Mass Shooting at Elementary School Connecticut 12/14/12

[Dandu]

Yeah, our own supreme court has done some recent research on it too.

see District of Columbia vs. Heller

The logic used by the majority in that case is absurd. Read the dissent. It is far more compelling and would be the law if there was one less conservative on the court.

Sadly, the US Supreme Court has demonstrated that, on major political issues, it is incapable of making reasoned legal determinations and will abandon all legal principle to tow the party line. Read Bush v. Gore. Both the conservatives and the liberals were guilty of abandoning principle in that case to suit their political agenda.

[SteveAJones]

So does this mean that a misplaced comma is to blame for all the gun killings in the US over has few hundred years?

It means the intent of the second amendment is widely misunderstood, particularly by non-citizens U.S. citizens, as evidenced throughout this thread.

[ledded1]

It means the intent of the second amendment is widely misunderstood, particularly by non-citizens U.S. citizens, as evidenced throughout this thread.

And by many more American citizens it seems.

[ledded1]

http://www.parentdis...26pLid%3D142276

This whole thing gets sadder when other kids are taking guns into school in fear.

[SteveAJones]

Appreciate the post Steve, but if the intent was simply that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", why not just say that? Why the extra words?

I am no constitutional scholar, but I don't believe ANY other sections of the Bill of Rights (or the constitutional amendments which have followed) contain superfluous examples. Its just not the way legislation is drafted, and certainly not the way other sections of the constitution are interpreted today - In all other cases we give each word meaning.

The MILITIA was what was to be regulated, not arms, not the people.

This is spelled out in a quote from one of the authors of the 2nd Amendment, Tench Coxe;

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

---------------

"Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army - or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed."

-John Smilie

You will find some who believe the Second only protects muzzle loaders, or that there were no long range or multiple firing firearms at the time, but they are wrong. The Constitutional protections are not tied to the technology of the period. If it were, the government could require a key logger program in each & every computer which feeds back to the FBI.

[SteveAJones]

And by many more American citizens it seems.

Yes, by many American citizens also.

[TypeO]

The logic used by the majority in that case is absurd. Read the dissent. It is far more compelling and would be the law if there was one less conservative on the court.

Obvious statement is obvious.

Sorry, but that's about as simple-minded of an observation as I have seen made thus far in this thread.

Any idea how many decisions that statement applies to, in both directions (one less conservative / liberal)?

The more controversial the issue, the more likely a 5-4 vote will emerge.

[LedZeppfan77]

Obvious statement is obvious.

Sorry, but that's about as simple-minded of an observation as I have seen made thus far in this thread.

Any idea how many decisions that statement applies to, in both directions (one less conservative / liberal)?

The more controversial the issue, the more likely a 5-4 vote will emerge.

The everlasting battle between the right and left even come here. Not surprised. You are either blue or red, Dem or Rep, left or right? Not me. I am in the middle. But on gun laws i am certainly more to the right

[Dandu]

Obvious statement is obvious.

Sorry, but that's about as simple-minded of an observation as I have seen made thus far in this thread.

Any idea how many decisions that statement applies to, in both directions (one less conservative / liberal)?

The more controversial the issue, the more likely a 5-4 vote will emerge.

I don't mind being called simple minded, but when you completely miss the point of my post, it rings a bit hollow.

I was responding to another post invoking a decision of the Supreme Court. My point was simply that on major POLITICAL (or as you have called them, controversial) issues, the Court appears to have ceased serving its function as an independent judiciary and has set out to achieve a result rather than apply the law. It is merely politicts disguised and is really not the purpose of the third branch of government. Accordingly, (and I thought this was self evident in my post) the Supreme Court decision on this issue is not particularly persuasive - though it may well be the law of the land. One would do better to read the words of the second amendment and determine how anyone, acting reasonably, could believe that the drafters of the Bill of Rights stuck two completely unrelated sentences together in what is otherwise a relative masterpiece of legal drafting.

[Dandu]

The MILITIA was what was to be regulated, not arms, not the people.

This is spelled out in a quote from one of the authors of the 2nd Amendment, Tench Coxe;

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

So the purpose of the part about the militia is simply to provide a reason as to why the people should be allowed to bear arms? Is there any other provision in the Bill of Rights which provides a reason for why it is there? In my experience it is just not the way such documents are drafted, but I am happy to be enlightened.

You will find some who believe the Second only protects muzzle loaders, or that there were no long range or multiple firing firearms at the time, but they are wrong. The Constitutional protections are not tied to the technology of the period. If it were, the government could require a key logger program in each & every computer which feeds back to the FBI.

I agree with you. The provision must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the times, however, if it is truly drafted the way you say, and the purpose is to allow the people to defend themselves against the US army in the event it "perverts its power" to the injury of fellow Americans, then surely it should be interpreted more broadly and all Americans should be allowed to possess cruise missiles, nukes and RPG's. Last I checked the American army cannot be held in check by a few citizens with semi-automatic weapons. It starts to become absurd.

A proper reading in today’s day and age, even if your argument is correct (which I deny), would have to impose limits based upon the realities of technology.

[Deborah J]

^^Dandu, that has to be one of the best post on this thread. I completely agree.

4 more of these people are being buried today. My thoughts are with these people today. I just still cannot believe this had to happen in order for some people to wake up and cause changes that have been long overdue in regards to healthcare for the mentally ill and guns.

This is so very sad.

[LedZeppfan77]

I can't wait to learn the facts about this crazy bastard. The real facts. The media has given out alot of inaccurate info on this from the start I know its not entirely their fault. But we know alot is being withheld. The big question is who knew what and WHEN did they know it.

I am going to a local gun shop in a few minutes to see if one of my friends panic stricken account is true about the prices of all weapons going up $150 to $200 a gun.. And the permit application appointments are booking now into late Feb. So there is a panic driven rush to buy guns due to the outcry from this. I want to buy a 9mm while I still can. I have my permit but my wife does not. And she is the one that needs it. A Glock 17 was one of the guns in this case. Typically anywhere from $650-$750 new. And the German Sig arms gun is at least that if not $800. The Glock is known for having no metal parts and can go undected through a metal detector, though the bullets will not. I do not want such a pricey gun. I would settle for a Ruger or Smith and Wesson, but I am sure there is some truth to his account of the price gouging? I will report back as to how busy the store is. I have heard they are all quite busy.

Just know, it is very sad what happened. Beyond words. I just cannot imagine.

[Stryder1978]

Joe Biden to head the President's committee on gun control related to the recent massacre??? Was Alfred E. Neuman not available???

[ledded1]

Joe Biden to head the President's committee on gun control related to the recent massacre??? Was Alfred E. Neuman not available???

It's a Mad enough world without him

[Leather Apron]

The provision must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the times, however, if it is truly drafted the way you say, and the purpose is to allow the people to defend themselves against the US army in the event it "perverts its power" to the injury of fellow Americans, then surely it should be interpreted more broadly and all Americans should be allowed to possess cruise missiles, nukes and RPG's. Last I checked the American army cannot be held in check by a few citizens with semi-automatic weapons. It starts to become absurd.

I guess you've never heard of Afghanistan?

A proper reading in today’s day and age, even if your argument is correct (which I deny), would have to impose limits based upon the realities of technology.

And yet when the technology that the Government's Army had was pretty much limited to muzzle loading muskets; the framers of the constitution still saw fit to provide the exact same technology to the people. They must have a lot of faith in the PEOPLE to allow them that right.

I'm beggining to realize that the border between Canada and the United States is the line between the people who were willing to reject the divine right of Kings and the people who were willing to submit to it. It's sort of like the analogy of one brother who grows up and leaves the nest, and another who decides to stay put and put their future soley in the hands of his parents. "No, don't go there. No, don't touch that. No, you have to think, worship and live the way I see fit."

Get it? The one brother will always resent the other one. But the one who left really doesn't care.

[Dandu]

I guess you've never heard of Afghanistan?

I have heard of it, thanks. The US military could turn it into a parking lot if they chose to. The fact that they have not done so only underscores my point.

And yet when the technology that the Government's Army had was pretty much limited to muzzle loading muskets; the framers of the constitution still saw fit to provide the exact same technology to the people. They must have a lot of faith in the PEOPLE to allow them that right.

So I take it you agree that the constitution guarantees you the right to own a tank, nerve gas and an F-16? I thought the point was so absurd that nobody would seriously espouse it. It would seem I was wrong.

I'm beggining to realize that the border between Canada and the United States is the line between the people who were willing to reject the divine right of Kings and the people who were willing to submit to it. It's sort of like the analogy of one brother who grows up and leaves the nest, and another who decides to stay put and put their future soley in the hands of his parents. "No, don't go there. No, don't touch that. No, you have to think, worship and live the way I see fit."

Get it? The one brother will always resent the other one. But the one who left really doesn't care.

Don't insult my country. I have not insulted yours. I enjoy immense freedom in Canada. Contrary to your ridiculous assertion, I don’t have to think, worship or live the way anyone sees fit. No King (or Queen or government) tells me what to do anymore than your President or your congress do you. In fact, on balance people probably enjoy more freedoms in Canada. Oh, and I don't have to carry a gun around because I am so afraid of all the other people with guns in my country.

I don't resent my brother the US as you falsely claim. I love the US. It is a wonderful and beautiful country, with untold numbers of fantastic and intelligent people, that has done a lot of good in the world.

Still, while it is a great place to visit, I choose to live here.

[ledded1]

And yet when the technology that the Government's Army had was pretty much limited to muzzle loading muskets; the framers of the constitution still saw fit to provide the exact same technology to the people. They must have a lot of faith in the PEOPLE to allow them that right.

I guess they never thought people would walk around committing mass murder by allowing people such a right. Do you truly believe they would have created the 2nd amendment in the way they did for that to happen centuries later if they had been able to predict it?

[redrum]

Joe Biden to head the President's committee on gun control related to the recent massacre??? Was Alfred E. Neuman not available???

Good 'Ol Joe, the gun hater from way back.

Hollywood also cracks me up as most there hate guns too, yet their movies are just filled with gunplay. Effin hypocrites as they cry the most for gun control.

Some soon to be released crap from the crap factory in California.

Django Unchained

Gangster Squad

Jack Reacher

And the biggest hypocrite/dimwit from Hollywood in my opinion, goes to Sylvester Stallone with his classic quote about guns in America:

'Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have......It really is pathetic...We're livin' in the dark ages over there!'

O.K. Rambo, whatever you say.

Edit to say that these wholesome films will all be released around Christmas time. Lovely, ey?

[Reggie29]

This is what I was referring to.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2012/12/20/08/11/father-and-former-marine-guards-us-school

[TypeO]

I don't mind being called simple minded, but when you completely miss the point of my post, it rings a bit hollow.

I was responding to another post invoking a decision of the Supreme Court. My point was simply that on major POLITICAL (or as you have called them, controversial) issues, the Court appears to have ceased serving its function as an independent judiciary and has set out to achieve a result rather than apply the law. It is merely politicts disguised and is really not the purpose of the third branch of government.

Your point was hardly a subtle one, it wasn't missed.

That you were referring to another post doesn't change the banality of the observation, which would hold true in most any 5-4 decision (if there were one less conservative / liberal, it would / would not be law).

Accordingly, (and I thought this was self evident in my post) the Supreme Court decision on this issue is not particularly persuasive - though it may well be the law of the land.

So, by that reasoning, decisions including challenges to the Americans with Disabilities Act, upholding Campaign Finance Regulations, upholding late-term abortions, and challenges to Affirmative Action, would also be "not particularly persuasive"?

See, I don't mind making absurd extrapolations from your comments, since you consistently employ the same strategy in this thread.

See below.

then surely it should be interpreted more broadly and all Americans should be allowed to possess cruise missiles, nukes and RPG's.

I rest my case.

The point was made quite concisely by SAJ.

The MILITIA was what was to be regulated, not arms, not the people.

This is spelled out in a quote from one of the authors of the 2nd Amendment, Tench Coxe;

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

The framers clearly were crafting protections for the people from their government, since it hadn't gone so well with Great Britain.

I guess they never thought people would walk around committing mass murder by allowing people such a right. Do you truly believe they would have created the 2nd amendment in the way they did for that to happen centuries later if they had been able to predict it?

You can't be serious.

How can you expect people to take your comments seriously when you propose fictional scenarios to debate?

Wow.

Do you think Japan would have attacked Pearl Harbor if they'd known they'd get nuked back to the stone age?

This discussion is complex enough without burdoning it with outlandish speculative argument.

Let's stick with reality, where people don't have the ability to predict the future and whatnot, shall we?

That's a good lad.

lulz

[ledded1]

Your point was hardly a subtle one, it wasn't missed.

That you were referring to another post doesn't change the banality of the observation, which would hold true in most any 5-4 decision (if there were one less conservative / liberal, it would / would not be law).

So, by that reasoning, decisions including challenges to the Americans with Disabilities Act, upholding Campaign Finance Regulations, upholding late-term abortions, and challenges to Affirmative Action, would also be "not particularly persuasive"?

See, I don't mind making absurd extrapolations from your comments, since you consistently employ the same strategy in this thread.

See below.

I rest my case.

The point was made quite concisely by SAJ.

The framers clearly were crafting protections for the people from their government, since it hadn't gone so well with Great Britain.

You can't be serious.

How can you expect people to take your comments seriously when you propose fictional scenarios to debate?

Wow.

Do you think Japan would have attacked Pearl Harbor if they'd known they'd get nuked back to the stone age?

This discussion is complex enough without burdoning it with outlandish speculative argument.

Let's stick with reality, where people don't have the ability to predict the future and whatnot, shall we?

That's a good lad.

lulz

Oh your response is typical Type O tripe. I am probably older than you anyway son.

So forward thinking plays no part in your life or in the lives of governments/law makers/army commanders/tyrants? How deluded are you? We make decisions with some thought of the consequences of our actions surely or do you live from minute to minute and don't think about where y

our actions will lead? No wonder you don't seem to learn from your twisted statements and standpoints. The stuck record Type O style.

So no one who came up with the 2nd amendment gave any thought to the consequences or how it could be misinterpreted cos not everyone shares the same level of understanding or intelligence (which you prove superbly) as the so called intellects who come up with laws.. If that's the case then the 2nd amendment was fatally flawed. Have you never challenged a law or decision you thought was wrong made by those in control of them and pointed out the error of their ways and where their decisions would lead? Jeez Type O show some common sense in your argument.

Ps you must try harder to sound patronising you made me laugh with your "there's a good lad" comment..

[Dandu]

Your point was hardly a subtle one, it wasn't missed.

That you were referring to another post doesn't change the banality of the observation, which would hold true in most any 5-4 decision (if there were one less conservative / liberal, it would / would not be law).

You are still not following me. My point was that it is hardly persuasive to hold up a Supreme Court decision and say "See, this is what the constitution means", if that decision is grounded in partisanship rather than sound legal reasoning. The point about 5-4 was an illustrative one. When the courts do not exercise sound reason but instead engage in partisanship and results driven logic then it only matters how many of "your guys" are on the court. Legal reasoning simply becomes an inconvenient formality to justify the result you have chosen.

When it is axiomatic for you that the court will decide a certain way on a certain issue simply as a function of how many "reds" or "blues" sit on the bench rather than on the merits of the issue, your judiciary has become irrelevant and mere pawns of the politicians who appointed them.

You may find that a banal observation. I find it frightening. I tend to like my judges to decide cases based on sound legal principle, rather than political considerations. You?

So, by that reasoning, decisions including challenges to the Americans with Disabilities Act, upholding Campaign Finance Regulations, upholding late-term abortions, and challenges to Affirmative Action, would also be "not particularly persuasive"?

If the reasoning is sound, then they would be persuasive. If it is not, then they would not. You have to read them with a critical eye to decide. What is wrong with that approach? It is perfectly acceptable to have a 5-4 decision on a difficult LEGAL issue, capable of more than one interpretation. My beef is with a 5-4 split for POLITICAL reasons based on disingenuous legal reasoning.

By the way, I never said this was a conservative issue. Both sides have been guilty on this front.

See, I don't mind making absurd extrapolations from your comments, since you consistently employ the same strategy in this thread.

See below.

I rest my case.

You rest your case? Sorry I will need you to do better than that. Steve posted this quote:

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

I understood him to be making the point that the "well regulated militia" is the US military and the purpose of the right to bear arms is to keep them in check. My point is, while an assault rifle may be very adept at mowing down six year olds, it is no match for the US military. So if that is the purpose of the second amendment, the logical conclusion is that the people should be much more heavily armed. My conclusion was not absurd. His interpretation of the provision is. All I did was spell it out.

The point was made quite concisely by SAJ.

The framers clearly were crafting protections for the people from their government, since it hadn't gone so well with Great Britain.

Exactly. And, if that is the way you interpret it, the weapons you are allowed to carry are inadequate to do the job. Aren't they? Shouldn't you at least get anti-aircraft guns to have a fighting chance?

Let me ask you this question:

Given your interpretation of the second amendment, where should the limit (if any) on your right to bear arms be drawn (types of weaponry, where you can carry it etc.), and why?

[Stryder1978]

So will a new Obama "assault weapons ban" take into account weapons like phasers (Star Trek) and the E-11 blaster rifles (Star Wars) that will be available in 3024?

Just askin'........

[ledded1]

So will a new Obama "assault weapons ban" take into account weapons like phasers (Star Trek) and the E-11 blaster rifles (Star Wars) that will be available in 3024?

Just askin'........

They could make phasers that are only set to stun. Forward thinking and planning can be the way.

[SteveAJones]

Yes I do, because everything is my business, because I am a Citizen Of The World

"Citizen of the world"? In other words, he's a communist, because a global citizen is communist in its nature and idea. I must presume he also supports a global government to elevate so-called human rights above U.S. constitutional rights.