How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

The American legal system has been a broken mess for a very long time.
More proof that our bipartisan entrenched corrupt ruling political class has no shame.

“An estimated 70 million to 100 million Americans—roughly 1 in 3 U.S. adults—have an incarceration, conviction, or arrest record, which is a direct consequence of decades of mass incarceration and overcriminalization.1 Meanwhile, according to a Center for American Progress analysis, nearly half of U.S. children now have at least one parent with such a record.2 In addition, failed criminal legal policies have saddled an ever-expanding swath of the nation’s population with the stigma of a criminal record. America’s failed experiment with mass incarceration and overcriminalization—compounded by the proliferation of criminal background checks in the digital era—has upended countless lives. Moreover, it has birthed a nationwide criminal records crisis that, in turn, has become a significant driver of poverty and racial inequality.3”
CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, America’s Broken Criminal Legal System Contributes to Wealth Inequality, New CAP analysis highlights how the nation’s failed experiment with mass incarceration and overcriminalization strips wealth from families and widens the racial wealth gap., By Christian E. Weller, Akua Amaning, Rebecca Vallas, DEC 13, 2022.

 

Do you ever make a comment with adding the personal commentary?

Perhaps you should work on your own flaws before thinking you have any understanding of [or prescription for] others.

The problem is not guns. If the problem was guns, most likely we would have perished long ago.

 

You are missing the point and not for the first time. There is no law however well intentioned that can keep people who are mentally ill, from getting guns.

 

You baselessly called me a "racist" and NOW you suddenly develop a concern about personal commentaries?

 

Here we go again. I believe you called all white people racist. To me, that's being racist. Own it.

 

Most mass shooters have a record of committing domestic violence.

“WASHINGTON — More than two-thirds of mass shootings are domestic violence incidents or are perpetrated by shooters with a history of domestic violence, according to one of the first peer-reviewed research papers exploring the links between domestic violence (DV) and mass shootings.”
EFSGV ( Now Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Violence Solutions)Home / Press Releases / Study: New Study: Majority of Mass Shootings Linked to Domestic Violence, Authored by Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence state affairs manager Lisa Geller, the paper is the first to find mass shootings with domestic violence connections have higher fatality rates, Julia Friedmann, .
https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/

Of course this stat is irrelevant since a criminal or record of psychotic behavior cannot be used to prevent perpetrators from buying illegal guns.

 

What nonsense! I said NO such thing. QUOTE or retract!

 

We know what you meant.... Ban guns from everyone but the government

 

You're dreaming. As usual. First, the general left/right balance of the Court is not going to change in a decade. Possibly two, but I even doubt that. I think it's only even hypothetically possible in about 3 decades at a minimum, and even then, to get what you want would require having a hardcore leftist POTUS who appoints hardcore leftist USSC Justice candidates, who then gets through the Senate, which would require a supermajority of hardcore leftists, and even if the sun, moon, and stars line up and all of the above happens (doubtable), then an on point case would have to find it's was through a District Court with a decision you don't like, then to an Appeals Court who affirms the decision that you don't like, and on top of that, you would almost certainly need a nearly identical case to go through the same process in a different Appeals Court's jurisdiction, but... And here's a very important part... who comes to the opposite conclusion, because the USSC generally will not grant certiorari to a case unless there is a Circuit split.

Now, what sort of case might be 'on point' to 'repeal' Heller (which is not a thing)? It would almost certainly have to involve some government entity, let's say the DC City Council tries to reinstate it's complete gun ban in the District, even though it's been thrown out a long time ago, and by this hypothetical time, likely it would have been decades with several subsequent cases, like Bruen, and whichever cases that are currently in process that deal with things like AWBs, magazine size restrictions, possibly even a complete overturn of the FOPA and/or the NFA. Thus, you would have to have sat a Court so idealogically tainted that they would ignore decades if not a century or more of jurisprudence and a mountain of case law and would find that it is permissible to prohibit a free American who is not a 'prohibited person' from so much as owning a gun in their own home!

I find that prospect laughable. It simply will not happen.

Sorry not sorry.

 

Whether or not I 'need' one (or anyone else who is otherwise an eligible person) is not at all relevant. It is my RIGHT to own one for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever. Maybe I want to remove the firing pin and display it on my wall. Maybe I just like shooting it for fun. Maybe I'm preparing to defend myself against a home invasion, or maybe I think our government has gotten so tyrannical that it's time for a revolution. I don't, at least not yet, and don't think it's likely in the short or medium term, but my crystal ball is cloudy so I might be wrong, and it is better to be prepared for something that does NOT happen than to not be prepared for something that DOES.

Furthermore, I believe the right to self-defense, and to own and carry the tools necessary to exercise that right is a fundamental human right that every one of us are born with, it's just that only a few countries actually honor that, which is unfortunate. However, fortunately for me and others who wish to exercise that right, our country is not one who fails to honor that right, something that is a source of pride for me.

It's not perfect... Nothing is. But striving to be as perfect as is possible is a laudable goal. I am sick and tired of the assaults on the 2A, but I am also happy knowing that just one or two more critical cases finding their way to the USSC that result in favorable decisions, like a decision that absolutely prohibits any government from banning assault weapons, or 30-round standard capacity magazines, and so forth, that is crystal clear, without ambiguity, and effective immediately will go a LONG way towards shutting that crap down once and for all, which is how it should have been since 1791.

 

Imagine loving the taste of boot leather so much that you think only the government should have guns.

You have to wonder how we is a society ever got to a place that any citizen would think that that's a remotely good idea.

But remember these are the same people that typically cry about the police shooting people

 

And the right's answer is 'do nothing'.

Sorry, the will of the people is not on your side.

 

Whoah, Wild Bill finally asks a decent question!

I'm impressed. Sound the alarm, strike up the band!

Okay, I guess it depends on how mentally ill they are. That's the $64k question, isn't it?

 

Yes and no, constitutionality depends on how no fly lists and DUI checkpoints are administered.

Same goes for managing the mentally ill.

One of these days, WB, you are going to give a robust comment, you know, something like this:

No-Fly Lists:

1. Fourth Amendment: Critics argue that no-fly lists violate the Fourth Amendment by restricting a person's freedom of movement without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
   
   
2. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: The lack of a transparent process for being placed on or removed from a no-fly list can be seen as a violation of due process rights.
   
   
3. Counterarguments: Proponents say that no-fly lists are a necessary tool for national security and that they are not unconstitutional as long as there is a fair process for people to challenge their inclusion on the list.
   
   
4. Legal Status: Courts have generally upheld the constitutionality of no-fly lists, especially when there are mechanisms for individuals to challenge their placement on such lists.
   

DUI Checkpoints:

1. Fourth Amendment: DUI checkpoints are often criticized for being in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as they involve stopping drivers without specific reasonable suspicion.
   
   
2. Supreme Court Ruling: In the 1990 case Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DUI checkpoints are constitutional, stating that the public interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the "minor intrusion" on sober drivers.
   
   
3. State Laws: Some states have outlawed DUI checkpoints, not necessarily because they are unconstitutional, but because they contravene state constitutions or laws.
   
   
4. Counterarguments: Proponents argue that DUI checkpoints are a necessary and effective tool for public safety.
   

So, Wild Bill, it's like this: the constitutionality of no-fly lists and DUI checkpoints largely depends on the balance between individual rights and collective security or safety, as interpreted by the courts. While some argue that these measures violate constitutional rights, U.S. courts have generally upheld their legality under certain conditions.

Now, Wild Bill, the above is what a more robust comment looks like. Note that I didn't presume i'm correct, but i did move the debate forward, which is the point.

So, Can you up your game, or are you just lazy?

 

DUI checkpoints have no probable cause and no fly lists have no due process. There's no credible argument for either.

 

It was a rhetorical question...lol

 

Therein lies the problem.

 

I just provided you the refutation for your claim.

I'm not seeing a compelling counter argument.

You're counter doesn't rise about 'you're wrong', which is not a counter argument at all.

 

Thank you. Now I have something to work with other than a vacuous allegation.

Okay, let's take a deeper dive:

The first thing I want to say is that your characterization doesn't appear to be rooted in scholarship as much as it reeks of a cynical rant (referring to your comments, not that of CAP).

Now, while some would argue, given the serious issues surrounding the American Justice system, your sentiments have merit, but, that doesn't discount my point, that it's more of a rant than an objective claim, especially if you are trying to forward the notion that a legitimate prosecution of Donald Trump isn't possible.

The essay you've cited from the Center for American Progress highlights significant issues with the American Criminal Justice System, particularly in terms of mass incarceration, overcriminalization, and their impacts on poverty and racial inequality. However, characterizing the entire system as "totally corrupt" would be an oversimplification and may not accurately capture the complexities and nuances of the system.

1. Scope of Issues: The essay discusses specific problems like mass incarceration and overcriminalization, which are indeed serious issues but are not the same as systemic corruption. Corruption generally refers to illegal or unethical conduct by officials within the system, which is not the primary focus of the essay. I would therefore urge you to be more accurate and objective in your use of terms and accusations.
   
   
2. Variability: The American Criminal Justice System is not monolithic; it varies by jurisdiction, and there are judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers who are committed to fairness and justice.
   
   
3. Legal Safeguards: Despite its flaws, the system does have checks and balances, including the right to appeal, the right to legal representation, and constitutional protections against unlawful imprisonment and searches, noting that a number of countries do not afford such safeguards.
   
   
4. Public Scrutiny and Reform: There is increasing public awareness and scrutiny of the issues mentioned in the essay, and various reforms are being proposed and implemented at different levels of government.
   
   
5. Specificity of Cases: Even if one argues that the system has significant issues, it doesn't automatically mean that any specific trial, such as one involving Donald Trump, would be unjust. Each trial is a separate legal proceeding with its own set of facts, evidence, and legal arguments.

In summary, while the essay points out serious and systemic issues that need to be addressed, labeling the entire American Criminal Justice System as "totally corrupt" would be an extreme characterization that doesn't account for its complexities, the people within it who are striving for justice, or the legal safeguards that do exist.

The point is, and this is the main one, I gather you are attempting to impugn the entire justice system in order to forward the notion that any prosecution of Donald Trump would therefore be unjust. I don't agree.

So, while there are legitimate concerns, given the events of 1/6 and his unlawful scheme to overturn the election, we should still put him on trial, and let justice take it's course, and hope justice will be served. That's the best American can do, and that is what it should do, no matter what.

 

I concur, and what's more I think the Court as it exists now would agree. If someone is too dangerous to be on a plane, they're too dangerous to be in circulation. They need to be arrested, charged, prosecuted, imprisoned, and deported if not a US Citizen. As for the airport checkpoints, I think those are also Unconstitutional, and think we should go back to how it was done pre-9/11. It was the AIRLINES themselves that operated the security checkpoints, and as a condition of your contract, if you want to fly, you go through the body cavity search. But, when it's Uncle Sam doing so, that is very, very problematic to me.

 

Okay, 'rule'.

Whatever.

 

Or rule... You just can't tell if some one is mentally ill by looking at them. I don't know how many times after a mass shooting I've heard some one say 'But he seemed so normal."

 

Write your own damn posts. If I want an AI response, I'll go find an AI-bot and ask it. Doing this is worse than people with snarky 2-3 word responses... At least those guys (or gals) are writing their own material, even if it's incomprehensible. Better incomprehensible than AI generated junk.

 

He's a counter argument: The Constitution of The United States.

 

do nothing in terms of harassing lawful gun owners or trying to ban guns-true
we do plenty about actually stopping violent crime such as demanding harsher penalties on violent mopes and empowering would be victims to shoot predatory scumbag felons.

the will of the sheep is on your side
the will of those tired of being victims is on mine