Gun Control needs to be instituted

I used to live in San Diego. It quite clearly codified what an "assault rifle" was. It includes characteristics like a removable magazine, bayonet stud, adjustable butt stock, flash hider and more.

 

Yes, but in your reply you implied that I was paranoid when you said:

You tell me you want to:
* ban all guns within city limits (okay only outside of city)
* no concealed gun carry
* outlaw NRA lobbying & donations to public/elected officials

Then you ask:
Why are you so paranoid?

I was only speaking of mass shootings - nothing to do with a personal fear of guns, which I don't have.

Nope. These would be important regulatory measures & expedient to addressing gun violence - not a total ban on guns.

The point you're missing is not to ban all guns, but that guns should be better regulated. Recall the following from a former SC Chief Justice:

Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee the Right To Own a Gun
Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger argues that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated; such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99

Also, it would be helpful to keep in mind that many elements of the Constitution are outdated and relevant only to the context of that period.

Like I said, we're not living in the 18th Century, nor the old West anymore are we? If Americans had been wiser they would've trashed the Constitution long ago in favor of a progressive one based purely on logic & reason. We're behind the times and is why this nation is collapsing. The promotion of more firearms in public hands will not not resolve America's gun violence issue. Addressing socio-economic systemic issues, while implementing stricter gun regulations as an expedient measure is the way to resolution. The former will take time. The latter can be done now.

The Heller and McDonald case you quoted makes my point. The key right now is proper regulation - not a total ban on guns.

 

It is amazing when the second amendment clearly confers the right of ownership to the people, heck even the FOUNDING FATHERS said so which leftists constantly ignore.

 

How Different? Weapons? In the 17 and 1800's a private citizen could own the then equivalent to, fully armed battle ship and soil up net to the.caital without challenge, and be given letters of Mark to essentially engage in state sanctioned piracy.
Private people could, then, and now own c aannonband rockets.Congressmen wou

Sure ow, that worked in Northern Ireland. One of the most restrictive governments in the world, yet by 10, I carried a PPK every day,and had several rifles in.303 Cal. At 14 working In my uncles ''s mm a Hine shop, I built a Stern machine fun, using WW II plans. Got magazines and ammo from the back market netcork run by adelecents....It still exists.as for mass killings, bombs made from materials from your local hardware source wok just file than you, or Molotovs. If there is a will to kill...
As long as there are those willing to inflict violence on other, I will be armed. 100% effective for me....I am here to make this post where as if I wasn't armed, This post would have happened.

 

you are advocating making it extremely difficult for any on e to defend themselves or anyone else in the face of the current wave of calls to defunct d police and some police departments no responding to many types of 911 calls. Sacrifice a few for the Dems political agenda.

 

Don't forget the pure fantasy of 38 states agreeing to the amendment.
Can't amend the Constitution?
Then you shan't have the things you want.

Please begin.
Be sure to include the part where your characterizations matter with respect to the rulings handed down by the court.

Heh.
Quantify this time.
Assume 5x30rd magazines vs 15x10rd magazines.
How much time is gained in the reloads.
Demonstrate this is enough time to affect either of the advantages you claim.

As for "subdue the shooter"...
Pulse nightclub, Orlando. 300 people, one shooter, two reloads.
How many people subdued him?

 

Sheesh.
You asked why I was paranoid.
I though that was funny given your list gave me obvious reasons to be concerned -- thus ruling out any chance that I am paranoid.

It doesn't matter how you characterize them -- they violate the constitution.
If you want the things I listed you need to.... amend the constitution.

The USSC held:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The point you're missing:
Burger's opinion does not matter.

Your opinion does not matter -- until amended, these "elements" remain and you do not get to ignore them.

You can have any regulation you want so long as it passes the Bruen test:

...we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Feel free to make this demonstration w/ regard to the "regulations" you offered.

 

which was fraudulent definition cooked up by venal scumbags in the Democrat party . Under Heller, those turds will have to demonstrate why those features make a "firearm in common use for recognized lawful purposes"" no longer in common use and UNUSUALLY dangerous

 

Have you ever researched the resume of Warren burger-one of the biggest intellectually deficient political hacks to ever be appointed to a modern supreme court

 

"assault weapon"... a phrase in search of a definition

 

the banners hope stupid people attach criminal assault to these firearms rather than actually understanding that military assault requires fully automatic weapons

 

It's not that simple, as the following review from the Rand organization shows:

Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws on Violent Crime
Summary: There is supportive evidence that shall-issue concealed-carry laws may increase total and firearm homicides. Evidence for the effect of permitless-carry laws on total homicides is inconclusive. Evidence that shall-issue concealed-carry laws may increase violent crime is limited.

Two important reviews of the scientific literature on gun policy effects—one by the National Research Council (NRC), a part of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC, 2004), and one by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Hahn et al., 2005)—evaluated this early literature and reached nearly identical conclusions. In their review of existing studies examining shall-issue laws, Hahn et al. (2005) found insufficient evidence for determining the effect of such laws on violent crime.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html

These are homicide rates, not gun violence deaths. And shouldn't we be comparing the US to comparable developed nations only? For example here are a couple charts.






NOTE: Australia (10 deaths) and Austria (4 deaths) got cut off in Table above.

 

What item on my list would you be concerned about?

My list was less about guns and more about systemic issues that promote gun violence & violence in general. The gun-related measures were expedient measures that would help during the transition to the development of healthier cities.

It would be better to replace it. The people have the power to do so without regard to constitutional protocol - if they have it in them to do so. It's foolish to constrain ourselves to a dusty (and highly bureaucratic) document created & ratified in the 18th Century based on 18th Century life.

Check out this list of national constitutions around the world. Note that the US Constitution - in order from most recent to oldest - is dead last - 1788. The US has the oldest constitution on earth. No wonder we rank so poorly next to many other nations in terms of standard of living & contentment, violent crime, health, life expectancy, etc. We're still living in the Dark Ages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions

You never know. Burger's opinion (or similar) may matter in the next Constitutional review. It all depends on the arbitrary interpretations of the judges - although unlikely because of the unfair 6-3 Repub-led SC. Look at what happened with Roe V Wade. So much for precedent. It all depends on who's in charge of making the decision - not about reason & logic.

The problem with the SC's interpretation (which was a 6-3 Repub-controlled ruling) lies with the words "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition." Didn't anyone remind Clarence Thomas that we're living in the 21st Century - not the 18th Century?! But what else can you expect from a Republican-dominated SC of corporate & NRA shills - particularly from the very corrupt Clarence Thomas (and Kavanaugh et al.) who is facing possible impeachment.

Texas federal district court judge David Counts, whose ruling was bound by Bruen, shares my thoughts precisely about this ruling (and I'm sure he's not the only one):

In a ruling earlier this month, [David Counts] grounded his conclusions in the history-and-tradition test laid out in Bruen. “This straightforward historical analysis, however, reveals a historical tradition likely unthinkable today,” Counts noted. “Domestic abusers are not new. But until the mid-1970s, government intervention—much less removing an individual’s firearms—because of domestic violence practically did not exist.”
[...]
Only the reader can decide whether Counts, who is bound by Supreme Court precedent in all circumstances, actually thinks that this is how the Second Amendment should best be interpreted. A few months earlier in September, he decided another post-Bruen Second Amendment case. This one involved a defendant who sought to overturn a provision in federal law that forbids people who are under indictment for felonies from buying or receiving a gun.

Counts ultimately sided with him after applying the history-and-tradition test and struck down the provision. He also noted some fundamental flaws in doing so. “For one thing, one could easily imagine why historical analogies from the 18th century would be difficult to find,” he wrote. “For example, if one lived more than a day’s journey from civilization, a firearm was not only vital for self-defense—it put food on the table. Indeed, whether fending off wild animals or hunting, a firearm was a necessary survival tool.”

“That is why disarming someone was likely unthinkable at the time—no firearm in the wilderness meant almost certain death,” he explained further. “So finding similar historical analogies is an uphill battle because of how much this nation has changed. Society, population density, and modern technologies are all examples of change that would make something unthinkable in 1791 a valid societal concern in 2022. But the only framework courts now have is Bruen’s two-step analysis.” It is hard not to hear a tone of skepticism and perhaps reluctance in that last sentence.
https://newrepublic.com/article/169069/supreme-court-second-amendment-test

So much for Thomas' ruling based on "consistent with historical tradition" BS.

Sure, none of this matters because we're bound by the Supreme Court decisions the same way we're bound by all the Repub nut jobs in Congress. But is this absence of logic & reason something to be proud of just so gun nuts get their way?

 

You sound proud of this fact.

Which is why I've repeatedly said the Constitution needs to be scrapped. It's both obsolete and doesn't serve our needs, but serves well the interests of the private sector.

Besides, there's more to life than guns - so it's not my concern in the first place. The gun lobby, which stands to lose billions in gun & ammunition sales, is the one that's scared. Stronger regulations/restrictions = fewer gun/ammunition purchases = $billions lost. Further, wouldn't the gun lobby would be fine with increased gun violence because of increased gun/ammunition purchases by the authorities & security personnel.

You mean corruption in Supreme Court rulings?

A few points:

* It only takes one to a few seconds for someone to jump a shooter - depending on the distance & circumstances.
* Reloading more often (as opposed to less often) allows more (not fewer) opportunities to jump the shooter, throw an object at the shooter, or to escape.
* Having to reload more often means having to to stop more often which gives authorities more opportunities to close in. And the more times a shooter is forced to stop shooting in order to reload, the higher the risk of having to reload at a vulnerable time.
* Most shooters aren't highly trained. Does this influence their ability to quickly change the clip, particularly when adrenaline levels are high? Perhaps, but I don't know. Depends on the person I guess.

This would be expected in most mass shooting because most people are scared and will instinctively run. But you can't tell me a group from the 300 attendees at the nightclub couldn't, if they wanted, to jump the shooter. However, there are exceptions - some are brave enough, and it doesn't require multiple people to subdue a gunman. It only takes one to disrupt the gunman so others can join.

Police: Gunman kills 5 at gay club, is subdued by patrons
https://apnews.com/article/shootings-colorado-springs-e098d88261db6bcfc0774434abbb7a8f

The 29-year-old hero from Waffle House shooting: 'I saw the opportunity and I took it'
https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...ouse-shooting-hero-stopped-shooter/540061002/

Monterey Park Shooting: ‘Heroes’ Hailed For Disarming Suspect At Second Location
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladi...g-suspect-at-second-location/?sh=5c3039c36248

Woman hailed a hero for disarming gunman who went on rampage at D.C. Metro Station
https://www.police1.com/transit-pol...rampage-at-dc-metro-station-MbKsM3X1mYAnOuYm/

 

'Intellectually deficient'? He graduated magna cum laude from law school. By the time of his death he had been awarded the James Madison Award for Distinguished Public Service by the American Whig-Cliosophic Society of Princeton, the United States Military Academy’s Sylvanus Thayer Award and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Sounds like an okay guy to me.

Could it be that you/other Repubs don't like him because he was a Republican who supported multiple landmark decisions that were clear liberal victories?

No one could be worse than Thomas, Roberts & Kavanaugh.

Thomas - Facing potential impeachment, and whose wife is a significant figure in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Kavanaugh - Heritage Foundation's puppet, sex offender & blatant liar at the approval hearings.

Chief Justice John Roberts Is to Blame for the Supreme Court’s Extremism
Chief Justice John Roberts is portrayed as a thoughtful moderate who’s been a victim of the Supreme Court’s hard-right turn rather than a perpetrator of it. But his crusade to legalize corruption built the foundation of the court’s current extremism.
https://jacobin.com/2022/06/chief-j...e-court-extremism-campaign-finance-corruption

 

Sure, but they're DEAD. We're ALIVE and should not be bound to what dead people wrote/wanted over 230 years ago when they didn't even have electricity or running water.

It's the GOP nut jobs that want to keep the country in the Dark Ages because that's where the money is.

 

Burger went to a third rate law school and was placed on the court for political reasons. His whine about guns is an intellectual cesspool and he never deals with the biggest problem gun restrictionists have to face-NO WHERE in Article One Section Eight did the founders intend or delegate any power to the federal government to restrict firearms. So he ignores the tenth amendment elephant in the room and stumbles around what he wants the second amendment to mean. It's a joke.

the guy who wrote that hit piece on Roberts was a Bernie Sanders stooge and speech writer. Wow a socialist fluffer calling Roberts an extremist"

BFD

 

What makes it a third rate law school? Are the teachers bad? Is it cheaper to attend? Who is saying this?

And the other justices were not?

But it's okay for the SC to make bribing politicians legal in 1978 - which ignited corruption on steroids?

I'm perfectly fine with a justice make an unconstitutional, but sensible ruling, over a constitutional, but disastrous ruling.

So what? The question is - is it true? I don't care who wrote what. What's important are the facts.

Besides, Bernie's cool. He's all business and no BS, and has a heart. I like that about him. But he's hated by the Right because he wants to see the US become a liberal democracy like the European nations. Such progressive ideas (for America) are alien and a scary thing to the Right. Bill Barr even admitted to it - saying he would not recommend nominating Trump in the primary, but would still vote for him if he won the nomination because he's terrified of the 'progressive agenda.' And that's coming from a person who got the nickname "General Cover-up Barr" - noted for covering up presidential crimes back in the day (and covering for Trump as well).

 

The ones I listed.

Then get busy.
Because until you do, its there, it - as intended - prevents you from doing the things you want to do, and you don't get to ignore it.

Until Heller,. McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen are overturned, Berger's opinion doesn't carry any more weight than yours.

This is only a "problem" because you want to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in a manner you know will violate the constitution.

 

Proud? Well no.
Happy that you cannot enact unnecessary ineffective and unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?
Yes.

Other than complain about it in a message board, what efforts have you made to this end?

You said:
I could write a multi-volume book about it.
Apparently, you cannot.

Ah.
You cannot quantify the time you claim it gives police and those trying to escape.
As such you cannot demonstrate this time to be meaningful or useful.
Thus evaporates your claimed benefit of a limit on magazine size.
Never mind the fact there are hundreds of millions of "hi capo' magazines in circulation; a ban on new magazines will not prevent anyone who wants them from getting them.
Thus:
Unnecessary, ineffective, and violates the constitution.

 

what is really humorous is this disconnect

1) gun banners: the second amendment only protects militias having firearms

2) gun banners: the second amendment is archaic, not needed and/or needs to be scrapped

 

"A well stocked library, being nessesary to the education of the country, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Imagine that.

But then the legislation says the people can't have books with more than ten pages, only the libraries can have those, and there is a three day waiting period to purchase a book. Gotta have a library card, I guess. ....should the library decide to issue one... Your reading really isn't up to you anymore now, is it?

 

It's not a thing but a Dem emotion.

 

The end run Dems t ry to stack the Court to try to get the Cort to reinterpret the 2a such that it doesn't represent preventing the Government from infringing on an individual right.redefi ING is far easier that getting an Amendment passed.