Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Can someone please explain why some of those voices that are loudest in favor of "gun control" are often the same voices that opposed one of the most effective gun control measures ever implemented (NYC "stop, question, and frisk")?

I can understand one position or the other, but the juxtaposing the two at the same time really seems contradictory.

Is this a real question? Because the unconstitutionality of S&F is so apparent it makes me sick.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

What I'd like to see is the matter decided at the county level. True blooded local government conservatives should love that.

I do think that the matter is best decided at the state level. For one thing, the language of the Second Amendment itself seems to go that route:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [emphasis added]

We have state militias, so who exactly does the "well-regulated" clause apply to, eh?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Is this a real question? Because the unconstitutionality of S&F is so apparent it makes me sick.

My question was about consistency. If the unconstitutionality of one bothers you, then the unconstitutionality of the other should bother you just as much, no?


How is stop, question and frisk NOT a gun control measure? That is the whole point of it!! It was designed specifically to get illegal guns off the streets, and it worked really well at it too.



Either support both or oppose both, but not support one and oppose the other. That's all I'm saying.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

My question was about consistency. If the unconstitutionality of one bothers you, then the unconstitutionality of the other should bother you just as much, no?


How is stop, question and frisk NOT a gun control measure? That is the whole point of it!! It was designed specifically to get illegal guns off the streets, and it worked really well at it too.



Either support both or oppose both, but not support one and oppose the other. That's all I'm saying.

Unconstitutionality of what? Reasonable controls on firearms? Weapons?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I do think that the matter is best decided at the state level. For one thing, the language of the Second Amendment itself seems to go that route:



We have state militias, so who exactly does the "well-regulated" clause apply to, eh?

Technically, the National Guard and the Air Guard are state militias. Having the command structure that they do, they're extremely well regulated.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

A discussion of said issues.

From that author's argument, Heller was a wild outlier opinion. Would any of our legal professionals care to speculate on whether a future Court is likely to just throw it out, restore the prior SCOTUS understanding of the Second Amendment, and thus permit gun control without resort of amendment?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I also would like to be reasonable.

Honestly, the biggest prob in this country is the ATTITUDE towards guns. Look at the gangs/1% MCs/etc etc. They fight, and they don't just throw fists. They bust out the guns. WTeFF?

I would listen to a provision that requires insurance on gun ownership. Not my favorite provision, but I'll try to compromise. Nothing else has worked so far...

Go the Chris Rock route...keep guns as is but make bullets cost thousands of dollars.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

A discussion of said issues.

From that author's argument, Heller was a wild outlier opinion. Would any of our legal professionals care to speculate on whether a future Court is likely to just throw it out, restore the prior SCOTUS understanding of the Second Amendment, and thus permit gun control without resort of amendment?

Hard to say. Historically I'm not sure the SCOTUS has followed the 9th Circuit reasoning in most cases, but never say never.

Again, not to continuously play the devils advocate here, but let's assume you are correct and states now are free to adopt more aggressive gun control laws. Short of a permanent ban of all weapons, coupled with some sort of confiscation process, what are the laws that are passed and how do they change these events, starting with the San Bernadino shooting?

Let's start with the common ones. Buyers would need a background check and permit to buy these guns. I assume this guy could pass such a check, since I assume he had to undergo a similar check to get his human services job to work with the disabled clients.

Since he purchased the guns legally, I assume he's not a convicted felon. I haven't seen any evidence that he bought these guns only a day or two before the shooting, so I assume he could have waited whatever mandatory waiting period you would impose.

Say you ban carrying a gun in public or concealed. My guess is that if you are planning to go in and massacre 100 co-workers, you're not too concerned about a law that says you can't carry a gun in public. There may even be in place some sort of ban on taking a gun into the building where the shooting occurred, I just don't know, but I don't see that as any sort of deterrent to this event.

Maybe the tried and true "ban on assault weapons." Again, I think we actually tried this once, but assuming we didn't or we want to try it again, what's to prevent someone from shooting the place up with a shotgun or another type of rifle? They all work the same, and are just as deadly.

Other suggestions?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I think the general idea is we have laws controlling substances and devices despite knowing that some people will still in fact break those laws, but having the laws on the books creates a sort of systemic friction that helps impede the behavior. So, it's illegal to possess nitroglycerine* unless you have a license and a demonstrated need for it (like you own a granite quarry). Now safe crackers* are still going to illegally possess nitroglycerine, but we keep the laws on the books -- in fact, the laws help since we can now charge the safe cracker with illegal possession even before he decides to blow the safe.

* All of my examples are circa 1938 because I listen to The Green Hornet and Murder is My Hobby. Feel free to update with something from the last 50 years.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I would listen to a provision that requires insurance on gun ownership.

Another law to not be followed by the folks that break laws already.

Concealed carry permit holders as a group are one of the most law abiding groups out there already. Why? Because if they break the law even a misdemeanor will get their concealed carry permit revoked.

People with concealed carry licenses are:

- 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
- 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

Source: An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999

So a law requiring insurance will be placing the burden in the wrong place. You're not looking to punitively punish the law abiding gun owners (or maybe you are), but that will.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Is this a real question? Because the unconstitutionality of S&F is so apparent it makes me sick.

Fourth Amendment, meet Second Amendment.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Another law to not be followed by the folks that break laws already.

Concealed carry permit holders as a group are one of the most law abiding groups out there already. Why? Because if they break the law even a misdemeanor will get their concealed carry permit revoked.


Source: An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999

So a law requiring insurance will be placing the burden in the wrong place. You're not looking to punitively punish the law abiding gun owners (or maybe you are), but that will.

Probably need to find updated stats. Not that I don't believe them, but 1999 is pre-new world order.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

So a law requiring insurance will be placing the burden in the wrong place. You're not looking to punitively punish the law abiding gun owners (or maybe you are), but that will.

To play devil's advocate, you could be a law-abiding car owner and you still need insurance to use it on public roads. Though, you don't need insurance to own a car.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

You have a right to own a gun for self-defense. You just don't have a need.

I've stated here before that on farmyards in eastern ND I or friends have encountered a rabid coyote, a momma moose with calf, and fresh mountain lion tracks. Can you hear the coyotes in the shelter belt outside your bedroom window?

I have the right and need.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I've stated here before that on farmyards in eastern ND I or friends have encountered a rabid coyote, a momma moose with calf, and fresh mountain lion tracks. Can you hear the coyotes in the shelter belt outside your bedroom window?

I have the right and need.

There are places in Canada and Scandinavia where it's legally required to have a gun. I know that's mostly a polar bear thing but yeah. Food for thought.

We also have fairly uncommon sightings of mountain lions even in the TC metro area. I know we have coyotes.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

To play devil's advocate, you could be a law-abiding car owner and you still need insurance to use it on public roads. Though, you don't need insurance to own a car.

That's not what's being called for here.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

There are places in Canada and Scandinavia where it's legally required to have a gun. I know that's mostly a polar bear thing but yeah. Food for thought.

Switzerland (but some claim that's mainly symbolic).

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I've stated here before that on farmyards in eastern ND I or friends have encountered a rabid coyote, a momma moose with calf, and fresh mountain lion tracks. Can you hear the coyotes in the shelter belt outside your bedroom window?

I have the right and need.

And that's why it should be at the local level. Because in NYC the only coyotes you hear are 40-something JAPs in from Great Neck who had an extra cosmo after Les Mis.

(Though come to think of it that may be an argument to carry.)

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

That's not what's being called for here.

It's not?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

JAPs

RACIST!!!!! i