Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Galen]

(10-09-2018, 02:24 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(10-09-2018, 04:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-08-2018, 04:52 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: The whole second amendment issue might come up, but it might not; we are probably not ready for that one in this 4T. The first question is whether we can add a couple of justices, and impose term limits. If so, then perhaps the Heller interpretation could be overturned, and we go back to seeing gun rights as belonging only to members of well-trained militias, which in our time means the national guard and the cops, and end the interpretation that provides individual gun rights. That would be fine with me. It depends on how people will feel 10 years from now about the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence unleashed by today's permissive laws. There's nothing constitutional that can be done about justices legislating from the bench that I can see. The constitution already defines their job, and they must mediate and adjudicate what the law means and apply the constitution and precedent to it and to today's needs in specific cases, rather than imposing strict literalism.

This likely belongs in a Second Amendment thread, but you don't seem to understand how the law is written.

The founding fathers were against privilege, were for rights.  They often used the justification - implementation method of writing law in state constitutions.  You justify creating a privilege for a small group which clearly needed it, then implemented a Right of the People.  You give the protections that would have gone to a privileged few to all.  That is how reading the 2nd becomes crystal clear.

But not soon.  Enough people have held on to the old values to skewer the result of the constitutional convention.  I think you would go further honoring the old values rather than to try to coerce a change.

Possession and use of firearms is imposition of violence on the people, and support for the arms industry. It hasn't the slightest thing to do with any human rights, and only American conservatives think it does. The second amendment was put in place so that southerners would have arms to suppress a slave rebellion.

The mere existence or use of a firearm is no more an act of violence than possession and use of a knife or hammer unless you start using them on people.  You only have to look at London now to see how far the idiocy of blaming objects for the actions of individuals will go.  You might want to spend some time reading about the Militia Acts of 1792 which gives a much better sense of the purpose of the Second Amendment.  They specifically made firearms ownership an individual right because they understood perfectly well that one of the first things a tyrannical government does is disarm the target population.  It was what they experienced under the British.  In fact this is already happening in South Africa.