Calls for Gun Bans
This is not to say that every anti-guy type supports a ban of some kind though.