World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Why are US mass shootings getting more deadly?
House passes assault-style weapons banhttps://www.cnn.com/2022/07/29/politi...
"Assault-style" AKA whatever they say it is.
J. wrote: "House passes assault-style weapons banhttps://www.cnn.com/2022/07/29/politi...
"Assault-style" AKA whatever they say it is."
A feel good measure that does nothing and BTW, already unconstitutional. Will not get past the Senate.
The Supreme Court decides cases based on the Constitution. Does one have to be in a militia to bear arms? The Supreme Court decided this in 2008. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion: "In 2008, the Court in a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller held that a D.C. law that restricted unlicensed functional handguns within homes violated the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Heller majority opinion: '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,' Scalia said." https://constitutioncenter.org/intera...And there you have it, what the Second Amendment currently means in the US, decided by the Supreme Court. We have a right to use firearms to defend ourselves.
Yes, but 5:4 does not show a convincing case, especially when the judges are politically appointed. The four otherwise presumably eminent judges took the opposite view.
Get this, Ian. The majority rules. Period. The decision is the decision and must be accepted. Do some research on our Constitution and Supreme Court before stating your opinions.
Scout, of course I realize the majority rules. But with 5:4 either there is not a clear principle involved or four judges are out of their depth. The second amendment, as I read it, does not mention homes.
I have explained this as clearly as I can, and you don't get it; you're not listening. You obviously don't understand the importance of our Constitution, and you don't understand the role our Supreme Court plays. I suggest you do your research before weighing in
As I see it, the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. Where am I wrong?
Ian wrote: "Yes, but 5:4 does not show a convincing case, especially when the judges are politically appointed. The four otherwise presumably eminent judges took the opposite view."Yes, your reasoning is correct. Yet, it does not make it any less an important a decision. You once again do not either accept or understand our passion for firearms. That is of course your right and choice. Yet, it is still important to know even 5-4 is important. You have to understand that no matter the 5-4 decisions case, someone is not happy.
You are of course correct that there are four eminent judges in disagreement. Justice Gorsuch wrote a book on how he sees the law and why is is the type of judge he is. A Republic, If You Can Keep It. It is a good read and he does an excellent explanation of both why the Supreme Court has 5-4 decisions and how the courts are not politically motivated. To keep it short, across the country about 100,000,000 cases are filed each year and 400,000 are filed Federally. Out of them, about 100-150 reach the Supreme Court each year. That means out of 100,000,000 cases, only about 150 cases are so difficult to resolve, it reaches the Supreme Court and some of those cases are so difficult, even they cannot agree what the Constitutionality of these cases mean. Even then, last years cases were 67% to be either unanimous or only one Justice dissenting. That is 2 out of 3 that reach the Court. The reason it seems out of control is that it is big cases that catch all of the attention. Even these cases are stable over the last ten years. There is no surge to the right nor left.
Using your logic, the 6-3 Hobbs abortion case is no good because the six Justices were Republican appointees and it is politics that decided. Yet, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg the darling of the right was very critical of Roe because she thought it was not properly decided based on its logic.
Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "Yes, but 5:4 does not show a convincing case, especially when the judges are politically appointed. The four otherwise presumably eminent judges took the opposite view."Yes, your reas..."
Just to be clear, my point relied on the interpretation of the Constitution, and the four disagreeing, in my opinion, were saying that decision does not lie correctly within the Constitution. It does not mean they were for banning guns; they were saying the status of guns for home defence cannot rely on the Constitution, and the issue is in no man's land. However, another point of law in our countries is that unless something is specifically banned by law, you are entitled to do it. Therefore, if there is no explicit law against gun ownership, you can own guns. Apparently different States take different views, but the four voting against the decision were not voting to ban guns, but merely they were against the argument that the Constitution permitted all the claimed rights.
As for the 6:3 vote, I rather think that was the case. Whether Roe was properly based is another issue, and if the overturning was based on a serious flaw in the original decision, and it clearly is a flaw, as opposed to an opinion, then the decision could be struck down. However, from here it is unclear if that a serious logic flaw was the reason for striking it out.
As for Ginsburg being critical, why was this not brought up while she was alive. If she was prepared to strike it down, then the numbers were still the same. I know someone has to bring the case, but the speed with which Hobbs came to the forefront suggests the case was nowhere near a slam-dunk for Ginsburg.
For all the folks advocating gun control, I ask you to consider that the ones you are trusting to protect you are politicians.I remind you that at the same time they shed tears over murdered innocents, they order drone strikes on weddings, shutter mental health facilities, and encourage harassment of their political rivals.
Ian wrote: "Just to be clear, my point relied on the interpretation of the Constitution, and the four disagreeing, in my opinion, were saying that decision does not lie correctly within the Constitution...."I have zero issue with your interpretation. Your logic is correct. However, it does not preclude the majority from being right even if they all are from the same party that nominated them. Most that scream how the Court is political hacks are nothing more than playing politics. Both sides play at the game and they all scream when it suits them.
For your education. More inter-party decisions at 5-4 or other combinations are more common than what everyone chooses to see. Much of that is both politics and the media portrayal. As I have noted in my last post this is not easy stuff and even the most eminent minds do not agree. it does not make them evil or political or any thing but doing the very best they can.
The gun case comes down to arguing over if the Second Amendment was a personal right as the rest of the Bill of Rights. It comes down to how Judges see the Constitution and their view of the law. It is not about Republican appointed Judges of Democrat appointed judges.
You read the Second Amendment as one way and I see it the other way. Who is right? I see an individual right and always have. That is how the Supreme Court sees it too. it doe snot make your view and less or never to be changed.
Much of what is missed if one does not follow the history is that much gets lost in the context. NYC played games and the Supreme Court warned them to stop. They did not and now we have the new law. The very first thing the state does is try to make every place "special" to try and get around the law after they were specifically warned not to do so. They will end up in front of the Court and lose big again.
Part of what also must be explained again is that the interpretation of the Constitution is how many rule too. If you are a textualist and originalist, then you tend to see things one way and if you are a Living Constitutionalist, you tend to see it another way. They are legal points of view judges have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origina...
This is a pretty good explanation.
BTW, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it while she was alive and it was largely ignored as many of her views that disagreed with the narrative of the left. Her words have been edited to something she did not say or mean when she said it to suit purposes. Both sides do this all the time too.
One last thing on the gun ruling. NYC has pretty much created an environment that precluded anyone from owning a gun. Their next step will be making a tax so bad no one will be able to afford to go through the process. That is how you legally prevent someone from owning a gun. That type of law hurt minorities in urban settings from protecting themselves. so when you say they will not come to get you guns, you may be correct in your thought process, but the reality is far different.
One of the principles of gun control is if the state prevents their widespread ownership, then the state also takes responsibility for ensuring that those with guns do not misbehave. The concept is that the police enforce the law rather than have all and sundry shooting at each other.The problem arises when there are more than the occasional bad guy. I don't know what the statistics are like in the US, but here there are very few home invasions (as opposed to burglaries that go wrong) and few of those are armed with guns because such people tend to end up shot by the police. However, if home invasions are common and the perps are usually armed, then home defence becomes a different issue. I don't know the statistics, but I still feel that in the US armed home invasion is rather rare and most of the gun deaths come from other sources. Maybe I am wrong.
I find it difficult to believe that taxes will rise so far as to prevent someone from going through the process of owning a gun. Here, the process requires a police "audit" to ensure you have no criminal history and no obvious signs of insanity, then you have to attend a few courses to show you know how to use it safely, and you know how to survive in the bush and not get lost. The latter is to reduce the number of search and rescues. This is not exceptionally expensive, and if you can''t afford the process, you probably can't afford to go hunting properly equipped.
And yes, I fully accept that criminals can get guns and don't go through that process. The previous para was about the tax issue. No law by itself will stop criminals from getting anything because, well, they don't obey laws.
Ian wrote: "One of the principles of gun control is if the state prevents their widespread ownership, then the state also takes responsibility for ensuring that those with guns do not misbehave. The concept is..."History shows a disturbing correlation between governments who disarm their citizens and mass graves. Maybe you are fine with accepting that risk for yourself, but what about your neighbors?
I may be wrong, but I think this is a particular American view. Most citizens in the UK, Denmark, here, and many other countries do not have a highly armed citizenry, and those that have guns use them either for sport or hunting. These countries are not filled with mass graves. Hitler created many mass graves, as did Stalin, so maybe mass graves are more a function of dictators than disarmed citizens.
Yes, this is a particular American view, as we're discussing decisions made by our Supreme Court. Where you're wrong, Ian, is that you don't understand that once they make a decision, that's it. Their interpretation of the Constitution is where the buck stops, whether you agree with it or not, even if it's a 5-4 decision, and it must be abided by. You may not like it, but tough luck. It becomes the law of the land. You can continue to question decisions that have been explained to you in detail, but I think that shows you haven't been listening or just want attention by arguing the same points over and over.
Ian wrote: "Hitler created many mass graves, as did Stalin, so maybe mass graves are more a function of dictators than disarmed citizens.And Mao.
That's why we have a Second Amendment. The Framers knew that the ultimate bulwark of the Republic is the citizens.
And the Danes are heading for mass graves??
Ian wrote: "I find it difficult to believe that taxes will rise so far as to prevent someone from going through the process of owning a gun. ..."I understand your skepticism. However, that is how it is done here. It is one legal loophole to prevent an action they cannot otherwise prevent.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep-don-...
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/06/t...
https://fox5sandiego.com/news/califor...
https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-t...
https://www.fieldandstream.com/guns/n...
These are just a few article to show what is happening. I am not saying it is going to happen, but that is is on the table and some municipalities are trying to make it happen. Pay attention to what these politicians are using as their excuse. Gun control.
You keep mentioning how NZ does its business and that is fine. It sounds reasonable. We have many of the same prohibitions and back ground style checks. It works unless it gets derailed by an individual that determines he does not want guns in his area. So if it goes to the cops and the chief does not want the guns (yes we have them), then you cannot get guns. It is a failure. We cannot come to agreement what is reasonable.
Ian wrote: ".... (as opposed to burglaries that go wrong) and few of those are armed with guns.... I don't know the statistics, but I still feel that in the US armed home invasion is rather rare and most of the gun deaths come from other sources. Maybe I am wrong.
Home invasion is a rarity. It is also known as a push in crime. However, burglary is not nearly as rare and 25% have someone in the home when it happens and 7% victims of those are met with violence or threats of violence. Calling it burglary gone bad is understandable, but misses the actual point of violence. For the record I am separating burglary from burglary with someone home. I see them as different.
....if you can''t afford the process, you probably can't afford to go hunting properly equipped.. ..."
So if you cannot afford the tax on food, you should starve? If you cannot afford the tax on cars, you should not be allowed to own one? These taxes are being looked at to prevent one from owning a gun, not about safety. If it was about safety, there would be mandatory classes for safety and they should be easy and cheap to attend, yet there is not.
The ironic part is that the poor will be the hardest hit with these taxes. It will prevent those that both do or want to own guns be prevented due to taxes created to prevent the very thing from being owned that is a guarantee in our Constitution. Using both food and cars may seem ridiculous, but, neither is a guarantee in the Constitution. Yet, you cannot live without food and try to live without a car. No, I am not trying to be funny because Nobody should be denied food.
Ian wrote: "And the Danes are heading for mass graves??"It's amazing how well those pesky pits hide. Nobody ever seems to see them coming and then Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Mao, Franco, Pol Pot, Amin, Hussein, Milosevic...
I wonder where and when the next crime against humanity will inspire the bleeding hearts to cry out, "Never again!" Sadly, it will happen again and again and again and...
Ian wrote: "I may be wrong, but I think this is a particular American view. Most citizens in the UK, Denmark, here, and many other countries do not have a highly armed citizenry, and those that have guns use t..."Uh well if the citizenry was armed, the German may have had a much harder time..... Out of curiosity, when was the last time the United States was invaded?
Scout wrote: "Yes, this is a particular American view, as we're discussing decisions made by our Supreme Court. Where you're wrong, Ian, is that you don't understand that once they make a decision, that's it...."You are correct except, that it is not necessarily forever.. It is the law of the land until, the Supreme Court overrules itself (see Roe v. Wade, Plessy v Ferguson) or Congress creates a law to over turn the law as long as that new law is Constitutional.
Ian wrote: "And the Danes are heading for mass graves??"We will leave that to history. If the Danes end up with a dictator, then I would not rule it out.
If you cannot afford to buy food because of tax, you will starve. If you can't afford a car because of tax you won't drive. The problem here is the tax, and I can't see anyone raising tax that high.
Papaphilly asked: " Out of curiosity, when was the last time the United States was invaded?" Out of curiosity, why do you think that is? The first rule of planning a military operation is, go look at a map. If you see what surrounds the US you may get an idea.
Ian wrote: "Papaphilly asked: " Out of curiosity, when was the last time the United States was invaded?" Out of curiosity, why do you think that is? The first rule of planning a military operation is, go look ..."As much as I agree with the geography you mention, it is also all the weapons everyone owns. That is part of the calculus. You might be able to attack us, but you could never hold us. There are too many guns.
Ian wrote: "If you cannot afford to buy food because of tax, you will starve. If you can't afford a car because of tax you won't drive. The problem here is the tax, and I can't see anyone raising tax that high."Here, taxes are used more than to fund government. Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are called sin taxes and they are high on purpose to discourage the use of these products. If you do not think that taxes would be raised that high, think again. There have been more than one proposal to tax junk food extremely high.
Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "Papaphilly asked: " Out of curiosity, when was the last time the United States was invaded?" Out of curiosity, why do you think that is? The first rule of planning a military operation ..."The too many guns is irrelevant. You have by far the strongest navy in the world and the strongest four air forces. Look at the difficulties the allies had at Normandy with that short piece of water, no significant Luftwaffe, no Kriegsmarine present, and opposed by an army that had been bled dry on the Eastern front. Look at it another way: when was the last time anyone actually tried?
Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "If you cannot afford to buy food because of tax, you will starve. If you can't afford a car because of tax you won't drive. The problem here is the tax, and I can't see anyone raising t..."Yeah, and what happens? People sin and sacrifice proper food, etc for the kids. Have these high taxes actually stopped booze consumption?
Ian wrote: "Yeah, and what happens? People sin and sacrifice proper food, etc for the kids. Have these high taxes actually stopped booze consumption?"Granting the power to set tax policy to the holier than thou types is begging to be beggared.
Ian wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "Papaphilly asked: " Out of curiosity, when was the last time the United States was invaded?" Out of curiosity, why do you think that is? The first rule of planning a ..."A bit of history. Long before we were the strongest, the Japaneses tried to knock us out of the Pacific theater at the very start of WWII. Even then, they knew we could not be invaded because of all of our gun ownership. Isoroku Yamamoto was supposed to have said, “I would never invade America, there is a gun behind every blade of grass.”
To answer your actual question, I consider an invasion to be on mainland United States of actual states and not territories by a foreign government to take control. I use this to preclude border skirmishes or acts of terrorism that have happened and non-state territories. At the time of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was not a state.
That leaves either the Civil War or the War of 1812. I discount the Civil War not that there wasn't territory taken, but at the time it was Americans in rebellion without a government recognized. So that leaves the War of 1812.
Ian wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "If you cannot afford to buy food because of tax, you will starve. If you can't afford a car because of tax you won't drive. The problem here is the tax, and I can't s..."You answered your own question. When the Feds tried to outlaw booze, we had prohibition and it failed miserably. What has happened is that both cigarettes and cigars have been banned in given areas. In some ways I am surprised that it has held up.
The other way of looking a this is that when polls taxes were tried to prevent a racial minority from voting, it was shot down by the Supreme Court as Unconstitutional because that was an enumerated right as is owning a gun. Maybe the base line is trying to figure what is a reasonable tax. Yet, when a politician outright says this is to prevent gun ownership, it sets itself up to fail.
The Japanese strategy, which was rather brainless, was to knock out the Pacific fleet so the US could not enforce the embargo. They never had any intention of invading the US because the supply lines were too long and they couldn't get there in force. What is slightly surprising is they did not try to invade Hawaii, because had they, the Pacific would have had the same effect on the US.Yamamoto may have used the guns as an excuse, and that would be a bit like Heisenberg's excuse for why he persuaded the Germans not to develop the atom bomb.
Papa said, "You are correct except, that it is not necessarily forever.. It is the law of the land until, the Supreme Court overrules itself (see Roe v. Wade, Plessy v Ferguson) or Congress creates a law to over turn the law as long as that new law is Constitutional."Of course I get that; I just wasn't sure Ian did.
Ian wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "Papaphilly asked: " Out of curiosity, when was the last time the United States was invaded?" Out of curiosity, why do you think that is? The first rule of planning a ..."It's being invaded every day - all along its southern border - hundreds of thousands are streaming across the border and no one is stopping them - it's Mexico's bid to reclaim California, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas etc.
We are being invaded with the implicit consent of our president. The immigrants coming into the country are coming here illegally, and the president ignores what's happening.
A new credit card code is a first step toward preventing gun violence, advocates sayhttps://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/112305...
So, now the bankers will be the stewards of public virtue.
And gun salesmen won't take cash? None of them?? Yeah, right.
Ian wrote: "And gun salesmen won't take cash? None of them?? Yeah, right."Do you want bankers to make moral choices about what you buy? Imagine what they might find objectionable.
Probably nothing. Bankers work to maximize their income, after all, all they do is deal with money.
Ian wrote: "Probably nothing. Bankers work to maximize their income, after all, all they do is deal with money."Do you really think that this is about money?
No, this is about power. Perhaps you think that you're safe because it's power over somebody else. You'll be disabused of such notions when they finish with us and move on to you.
I can see we are not going to agree over this, but the merchant bankers I have met and dealt with were always considering power games, but only to extract more money.
This is going to fly just like the code for drug buying.....
Papaphilly wrote: "This is going to fly just like the code for drug buying....."So a Constitutional Right is equivalent to Cocaine.
J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "This is going to fly just like the code for drug buying....."So a Constitutional Right is equivalent to Cocaine."
I think you missed my point. It wont work.
That credit card code is another reason that we always need access to cash. I worry about the movement to go to a cashless economy - one in which everything you do and everywhere you go can be tracked by anyone who wants power over you :-(
I gave up on worrying about being tracked. Phones, computers, smart appliances, smart TVs, car computers, doorbell cameras and so on - it's too late to stop it.The one thing I refuse to do is get the car insurance discount by them having access to how I drive. I know how I drive; it won't do my insurance rates any good! But, I suspect that if someone really wanted to, they could hack into my 2017 car computers and know exactly how I drive and where.
We agree that being monitored by outsiders ain't cool :-)
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
A Republic, If You Can Keep It (other topics)The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956 (other topics)
The Diary of Anne Frank (other topics)
Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung: Mao’s Little Red Book Original Version (other topics)
If that is the ..."
All valid points, but is besides the point. I do not need any reason to own a gun, I have the RIGHT to own a gun if I so choose.