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

[5mn_Major]

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

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

Again the Constitution isn't being used to restrict anything. Its guaranteeing a baseline freedom...the right to bear arms. It does not say 'the right to bear the most advanced arms available shall not be infringed.' Once somebody has a conventional rifle...their right to 'bear arms' has been met. What firearms are legal in this country is not addressed in the Constitution...but rather is left for Congress to determine.

And in the case of automatic weapons, we've yet to see benefits that are anywhere of the same magnitude as the costs they deal society in terms of deaths.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

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

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.

Woah now, you're far too reasonable. That's never allowed in these types of threads. Please pick a side and start bleating their rhetoric at once.

Of course, when the founders wrote the Constitution, there's the argument that in 1789 they figured single-shot muskets would take down any future tyranny. There's also the argument that they could have never envisioned nuclear, chemical, biological, etc. weapons, which I also certainly agree with. So the argument is - should there be a line drawn? If NEVER, why? If IMMEDIATELY, why and where at?

 

[joecct]

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

Permit me to ask a question. Has the regulation of firearms stopped firearm crime? And, if Old Pio is still here, does he know how many of the Chicago gun crimes are committed with legally obtained firearms vs. illegally obtained?

 

[Foxton]

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

Permit me to ask a question. Has the regulation of firearms stopped firearm crime? And, if Old Pio is still here, does he know how many of the Chicago gun crimes are committed with legally obtained firearms vs. illegally obtained?

Well since you can't stop all crime let's just make everything legal!

 

[St. Clown]

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

Again the Constitution isn't being used to restrict anything. Its guaranteeing a baseline freedom...the right to bear arms. It does not say 'the right to bear the most advanced arms available shall not be infringed.' Once somebody has a conventional rifle...their right to 'bear arms' has been met. What firearms are legal in this country is not addressed in the Constitution...but rather is left for Congress to determine.

And in the case of automatic weapons, we've yet to see benefits that are anywhere of the same magnitude as the costs they deal society in terms of deaths.

If you go down this road, I have kitchen knives in my home and therefore I'm technically bearing arms. Yet that's not how the 2nd Amendment has been read over the years.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

If you go down this road, I have kitchen knives in my home and therefore I'm technically bearing arms. Yet that's not how the 2nd Amendment has been read over the years.

First, conventional firearms were commonplace at the time and in use as the weapon of choice in the situations described in the Constitution (i.e., in militias). Second, the SCOTUS is charged with defining and clarifying the Constitution. And has time and again validated that the Constitution does in fact refer to firearms. In fact, in the wake of the SCOTUS Heller decision...a challenge was turned away:

Heller v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25 On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit denied the follow up appeal of Dick Heller who requested the court to overturn the new District of Columbia gun control ordinances newly enacted after the 2008 Heller ruling. The court refused to do so, stating that the firearms registration procedures; the prohibition on assault weapons; and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment.

So to sum, 1) its been decided that the second amendment refers to common firearms 2) the second does not speak to registration, or protect assault weapons or large capacity devices 3) you are free to pursue your position that only knives are to be protected by the second amendment if it pleases

 

[XYZ]

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

And in the case of automatic weapons, we've yet to see benefits that are anywhere of the same magnitude as the costs they deal society in terms of deaths.

Why do you keep bringing up automatic weapons? They have all of jack **** to do with crime-related issues. And are for all intents and purposes, illegal in the first place.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Permit me to ask a question. Has the regulation of firearms stopped firearm crime? And, if Old Pio is still here, does he know how many of the Chicago gun crimes are committed with legally obtained firearms vs. illegally obtained?

No idea. I'm after my Sarin Gas Launcher though. Under the Constitution I should be able to have one.

 

[unofan]

Permit me to ask a question. Has the regulation of firearms stopped firearm crime? And, if Old Pio is still here, does he know how many of the Chicago gun crimes are committed with legally obtained firearms vs. illegally obtained?

Has the criminalization of murder stopped all murders?

 

[joecct]

If you go down this road, I have kitchen knives in my home and therefore I'm technically bearing arms. Yet that's not how the 2nd Amendment has been read over the years.

Ahh but can the state confiscate your knives because the state has deemed that some of them are dangerous?

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Why do you keep bringing up automatic weapons? They have all of jack **** to do with crime-related issues. And are for all intents and purposes, illegal in the first place.

Better term is assault weapons, which includes quite a few semiautomatics and are widely available. It's simple, high rates of fire and high capacity are not necessary for self defense nor for hunting but increase the risk the rest of society. As discussed further back in the thread, these weapons have been involved in about half of mass killings over the last 30 years.

After all, I have no problem discussing these topics on a message board. Although it gets quite tiring when people advance points with serious holes and then cannot defend themselves.

 

[unofan]

Ahh but can the state confiscate your knives because the state has deemed that some of them are dangerous?

Try taking one onto an airplane and let me know how that goes.

 

[jerphisch]

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

Ahh but can the state confiscate your knives because the state has deemed that some of them are dangerous?

I believe the answer to that is yes, as I have been with someone who was arrested for carrying a knife with too long a blade and being sheethed upside down.

 

[busterman62]

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

Why do you keep bringing up automatic weapons? They have all of jack **** to do with crime-related issues. And are for all intents and purposes, illegal in the first place.

Not illegal but so highly regulated and expensive they might as well be. Only about 240K thought to be in the country and about half of those by police, etc. No real stats showing how often automatic weapons are used in crimes but this quote was interesting

Thomas Mangan, ATF spokesman, says he's not aware of any federally licensed machine gun being used to commit a crime.

The fact that 5min continues to say automatic weapons is just further evidence that this is an issue (similar to abortion) that is so filled with emotion and ignorance that it is almost impossible to hold a logical discussion about it. Or maybe he is just that stupid.

 

[FreshFish]

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

this is an issue (similar to abortion) that is so filled with emotion and ignorance that it is almost impossible to hold a logical discussion about it.

Similar to the attempts by the government to limit free speech engaged in by people who believe in limited government.

If I try to present evidence and logical, reasoned arguments to demonstrate that an expanded federal government creates problems for liberty and for economic opportunity, most reasonable people would consider that an education activity: I'm not advocating for or against any political party or any politician; I'm merely having a scholarly discussion of what forms of government promote or inhibit different desireable goals and end results.

However, the IRS and the Treasury department are trying to reclassify that kind of discussion as "political activity."

If I wanted to set up a not-for-profit group to commission scholarly research papers on the subject, normally I'd be able to register as a 501(c)(4) organization. Based on the plain text of the law and decades of historical precedent, that would have been a routine and reasonable process.

However, the IRS and Treasury have recently proposed new regulations that would now allow them to reject any organization that wants to educate people on the problems and dangers of a too-powerful government as engaged in "political activity."

To me, this should be a non-partisan issue, since once one party in power starts to practice government censorship, it inevitably opens the door to allow the other party also to do so once it regains power.

It is creepy to me how many people these days are just fine with suppressing dissent when they don't like what the dissenters have to say.

Rover, that's your cue to step in and ridicule in a blithering post long on name calling and short on substance; and Unofun can then explain how this really isn't a problem after all and tell everyone how I'm just a stupid troll.

 

[unofan]

If I try to present evidence and logical, reasoned arguments to demonstrate that an expanded federal government creates problems for liberty and for economic opportunity, most reasonable people would consider that an education activity: I'm not advocating for or against any political party or any politician; I'm merely having a scholarly discussion of what forms of government promote or inhibit different desireable goals and end results.

However, the IRS and the Treasury department are trying to reclassify that kind of discussion as "political activity."

The devil is in the details, Fishy. What you're describing could easily be seen as mere posturing and electioneering, not education or scholarly work. By your definition, almost any advertisement on tv could be seen as merely educational: McDonald's isn't telling you to buy the mcrib, it's just informing you of it's availability and deliciousness. Should it be able to claim tax exempt status for its advertising wing?

No one is saying Americans for Prosperity should be disbanded, but you will have a hard time convincing me that its primary purpose is educational rather than electioneering. It didn't pump thousands of dollars into Coralville Iowa this last fall just to educate the citizens. It clearly tried to sway the election in a specific direction (and failed spectacularly, since the backlash helped the incumbants). If it's mission was really educational, those ads would still be on the air. But they aren't because it isn't. True educators don't simply pop up around elections.

Also, tax status has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment unless you can prove its being enforced on selected viewpoints only (it wasn't). But keep trying. Maybe you'll eventually throw out an actual cognizable legal argument. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

 

[Priceless]

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

Permit me to ask a question. Has the regulation of firearms stopped firearm crime?

Permit me to ask a question. Has the regulation of cocaine and crack stopped all trafficking of cocaine and crack?

 

[Priceless]

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

The devil is in the details, Fishy. What you're describing could easily be seen as mere posturing and electioneering, not education or scholarly work. By your definition, almost any advertisement on tv could be seen as merely educational: McDonald's isn't telling you to buy the mcrib, it's just informing you of it's availability and deliciousness.

1/2 right...

 

[Rover]

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

Permit me to ask a question. Has the regulation of cocaine and crack stopped all trafficking of cocaine and crack?

Permit me to ask a question. Has outlawing murder stopped murders from occuring?

 

[5mn_Major]

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

The fact that 5min continues to say automatic weapons is just further evidence that this is an issue (similar to abortion) that is so filled with emotion and ignorance that it is almost impossible to hold a logical discussion about it.

..and gives others something to say when they really have nothing to add to the discussion.