Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Curious George]

These findings are entirely relevant to the risk-benefit analysis of possessing and owning guns. I asked earlier for someone to specify the benefits of having a gun in the home, and you responded "self-defense". But study 6 in the above list found that guns in the home are more often used to intimidate intimate partners than to thwart crime (a finding that does not include the increased risk of suicide associated with a gun in the home). Study 5 found that "firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense." Study 4 found that most purported self-defensive gun use is in fact illegal.

To anyone who isn't blind, the risks of possessing and owning guns, and of a country saturated in guns, are obviously and well documented. It's only the benefits of possessing guns, and of a country saturated in guns, that are non-existent.

You have poor logic skills if you think more intimidation than self defense= no self defense.

 

[esmith]

So only "bleeding heart liberals" are able to correctly interpret the Constitution?

 

[Curious George]

Why do you ask?

Because it also employs the phrase the people.

 

[Curious George]

About what? You didn't show that anything I said is false. Quote whatever I said that you believe is false, and show that it is false.

The people cannot mean individuals. Individuals are a members of the people therefore individuals do have such a right.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I have mentioned in another thread. I do not plan to visit any state east of the Mississippi and those states on the Pacific Coast unless I have to (probably will, wife's sister lives in North Carolina and we travel to East Oregon occasionally.)

You'd be OK in MIchigan, Ohio & PA.
But you'd have to go thru Illinois to get here....that is one messed up state.

 

[Revoltingest]

The 1st Amendment.....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Would anyone interpret "the people" as meaning anything other than individuals & aggregations thereof?

 

[McBell]

You'd be OK in MIchigan, Ohio & PA.
But you'd have to go thru Illinois to get here....that is one messed up state.

So long as you have a legal permit and or license you are allowed to carry your side arm in Illinois.
Just so long as you do not exit your vehicle with it.

 

[Thanda]

All we are doing is spinning our wheels, and the main point, namely that certain weapons and access by certain people can be and have been restricted, is moot because that process has repeatedly been upheld as being constitutional. Therefore, the only serious question from this point on is which weapons and which people are going to be restricted, and that we know is subject to both laws passed and court decisions rendered, both present and future.

Sure, and I would hope there aren't any Americans who are fighting so that anyone and everyone can have any weapon they want - that would just be crazy.

 

[Revoltingest]

So long as you have a legal permit and or license you are allowed to carry your side arm in Illinois.
Just so long as you do not exit your vehicle with it.

It has the reputation of cops not knowing the law, not caring about the law, & some variety of antipathy towards licensees.
(When I travel, I keep mine in a gun safe in the service body on the back of me truck.)

 

[McBell]

It has the reputation of cops not knowing the law, not caring about the law, & some variety of antipathy towards licensees.
(When I travel, I keep mine in a gun safe in the service body on the back of me truck.)

Keep in mind that I presented state law.
I do not know nor do I pretend to know all the county and city and township laws in Illinois.

 

[Nous]

As I read the 6th Amendment, there is no threshold where one's right to a
jury trial in any criminal prosecution may be unilaterally waived by government.

The term “trial by jury” in both the Sixth Amendment and Article III has always been understood to mean what it meant at common law at the time of adoption of the Constitution. As such, there have always been petty crimes or offenses for which a trial by jury was not included in these two provisions of the Constitution. This is why Stevens begins his dissent in Lewis by noting that he does “not quarrel with the established view that only defendants whose alleged misconduct is deemed serious by the legislature are entitled to be judged by a jury. But in my opinion, the legislature's determination of the severity of the charges against a defendant is properly measured by the maximum sentence authorized for the prosecution as a whole. The text of the Sixth Amendment supports this interpretation by referring expressly to ‘criminal prosecutions.’”

One of the primary injustices the right to a jury trial was intended to prevent was a prosecutor or judge silencing a political opponent by throwing him in jail for an extended period. This is not a problem in the US today. In fact, especially when it comes to petty crimes, I think that today judges might be less likely to unfairly convict than juries would. After all, at trial prosecutors are able to persuade the jury to convict in the vast majority of cases; judges, who have seen and heard it all before, and have seen and heard much worse on any given day than most jurors ever have, might be less impressed by a prosecutor’s song and dance. I believe most judges try their best to be fair, have no desire to fill jails and prisons with people who don’t have to be there, especially for petty offenses, and are quite willing to deny even their DA golf buddy a conviction when s/he does have a case.

 

[Nous]

As I have mentioned in another thread. I do not plan to visit any state east of the Mississippi and those states on the Pacific Coast unless I have to (probably will, wife's sister lives in North Carolina and we travel to East Oregon occasionally.)

I don't have a clue as to what that is supposed to mean or imply, or how it's a response to my post.

 

[Nous]

You have poor logic skills if you think more intimidation than self defense= no self defense.

Now, why don't you respond to what I actually did say? I'll repeat it for your convenience:

These findings are entirely relevant to the risk-benefit analysis of possessing and owning guns. I asked earlier for someone to specify the benefits of having a gun in the home, and you responded "self-defense". But study 6 in the above list found that guns in the home are more often used to intimidate intimate partners than to thwart crime (a finding that does not include the increased risk of suicide associated with a gun in the home). Study 5 found that "firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense." Study 4 found that most purported self-defensive gun use is in fact illegal.

To anyone who isn't blind, the risks of possessing and owning guns, and of a country saturated in guns, are obviously and well documented. It's only the benefits of possessing guns, and of a country saturated in guns, that are non-existent.

 

[Nous]

Because it also employs the phrase the people.

Yes, the Constitution includes in the term (not a phrase) "the people" in several places. As the Court makes clear in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment (and elsewhere) "refers to a class of persons" (my emphasis). Likewise in the Ninth Amendment, the rights "retained by the people" do not belong to any identifiable individuals, but are the rights belonging to a class of persons. As noted above, to interpret the phrase, "the right of the people" as "the rights of individuals" isn't logically justifiable because it raises the conundrums such as about "which arms" individuals have a "right" to keep and bear (not all kinds of arms).

 

[Nous]

The people cannot mean individuals. Individuals are a members of the people therefore individuals do have such a right.

George Washington, in his 1790 address to Congress, used the term "a free people" in referring to those who "ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well–digested plan is requisite . . ." But he obviously wasn't implying that "a free people" who are not members of the military ought to be armed, disciplined and uniformed. The Second Amendment uses the term "the people" in the same way. To try to interpret it differently creates an incomprehensible sentence--why begin the sentence with the clause that speaks of a well-regulated militia and security of a free state, if one is seeking to secure a right about the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of purely self-defense?

 

[Revoltingest]

Keep in mind that I presented state law.
I do not know nor do I pretend to know all the county and city and township laws in Illinois.

What!
How can you call yourself an "expert on all laws in Illinois"?
I expected more from you....cuz of your giant braincase.

 

[esmith]

As far as the SCOUS. Yeah, I could see that if a bleeding heat liberal was elected. president and appointed another bleeding heart liberal to the Court. However, I do believe even if that happened it would only allow states and municipalities to write their own laws. Not give blanket power to the federal government to mandate a new federal law. Even then, when a conservative was elected they could just issue an executive order to nullify the law. (what comes around goes around)

So only "bleeding heart liberals" are able to correctly interpret the Constitution?
Indeed, undoubtedly a number of states and municipalities would immediately outlaw handguns (and other dangerous firearms). Soon Americans would find themselves living in a less violent country.

As I have mentioned in another thread. I do not plan to visit any state east of the Mississippi and those states on the Pacific Coast unless I have to (probably will, wife's sister lives in North Carolina and we travel to East Oregon occasionally.)

I don't have a clue as to what that is supposed to mean or imply, or how it's a response to my post.

Well let me try to explain, if that is possible. You said
Indeed, undoubtedly a number of states and municipalities would immediately outlaw handguns (and other dangerous firearms). Soon Americans would find themselves living in a less violent country.
Well we all know that the gun grabbers live mostly east of the Mississippi and on the west coast. Therefore, I really don't want to have to put up with their idiotic laws on firearms found in various states east of the Mississippi and along the west coast. So, I would not darken their poor little states with my presence.[/QUOTE]

 

[Revoltingest]

The term “trial by jury” in both the Sixth Amendment and Article III has always been understood to mean what it meant at common law at the time of adoption of the Constitution. As such, there have always been petty crimes or offenses for which a trial by jury was not included in these two provisions of the Constitution. This is why Stevens begins his dissent in Lewis by noting that he does “not quarrel with the established view that only defendants whose alleged misconduct is deemed serious by the legislature are entitled to be judged by a jury. But in my opinion, the legislature's determination of the severity of the charges against a defendant is properly measured by the maximum sentence authorized for the prosecution as a whole. The text of the Sixth Amendment supports this interpretation by referring expressly to ‘criminal prosecutions.’”

One of the primary injustices the right to a jury trial was intended to prevent was a prosecutor or judge silencing a political opponent by throwing him in jail for an extended period. This is not a problem in the US today. In fact, especially when it comes to petty crimes, I think that today judges might be less likely to unfairly convict than juries would. After all, at trial prosecutors are able to persuade the jury to convict in the vast majority of cases; judges, who have seen and heard it all before, and have seen and heard much worse on any given day than most jurors ever have, might be less impressed by a prosecutor’s song and dance. I believe most judges try their best to be fair, have no desire to fill jails and prisons with people who don’t have to be there, especially for petty offenses, and are quite willing to deny even their DA golf buddy a conviction when s/he does have a case.

Common law is useful in divining meaning when language is ambiguous.
Consider.....
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...."
I've underlined the relevant portion.
This is clear in not allowing exceptions.

 

[Curious George]

Now, why don't you respond to what I actually did say? I'll repeat it for your convenience:

These findings are entirely relevant to the risk-benefit analysis of possessing and owning guns. I asked earlier for someone to specify the benefits of having a gun in the home, and you responded "self-defense". But study 6 in the above list found that guns in the home are more often used to intimidate intimate partners than to thwart crime (a finding that does not include the increased risk of suicide associated with a gun in the home). Study 5 found that "firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense." Study 4 found that most purported self-defensive gun use is in fact illegal.

To anyone who isn't blind, the risks of possessing and owning guns, and of a country saturated in guns, are obviously and well documented. It's only the benefits of possessing guns, and of a country saturated in guns, that are non-existent.

"It's only the benefits...that are non existent" (nous indicating that self defense with guns is a non existent benefit).

Now you seem to premise this conclusion from the above conclusion of the study that guns are used to intimidate more often than they are used for self defense. Thus, I very much did respond to what you said.

 

[Nous]

Well let me try to explain, if that is possible. You said
Indeed, undoubtedly a number of states and municipalities would immediately outlaw handguns (and other dangerous firearms). Soon Americans would find themselves living in a less violent country.
Well we all know that the gun grabbers live mostly east of the Mississippi and on the west coast. Therefore, I really don't want to have to put up with their idiotic laws on firearms found in various states east of the Mississippi and along the west coast. So, I would not darken their poor little states with my presence.

Perhaps it is a good idea for you to not wander far from home.