The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

a thing that is not genuine, a forgery or sham

Thank you for the dictionary definition. He suggested a mass shooting is nothing more than "thinning the herd" which is an outrageous statement to make. I'm sorry you agree with him.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It appears this is where your political affiliation trumps your religious affiliation.

Of course if you make this argument, you then have to make a much stronger argument that all guns should be outlawed, as the non-assaunt weapons kill a boatload more people than automatic ones do. But, I understand automatic weapons are a sexier and easier target.

Not true. The US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not guarantee an individual to own whatever arms he/she wants.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Just being devil's advocate. I don't have a reason to own an "assault rifle" or semi-auto pistol, and I would not blow my top if they were restricted again, but I also agree that a ban merely treats a symptom of a larger underlying societal problem. It's like the 'dry drunks' who attend meetings and don't drink, but still haven't directly faced and solved the problems that led to their excessive drinking in the first place.

I have no problem with treating all causes of a problem. What would you suggest? And how much would that cost?

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It appears this is where your political affiliation trumps your religious affiliation.



Not true. The US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not guarantee an individual to own whatever arms he/she wants.

I still don't see why I'm not allowed to own an Anti Aircraft gun with Stinger missiles and a few nukes. It isn't like I have a criminal history.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I still don't see why I'm not allowed to own an Anti Aircraft gun with Stinger missiles and a few nukes. It isn't like I have a criminal history.

Who here could afford it?

I have no problem with treating all causes of a problem. What would you suggest? And how much would that cost?

There could be any number of problems - the mass media exposure and attention these nutjobs all seek, thin security procedures/element of surprise, the way society deals with mental health problems, etc. It will cost a lot of money to fix, and do we really want to live in a society where we feel imprisoned everywhere? Frankly, there are some things that may not be possible to fix with the way 24/7 cable media has permeated American culture and our freedom of the press.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Thank you for the dictionary definition. He suggested a mass shooting is nothing more than "thinning the herd" which is an outrageous statement to make. I'm sorry you agree with him.

He wasn't making light of people being killed and you know it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It appears this is where your political affiliation trumps your religious affiliation.



Not true. The US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not guarantee an individual to own whatever arms he/she wants.

I was speaking from a logical standpoint, not a legal standpoint. Of course that is what the Constitution says. And, if guns are so egregious, the Constitution can be amended. Wouldn't that be worth saving the 90 sum percent of people who are killed by non-automatic guns?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I was speaking from a logical standpoint, not a legal standpoint. Of course that is what the Constitution says. And, if guns are so egregious, the Constitution can be amended. Wouldn't that be worth saving the 90 sum percent of people who are killed by non-automatic guns?

You may find it an interesting dilemma but society does not. Basic guns are part of the US Constitution and that has taken the decision off the table. And because of the role of the Constitution to this country, the situation is as it should be. The Constitution should not just be amended...even if some lives are at stake.

On the other hand, there is no similar standing regarding more advanced weaponry in the Constitution. To put it in a raw form, one person gets a thrill and a greater number of others' lives are at greater risk.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Who here could afford it?

I could take out a loan.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You may find it an interesting dilemma but society does not. Basic guns are part of the US Constitution and that has taken the decision off the table. And because of the role of the Constitution to this country, the situation is as it should be. The Constitution should not just be amended...even if some lives are at stake.

On the other hand, there is no similar standing regarding more advanced weaponry in the Constitution. To put it in a raw form, one person gets a thrill and a greater number of others' lives are at greater risk.

The Constitution talks about the right to bear arms. Obviously when it was written, there weren't the wide variety of arms there are now. But, reasonable people can come to different conclusions as to what should be included in a right to bear "arms". What exactly is included or excluded from "arms"? A gun advocate is not being unreasonable to claim that the right to bear arms could/should include heavier weapons that a handgun or .410 shotgun.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It appears this is where your political affiliation trumps your religious affiliation.



Not true. The US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not guarantee an individual to own whatever arms he/she wants.

It says that the right "shall not be abridged." You appear to have a different definition of "abridged" than I do. (Or else you're arguing about the right referring to something other than the individual, in which case you should elaborate.)

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It says that the right "shall not be abridged." You appear to have a different definition of "abridged" than I do. (Or else you're arguing about the right referring to something other than the individual, in which case you should elaborate.)

Nothin bout that militia though. Or that there was no possible way for them to predict the destructive power that firearms would gain once you no longer were limited to 3 shots a minute.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

When we are talking about First Amendment rights, how does this distinction apply to newspapers, radio, television? Certainly you are not suggesting that for-profit media companies lose "freedom of the press" merely by being "for profit"??

I do understand the emotional and intuitive appeal of saying something like what follows, regarding "corporations" and their constitutional rights:
-- "media" companies have one set of rights.
-- churches, temples, mosques, synagogs, religious orders have another set of rights
-- universities, hospitals, museums, libraries, and foundations have another set of rights
-- political parties and political advocacy groups have another set of rights
-- non-media for-profit companies and labor unions have another set of rights


The problem with this line of thought becomes "who determines what those rights are?" It cannot be the government, otherwise we have just opened the door for government censorship. Merely by allowing "media companies" to be defined at all allows for a definition to restrict certain groups from that category, thereby restricting their free speech rights.


Well, then, you might reply: suppose I reluctantly am forced to concede that all corporations must have free speech rights (if not, then we have automatically restricted them, by definition) -- That doesn't necessarily mean that all corporations must necessarily have each and every one of the First Amendment rights. Well, the last sentence is your argument, not mine. How do you go about defining which corporations have which First Amendment rights, which corporations have some First Amendment rights but not other First Amendment rights, and how do you do so without granting the government the power to censor people in some form or fashion?

I don't think you're quite getting the fact that different rights are applied differently. For example, the Equal Protection Clause is applied differently depending on the class you are applying it to (race vs. gender vs. age example). In fact, the same clause may get applied in three different ways to one person (say, an elderly, Chinese female).

The Court has always treated Free Exercise Clause rights as limited to individuals and non-profit organizations. To continue to differentiate between the two would simply follow over 200 years of precedent.

Unless you are aware of a Supreme Court opinion that allows a for-profit corporation to exercise the Free Exercise Clause?

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Nothin bout that militia though. Or that there was no possible way for them to predict the destructive power that firearms would gain once you no longer were limited to 3 shots a minute.

No disagreement there. The second amendment could use a rewrite, but there are way too many vested interests (many with diametrically opposed goals) for that to happen.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It says that the right "shall not be abridged." You appear to have a different definition of "abridged" than I do. (Or else you're arguing about the right referring to something other than the individual, in which case you should elaborate.)

Not sure what you're talking about. The Constitution says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" which in a nutshell means there is a right to bear arms. Frankly what matters here is the definition of 'arms' not 'infringed.'

The Constitution was written intentionally vague. It is not dictating execution...but guarenteeing general concepts. It only protects what it is explicit about. So as long as US citizens have access to some arms or guns...their right to bear arms is being fullfilled. Based on the fulfillment of the right by other types of arms, there is no rationale by which automatic weapons (or nukes for that matter) are guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Constitution says I can buy a bazooka. Why can't I buy one then?

Same difference.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If I understand correctly, the "right to bear arms" was included in the Bill of Rights as the ultimate check on government tyranny.

Seems to me that the underlying problem has more to do with mental health (or lack thereof) than with guns per se. ... which is exacerbated by hyperventilating media coverage.

Years ago, there was a problem with people running onto the field at sporting events. All the networks made a concerted combined effort not to televise the people who did so, and the problem diminished pretty quickly. We still get a few, but nowhere near what we had at the height of the craze.

I'd love to have universal network coverage go "some whacko whose name we are not going to mention as very small, partial punishment for his atrocity did something really evil today." Don't mention his name, don't put his picture on the cover of Rolling Stone, don't show all the crying upset people, certainly don't show the blood-spattered pavement....

Won't happen. Too few adults left. Everyone's a teenager-for-life now.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Constitution says I can buy a bazooka. Why can't I buy one then?

Same difference.

Because you aren't a member of a well-regulated militia.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Because you aren't a member of a well-regulated militia.

I'm regular as hell and a member of the Scooby Militia. Give me MY BAZOOKA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Not sure what you're talking about. The Constitution says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" which in a nutshell means there is a right to bear arms. Frankly what matters here is the definition of 'arms' not 'infringed.'

Oops. Not sure why I thought it was abridged rather than infringed. I'm not convinced it makes a significant difference, though.

The Constitution was written intentionally vague. It is not dictating execution...but guarenteeing general concepts. It only protects what it is explicit about. So as long as US citizens have access to some arms or guns...their right to bear arms is being fullfilled.

Wait, restricting what arms they can keep and bear isn't an infringement? News to me.

I don't think that any average citizen should be able to keep whatever kind of arms they want, but I think your argument that this is somehow completely in line with the second amendment is specious. I'm not going to pretend the amendment says something it doesn't just because I think that it's outlived its usefulness in its original form.

Of course, the "well-regulated militia" language makes the whole thing even more of a mess. It's arguable that in this day and age, a well-regulated militia will have tanks, and it's debatable whether the National Guard or some other kind of state-organized military organization actually fulfills the intended role of the militia.