Debate about Gun Control

[playwrite]

(06-20-2016, 03:24 PM)TnT Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 01:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: There were armed guards at the Orlando nightclub, and FL is the most permissive open carry state in the USA. So, what does Trump and the other gun nuts have to complain about?

The gun advocates claim that gun control is prohibition. Even the Scalia Supreme Court disagreed with them.

The National Guard is never sent abroad. It is used to quell domestic disturbances and meet emergencies here at home. Where does Bob get this stuff?

Insane, and apt to continue. A great description of America with no gun control and its mass shootings and under the thumb of the evil NRA.

Really?  There WERE armed guards at Orlando?  Really?  

If so, WTF were they doing for all those hours?  I mean, it kind of makes sense if real security is desired ... simply spot a well-placed sniper's nest above the gathering place where he/she is not easily seen and thereby planned around.  

Lunatic enters, starts shooting and pow.  Problem solved.  And you don't have a bunch of questionably trained civilians running around with pistols in their pockets as in the typical NRA CCW scenario.

I'm wondering about how this went down as well.

I believe what happen was the shooter came in blazing.  Probable killed a dozen or more in the first 5 minutes.  The off-duty officer, dong the security, responded, but every minute until he did probable had from 1-5 people killed/wounded with every passing minute, and even once engage, there could have been lots more collateral damage - that's the power of an AR with 30 round clips and high velocity slugs going through dry wall and plaster like it wasn't there.   The officer returned fire but was obviously out-gunned (at best had a 10-round Glock and likely no second magazine) and retreated to get backup.  This is one of the big problems with the AR; it emboldens even relatively untrained shooters to feel they can take on the world, and at least in the first hour, they're probable correct in that regard.  Imagine the shooter with the same firepower as the off-duty cop and having to reload after his initial round of fire; untrained and never in such a situation - my bet the cop would have taken him out in the first 10 minutes.

During the time waiting for backup, the shooter's acquiring new targets probable became less efficient, people hiding away such as in the bathroom.  However, this gave him plenty of time to walk around unchallenged and kill those that had been wounded and couldn't get away.   With the arrival of the initial way of officers, an additional exchange took place, and the shooter withdrew to another bathroom and stopped shooting.  Things went quiet, with the shooter calling and telling the dispatcher among other things that he has a bomb and hostages.  It went to a hostage situation.

I believe at some point, it became clear to the police the carnage that had occurred and in no way was the shooter going to give up without taking as many more lives as possible. I think that' when the decision was made to breech the wall.

Given the situation, particularly the firepower brought by the shooter, there's no other way this could have gone down.

[playwrite]

(06-20-2016, 04:11 PM)Bronco80 Wrote:

(06-18-2016, 05:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-17-2016, 01:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote: It seems to me that the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that they have NOT yet ruled on whether a ban on more powerful weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment.

ABUNDANTLY clear, except perhaps to some folks, including some on this forum.

Well, the Supreme Court just denied cert on a challenge to Connecticut's assault weapons ban.  Practically close enough to ruling that it's OK under the Second Amendment.  I'm guessing you'll probably take this to the CT thread!

I can hear a certain someone with a certain certitude - "but, but, but, that's denying citizens their 2nd Amendment  RIGHT!  Who the hell does this SCOTUS think it is interpreting the Constitution different than me?!!!!  Just wait, until the SCOTUS goes to nine, and then they take one of these cases and show I'm right, and the rest of you are just valued locked!"

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-17-2016, 01:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote: It seems to me that the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that they have NOT yet ruled on whether a ban on more powerful weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment.

Not in a recent case.  They were clear that military weapons are protected in US v Miller back in the 1930s, but that case also contained elements of the Collective Rights interpretation.  That case is old enough and elements of it have been put in question by recent cases that it is worthy of review by a modern court.  I'd spurn the modern courts as political, as stretching the reading of the text and intent of the authors, but US v Miller was no less political.

[Ragnarök_62]

playwrite Wrote:Eric, you're probable not into the whips and chains, but for international relations, maybe give it a try?  Taramarie seems a tad frustrated and in need of a little release.  Besides -

Note, in the background  Aries Americanus -

AKA Americans watching any MSM outlet for "news".

Or....  Sus Americanus

Quote:In one study of more than 5,400 adults, the results show that 33% of US adults are overweight, and 38% of US adults are obese. Breaking the data down a bit further, the report writes that "the age-adjusted prevalence of obesity in 2013-2014 was 35% among men, and 40.4% among women." Additionally, more than 5% of men and nearly 10% of women came in morbidly obese.
For adults, people are considered overweight when their body mass index reaches 25, obese when it hits 30, and morbidly obese when it reaches 40.
As an example, someone who is 5-foot-5 and weighs 149 pounds has a body mass index of 24, which is considered a healthy weight according to NBC News. If a pound is added, and that same person has a BMI of 25, the person is considered overweight. At 180 pounds that individual would have a BMI of 30 and would be considered obese.
In a second study done on children and teens, the results showed that 17% are obese and 5.8% were extremely obese. Obesity in kids is measured a little bit differently, it's how heavy they are compared to other kids the same age and height - those weighing more than 95% of kids the same age are considered obese.
People who are obese have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, arthritis, and Alzheimer's disease, however despite a lot of effort and millions of dollars spent, there is not much evidence the epidemic is diminishing.
From NBC News

Quote:It's not clear why obesity continues to worsen, despite many studies trying to put a finger on it.
 
"Numerous foundations, industries, professional societies, and governmental agencies have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to support basic science research in obesity, clinical trials and observational studies, development of new drugs and devices, and hospital and community programs to help stem the tide of the obesity epidemic," the journal's editors, Dr. Jody Zylke and Dr. Howard Bauchner, wrote in a commentary.
 
"The obesity epidemic in the United States is now 3 decades old, and huge investments have been made in research, clinical care, and development of various programs to counteract obesity. However, few data suggest the epidemic is diminishing," they added.
 
"Perhaps it is time for an entirely different approach, one that emphasizes collaboration with the food and restaurant industries that are in part responsible for putting food on dinner tables."

Not only is it not diminishing, the Trust for America's Health projects that 44% of Americans will be obese by 2030, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention projects 42% of adults will be.
From a financial perspective, a Gallup and Healthways study shows that 34% of obese adults were more likely to suffer financially than non-obese adults.
* * *
It appears as though Americans could use some time away from smart phones and video games, and redirect their efforts to a gym. Obesity is also a prime example of the fact that throwing money at a problem does not necessarily make the problem go away.
Here are some other interesting facts from our [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-13/americas-most-obese-states][/url] post.
Adult obesity by state

Dear MIC, you have a big and I mean big problem here.  US folks are like too fat to fight.

The MSM sez,  chow down!

[Eric the Green]

It's quite true that people in blue states are healthier than people in red states. That's because they are generally smarter about things anyway; their voting record proves it. IOW, the gun toters are fat. If the MIC is controlled by the liberal states, they win the civil war. Classic Xer loses.

[Eric the Green]

(06-20-2016, 04:11 PM)Bronco80 Wrote:

(06-18-2016, 05:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-17-2016, 01:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote: It seems to me that the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that they have NOT yet ruled on whether a ban on more powerful weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment.

ABUNDANTLY clear, except perhaps to some folks, including some on this forum.

Well, the Supreme Court just denied cert on a challenge to Connecticut's assault weapons ban.  Practically close enough to ruling that it's OK under the Second Amendment.  I'm guessing you'll probably take this to the CT thread!

Maybe; it's certainly clear that the gun issue is sharply-divided between the blue and red states, and the level of gun violence is just as sharply-divided between them.

[Ragnarök_62]

Eric The Green Wrote:It's quite true that people in blue states are healthier than people in red states.

Well then, in the event of a draft, blue state inhabitants go and red state inhabitants stay.  

Quote:That's because they are generally smarter about things anyway; their voting record proves it.

"Smarter" as per Eric's criteria.  Non sequiter.

Quote:IOW, the gun toters are fat. If the MIC is controlled by the liberal states, they win the civil war. Classic Xer loses.

That would be a case of prolonged adolescence.  Middle aged folks who think they can outdo some young buck who has been to boot camp are pretty much deluded, IMHO.  Now... Rags knows he's middle aged and confines gun usage only to squirrels and game fowl.   12 gauges and .22's are pretty mickey mouse wrt any sort of military sort of thingie. Of course since they're mikey mouse, .gov needs to butt out of that stuff.

And... so it's no surprise to Rags that the Orlando thing got botched by the FBI due to TMI.  I'm sure the NSA has all of Rag's stuff on their diski dumpies in Utah and this is why the NSA is stupid. I'm sure they have everything I have on teh interwebs on their diski dumpies. Further, and as everyone here knows, the precise stuff in my dossier is as follows:

1. Pr0n site visits and streamings from thereof.
2. Youtube streamings of assorted hard rock and heavy metal.
3. zerohedge.com
4. weather.gov
5. amazon.com - garden/snus/groceries.
6. Non USA news sources. Yeah, I don't trust useful idiots.
EOF

So you see, there is a serious needle in haystack problem here. It is for that reason, the FBI botched Orlando.
What do the spooks want now?  Less worthless data populating their diskie dumpies?  Fuck no, stupid is as stupid does, they want more worthless data like adding spy stuff to lamp posts.   I mean really, I have to use the Ruskie's news to find out useful stuff nowadays.

https://www.rt.com/news/big-brother-street-lamps-286/

The MSM = a bunch of worthless sycophants.

[playwrite]

(06-20-2016, 09:50 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-20-2016, 07:20 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(06-18-2016, 10:40 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-18-2016, 09:37 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(06-17-2016, 03:07 PM)taramarie Wrote: As usual you not listening. Taking lessons from Eric are we? p.s. I have not played video games in a very long time and i do not watch tv. Fossils do that. Some people i know are willing to die to protect their guns. Must be nice to be ignorant of that in your own country. I believe them because they are completely crazy over their guns and their right to own those guns. I know that the victors would also be republicans and anyone who wants to keep their guns.  I do not know of the movie purge....oh wait a min. Yes I do. I watched maybe a few mins of it and turned it off.  Boring and forgettable. Still laughing over the idea of watching traditional tv. Come join us in the 21st century sometime. Oh you don't like being laughed at and insulted? You throw your ball at me i throw it right back and i am way worse than you. Ask Eric aka his "scorpio" theory.

Way worse than me, ey?  And on an Internet forum, no less.  Pretty scary. 

You do realize that we agree that SOME of our ammosexuals will be stupid enough to take on some aspect of our various governments, probably a small county sheriff's office or a small police force.  You seem to see this as a big deal; I don't.

Now try to control yourself, no need to frighten anyone.

I can be pretty scary on internet and face to face. I am the exact same either way. I do not hold back punches. I am direct and to the point. So stick to the subject and act your age insect. You have a thing about mixing sex and guns....kind of a weird combo. I will control myself when you act your age. You get personal, so will I. Ask Eric. He knows my sting as he called it. Stick to the subject there will be no drams. Well, take away their guns and see how quickly it escalates. I will have popcorn ready. 2nd amendment is a pretty damn big deal to these people as well as freedom which are two things many like to harp about. We will start counting how many retaliate when it happens. I  think it will be significant. Keep eyes peeled IF guns are ever taken away and i doubt it will ever happen given the power of the NRA and paranoia....especially in the 4T. Culture....hard thing to change.

Yea, yea, yea,  guns will be taken away and the US will go up in flames because, well, you're a Kiwi, living on the other side of the world and you have absolute certainty of not only another country but the future.  Like I said, maybe cut back a tad on the TeeVee? 

And wow, calling me an "insect" on the Internet, you are one macho Kiwi. 

And this thing you got about Eric that you keep referring to.  Maybe you should ask if he wants to share a room?  You could  get dressed up in your Dominatrix sheepherder outfit you been dying to try out? 

Eric, you're probable not into the whips and chains, but for international relations, maybe give it a try?  Taramarie seems a tad frustrated and in need of a little release.  Besides -

Ok maybe insect is not the word. CHILD is more like it. I see when one is loosing the argument one has to change topic. You are a grown up. Older than me in fact. Maye act your age?

And what argument is that?  That the US will go up in flames if assualt rifles are banned?  As I pointed out earlier, that seems to be the only difference of opinion that we have. 

This may be a difference in vision of the scale of the reaction.  Do you see entire cites becoming smoldering ruins where government forces fear to tread because of open civil war?  Myself, I see a few cases of militia groups taking over some remote bird sanctuaries (probable targeting those with gift shops) and maybe one or two Waco/Branch Davidian siege - all ending more or less the same way, including the perpretators getting really mad about all the personal lube and dildos they received -





Here's what I think you're missing: we are a nation of laws.  The 2nd Amendment is derived from that and it is meaningless without that context.  As a democratic nation of laws, not a monarchy, we have political, legal and administrative processes for forming, interpreting, modifying and enforcing those laws.  You don't see the millions more people that support gun restrictions rising up and burning cities down; the VAST majority of people expect the same from those that are pro-guns should further restrictions, including AR bans, become the law of the land.  And that vast majority includes not only gun owner but likely the majority of pretty fevered gun advocates.  Essentially, they're supposed rising up and taking arms against the government makes the 2nd Amendment moot.

What you are suggesting is that even through a democratic governing political and legal process gun restrictions would occur, we should not proceed with those measures because some gun nuts will take up arms against the government.  I believe that suggestion clearly indicates that you are vastly misinformed of American culture and history.

_____________________

And oh, someone should point out to our Oregon 'patriot' that he still has a bunch of dicks on the floor.

[playwrite]

(06-20-2016, 11:16 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Eric The Green Wrote:It's quite true that people in blue states are healthier than people in red states.

Well then, in the event of a draft, blue state inhabitants go and red state inhabitants stay.  

Quote:That's because they are generally smarter about things anyway; their voting record proves it.

"Smarter" as per Eric's criteria.  Non sequiter.

Quote:IOW, the gun toters are fat. If the MIC is controlled by the liberal states, they win the civil war. Classic Xer loses.

That would be a case of prolonged adolescence.  Middle aged folks who think they can outdo some young buck who has been to boot camp are pretty much deluded, IMHO.  Now... Rags knows he's middle aged and confines gun usage only to squirrels and game fowl.   12 gauges and .22's are pretty mickey mouse wrt any sort of military sort of thingie. Of course since they're mikey mouse, .gov needs to butt out of that stuff.

And... so it's no surprise to Rags that the Orlando thing got botched by the FBI due to TMI.  I'm sure the NSA has all of Rag's stuff on their diski dumpies in Utah and this is why the NSA is stupid. I'm sure they have everything I have on teh interwebs on their diski dumpies. Further, and as everyone here knows, the precise stuff in my dossier is as follows:

1. Pr0n site visits and streamings from thereof.
2. Youtube streamings of assorted hard rock and heavy metal.
3. zerohedge.com
4. weather.gov
5. amazon.com - garden/snus/groceries.
6. Non USA news sources. Yeah, I don't trust useful idiots.
EOF

So you see, there is a serious needle in haystack problem here. It is for that reason, the FBI botched Orlando.
What do the spooks want now?  Less worthless data populating their diskie dumpies?  Fuck no, stupid is as stupid does, they want more worthless data like adding spy stuff to lamp posts.   I mean really, I have to use the Ruskie's news to find out useful stuff nowadays.

https://www.rt.com/news/big-brother-street-lamps-286/

The MSM = a bunch of worthless sycophants.

Dude, you just posted Ho-Ho's on the Internet in a disparaging manner!

Of course Utah's got a bead on you.  And rightfully so; you are a Ho-Hos menance!!!

That ain't American!

You just need to ask yourself -

Is that humming the drone of a Predator circling? 

[playwrite]

Senator Murphy has the correct framing for taking on the ammosexuals, NRA and their Congressional puppets -

Chris Murphy: ‘Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS’

Quote:“We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS,” Murphy said, using an alternative term for the Islamic State militant group. “That’s what they’ve decided to do. ISIS has decided that the assault weapon is the new airplane, and Republicans, in refusing to close the terror gap, refusing to pass bans on assault weapons, are allowing these weapons to get in the hands of potential lone-wolf attackers. We’ve got to make this connection and make it in very stark terms.”

The political ads coming out of the Senate votes yesterday are going to be brutal.

[Classic-Xer]

(06-17-2016, 05:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.

Playwrite is exactly right; that's what I predict too. It may last longer than one Waco, but that's basically what will happen. Defeating the progressive Democrats will not be so easy if they have the support of the people. They will, in that case, have the law and the army on their side. I don't know what any of this has to do with how close soldiers are to their families. What relevance is that? All people are close to their families. Progressive Democrats just want a fair society with a strong middle class. Conservative Republicans want an unjust society owned and operated for the benefit of the 1%. So once the spell of the trickle-down and self-reliance slogans is fully broken, there's no doubt which side the people will be on. And there's little doubt about which side the young people of the 4T (as opposed to those of the 3T) are taking.

 A party whose support is largely based on government support would be easy to defeat. Like I said, progressive Democrats have far more to loose than gain. Me, I'd just cash out and stop paying taxes. What's fair? Is it fair to pay people who are less productive who have less capabilities higher sums of money? Is it fair to pay more productive people with more capabilities higher sums of money?

[Eric the Green]

(06-21-2016, 08:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(06-17-2016, 05:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.

Playwrite is exactly right; that's what I predict too. It may last longer than one Waco, but that's basically what will happen. Defeating the progressive Democrats will not be so easy if they have the support of the people. They will, in that case, have the law and the army on their side. I don't know what any of this has to do with how close soldiers are to their families. What relevance is that? All people are close to their families. Progressive Democrats just want a fair society with a strong middle class. Conservative Republicans want an unjust society owned and operated for the benefit of the 1%. So once the spell of the trickle-down and self-reliance slogans is fully broken, there's no doubt which side the people will be on. And there's little doubt about which side the young people of the 4T (as opposed to those of the 3T) are taking.

 A party whose support is largely based on government support would be easy to defeat. Like I said, progressive Democrats have far more to loose than gain. Me, I'd just cash out and stop paying taxes. What's fair? Is it fair to pay people who are less productive who have less capabilities higher sums of money? Is it fair to pay more productive people with more capabilities higher sums of money?

We will defeat your mindless slogans about "a party whose support is largely based on government support." You can see how far that slogan went with how Romney fared with it. You lost. You will keep losing (not loosing; learn to spell, right-winger). Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton will win, and you will lose. As far as you not paying taxes, go ahead; make my day. Good luck with the IRS. You gun nuts and free market dog whistlers are going to lose. It may take a while. But we will keep pressing for economic equality and opportunity by clamping down on guys like you who prey on workers and don't pay taxes. Your Donald will lose, big time. He will discredit you, since you guys are all the same. The non-productive extortionists whom you support will have their wealth expropriated and given back to the people from whom they stole it. You will lose. And if you guys start a war to fight back against your inevitable defeat, we will crush you. We will grind you into dust, put you in jail and blow you away.

Sorry for picking on you; I am so mad at Amerika tonight that I had to attack the nearest target

[Eric the Green]

(06-21-2016, 10:35 AM)playwrite Wrote: Senator Murphy has the correct framing for taking on the ammosexuals, NRA and their Congressional puppets -

Chris Murphy: ‘Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS’

Quote:“We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS,” Murphy said, using an alternative term for the Islamic State militant group. “That’s what they’ve decided to do. ISIS has decided that the assault weapon is the new airplane, and Republicans, in refusing to close the terror gap, refusing to pass bans on assault weapons, are allowing these weapons to get in the hands of potential lone-wolf attackers. We’ve got to make this connection and make it in very stark terms.”

The political ads coming out of the Senate votes yesterday are going to be brutal.

Good; the more brutal the better.

[Classic-Xer]

(06-21-2016, 11:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-21-2016, 08:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(06-17-2016, 05:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.

Playwrite is exactly right; that's what I predict too. It may last longer than one Waco, but that's basically what will happen. Defeating the progressive Democrats will not be so easy if they have the support of the people. They will, in that case, have the law and the army on their side. I don't know what any of this has to do with how close soldiers are to their families. What relevance is that? All people are close to their families. Progressive Democrats just want a fair society with a strong middle class. Conservative Republicans want an unjust society owned and operated for the benefit of the 1%. So once the spell of the trickle-down and self-reliance slogans is fully broken, there's no doubt which side the people will be on. And there's little doubt about which side the young people of the 4T (as opposed to those of the 3T) are taking.

 A party whose support is largely based on government support would be easy to defeat. Like I said, progressive Democrats have far more to loose than gain. Me, I'd just cash out and stop paying taxes. What's fair? Is it fair to pay people who are less productive who have less capabilities higher sums of money? Is it fair to pay more productive people with more capabilities higher sums of money?

We will defeat your mindless slogans about "a party whose support is largely based on government support." You can see how far that slogan went with how Romney fared with it. You lost. You will keep losing (not loosing; learn to spell, right-winger). Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton will win, and you will lose. As far as you not paying taxes, go ahead; make my day. Good luck with the IRS. You gun nuts and free market dog whistlers are going to lose. It may take a while. But we will keep pressing for economic equality and opportunity by clamping down on guys like you who prey on workers and don't pay taxes. Your Donald will lose, big time. He will discredit you, since you guys are all the same. The non-productive extortionists whom you support will have their wealth expropriated and given back to the people from whom they stole it. You will lose. And if you guys start a war to fight back against your inevitable defeat, we will crush you. We will grind you into dust, put you in jail and blow you away.

Sorry for picking on you; I am so mad at Amerika tonight that I had to attack the nearest target

Every time the liberals win, they dig themselves into a deeper hole. So, keep on wining baby.

[Eric the Green]

[quote='Classic-Xer' pid='3570' dateline='1466614502']

Quote:Every time the liberals win, they dig themselves into a deeper hole. So, keep on wining baby.

We will; we will keep stuffing you into the hole, baby! Then, the rest of us can breathe again.

[Mikebert]

(06-20-2016, 09:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-17-2016, 01:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote: It seems to me that the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that they have NOT yet ruled on whether a ban on more powerful weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment.

Not in a recent case.  They were clear that military weapons are protected in US v Miller back in the 1930s, but that case also contained elements of the Collective Rights interpretation.  That case is old enough and elements of it have been put in question by recent cases that it is worthy of review by a modern court.  I'd spurn the modern courts as political, as stretching the reading of the text and intent of the authors, but US v Miller was no less political.

2008 is not recent?  I was refering to this portion of Heller.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

For example, based on that statement above I would say the 2nd Amendment does not necessarily given one the right to own a nuke (Justin 77 argued that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to bear any military weapon, even a nuke).  Not all law-abiding people will continue on to the future to be law-abiding.  People can (and do) go beserk.  When they do so with a revolver they may kill a dozens, with a nuke it could be tens of thousands.  All I was saying is there must be some line between owning a handgun (Heller) or shotgun (Miller) that is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and a personal nuke, which I should hope is not.

[Dan '82]

I split off the debate about music/pop culture

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-211.html

[Eric the Green]

From John Lewis:

Eric, I’ve had enough.

Enough of my Republican colleagues’ inaction.

Enough of the empty thoughts and moments of silence.

Enough of the daily toll of gun violence in this country.

It is time that Congress do what is just, what is right, and what is long overdue.

But House Republicans won’t consider any action on gun safety.

That’s why I, and many House Democrats in Congress, began a sit-in on the House floor just hours ago.

Join us in fighting for common-sense gun safety.

How many more people need to shed tears of grief, before we do something?

Republicans cannot continue to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the plague of gun violence in our country.

The American people are demanding action and we have the obligation to do what we can to reduce gun violence in our great nation.

The time for silence is over.

Stand with us: Add your name now.

Thank you,

John Lewis

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-22-2016, 07:00 PM)Mikebert Wrote: 2008 is not recent?  I was refering to this portion of Heller.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

For example, based on that statement above I would say the 2nd Amendment does not necessarily given one the right to own a nuke (Justin 77 argued that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to bear any military weapon, even a nuke).  Not all law-abiding people will continue on to the future to be law-abiding.  People can (and do) go beserk.  When they do so with a revolver they may kill a dozens, with a nuke it could be tens of thousands.  All I was saying is there must be some line between owning a handgun (Heller) or shotgun (Miller) that is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and a personal nuke, which I should hope is not.

The hoped for line is whether the weapon is crew served or not.  In revolutionary times, individuals owned and carried muskets, but the cannon were owned by the community.  This is considered a decent pretext for drawing a line.  If a weapon is crew served, there is no protection.

Legally and in many cases practically it's a decent line.  Alas, it doesn't cover suitcase nukes.  Also, as computers and precision guidance makes more and more dangerous weapons single soldier light weight single operator ready to use, what might be a fine litmus test today could become an ugly precedent not too many decades down the road.

Miller's litmus test is thus important.  Is the weapon carried by common infantrymen?  If so, it is protected by the 2nd.  In the 1930s, sawed off shotguns and assault rifles (specifically the Thompson submachine gun) were not used by the military.  They were gangster weapons, not military weapons.  Thus they were banned.  Alas, by World War II the Thompson was commonly used by the military.  In Vietnam, soldiers clearing out tunnel complexes were using sawed off shotguns.  By the Miller litmus test, that flipped these weapons from subject to ban to protected.

That's what  you have to watch about Miller.  The litmus test is not that the weapon is too deadly.  It is that the weapon has no military use, has nothing to do with the maintenance of a well regulated militia.  Thus, under the Collective Rights / Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd, the government could restrict possession of the weapon.  While modern gun prohibition advocates misquote Miller as saying it establishes that specific weapons can be banned, they don't quote to criteria established that determines which weapons can be banned.  

Gun rights advocates also quote Miller, but with an entirely different spin.  From their point of view, Miller establishes that common infantry weapons are specifically protected.  Today, that means assault rifles.  This is clearly not what the gun prohibitions favor.  If the question weren't values locked to death I might favor rewriting the 2nd such that a true right to own and carry weapons for self defense clearly and plainly exists, but limitations on things like rate of fire and magazine size are allowed.  Alas, reasonable compromise doesn't seem to be on the table.

You really can't trust the main stream media's spin on the case.  Reading the actual Miller decision is recommended.

[Bob Butler 54]

Leaving legal issues aside for one post at least, and commenting on the politics of the current Democratic "sit in" in Congress.

I see the Republican refusal to allow a vote as reflecting their losing their base to Tea Party and Trump like extremists who cling harder to the unravelling Reagan ideas than the establishment Republicans do.  If they don't hold firm without compromise the unravelling world view, their base will dump them on their respective rears.  They have little choice but to play to the extreme on core issues like gun prohibition.

The Democrats are, of course, putting a spot light on this.  In recent times, the Republicans have been very free in using procedural obstructions.  It doesn't take a majority to pass a bill.  You need the supermajority to get it out of committee or call a vote on the floor.  They arguably have been using such obstructionist tactics to try to make Obama a failure.  This hasn't worked cleanly.  They have got a reputation for obstruction, well deserved.

Unfortunately, from the perspective of a good size portion of their base, they aren't obstructing enough.  Obstruction has become such a central part of how Republicans operate that their base will rise in rejection of they don't do it ever so much, more so.

And the Democrats are calling them on it.  Bringing Congress to a dead halt to force through a partisan issue has recently been a Republican tactic.  This time the Democrats are playing at it.  The difference, I suspect, is that the Republicans have to stick by their principles in face of revolt if they don't.  Feels like to me that the Democrats don't have to be doing it, but they think doing it will put them in a stronger position come the Fall voting.

Personally, I don't care for filibuster grandstanding.  Congress is getting little enough done without bringing everything to a halt for an attempted public relations effect.