Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2018 9:56 PM
98 online now:
GDR, kjsimons, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (5 members, 93 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,839 Year: 8,662/29,783 Month: 909/1,977 Week: 47/380 Day: 47/79 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112131415
16
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3651
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 226 of 231 (833491)
05-21-2018 10:39 PM


BUMP - and a message from another topic
Percy posted a new message - "Supreme Court Wrong on Second Amendment" at the "Police Shootings" topic. I think that better belongs in this topic. Quoting it all:

Percy writes:

In 2008 the Supreme Court disconnected the right to bear arms from service in a militia, ruling that there was a right to own guns for any lawful purpose. One of the arguments for the majority, written by Antonin Scalia, related to the phrase bear arms:

quote:
At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

But Scalia was wrong, as explained in detail in Antonin Scalia was wrong about the meaning of ‘bear arms’. In new databases for the period, such uses of the term "are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent."

There were, of course, other arguments in the ruling, but the definition of bear arms seems fundamental. If Scalia were correct that it was used primarily outside a military context, then his reasoning to separate "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" from "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would make sense. But he had his facts backwards and so his argument does not hold water. The term bear arms was used in military contexts in the 18th century, and the right of the people described in the Second Amendment was specific to militias.

Since government militias are non-existent today, there can be no constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.

--Percy

We've also very recently had another Texas school located mass shooting. Not me, but perhaps someone else might want to post something here on that.

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 05-22-2018 9:30 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10695
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 227 of 231 (833492)
05-22-2018 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Modulous
05-07-2018 8:24 PM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
I wouldn't go that far. If the father has contravened the law - they would likely look the other way in most cases if it was known the son was leaving the State. Given what the son did, however, the people who operate the law may decide that they won't look the other way.

"The people who operate the law" are subject to oversight. I will never say that there cannot be a prosecution, and I certainly cannot say that no jury would convict. But any conviction that resulted would be on very flimsy grounds. In my opinion, such a conviction would be against the weight of the law.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2018 8:24 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10695
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 228 of 231 (833493)
05-22-2018 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Modulous
05-07-2018 8:24 PM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
I wouldn't go that far. If the father has contravened the law - they would likely look the other way in most cases if it was known the son was leaving the State. Given what the son did, however, the people who operate the law may decide that they won't look the other way.

"The people who operate the law" are subject to oversight. I will never say that there cannot be a prosecution, and I certainly cannot say that no jury would convict. But any conviction that holds Dad responsible for the murders that resulted would be on very flimsy grounds. In my opinion, such a conviction would be against the weight of the law.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2018 8:24 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2018 4:45 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17325
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 229 of 231 (833497)
05-22-2018 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Minnemooseus
05-21-2018 10:39 PM


Re: BUMP - and a message from another topic
Thanks - I realized later I posted to the wrong thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-21-2018 10:39 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3651
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 230 of 231 (833528)
05-22-2018 7:49 PM


10 People Killed In Texas High School Shooting - May 18, 2018
https://www.npr.org/...-reported-at-high-school-near-houston

quote:
At least 10 people were killed when a gunman opened fire inside a small-town Texas high school, in what Gov. Greg Abbott called "probably the worst disaster ever to strike this community."

Ten others were wounded in the morning attack at Santa Fe High School.

A 17-year-old suspect is in custody and being held at Galveston County jail without bond, school district officials said in tweet, adding that the alleged shooter is being charged with capital murder and aggravated assault of a peace officer.


Something to get it in the record here.

I think a big part of the problem is trickle down stupidity in the Trump era.

Moose


    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 231 of 231 (833556)
05-23-2018 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by NoNukes
05-22-2018 1:20 AM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
But any conviction that holds Dad responsible for the murders that resulted would be on very flimsy grounds. In my opinion, such a conviction would be against the weight of the law.

Agreed. But I'm talking about holding him responsible for breaking the laws surrounding prohibited firearm distribution - which if true, would be fair game and be on pretty solid grounds.

Appeals processes through the courts are an uphill battle even when a person has a great case - the alternative would be in the form of a governor's pardon. Rauner doesn't have a reputation that would suggest success can be relied on there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2018 1:20 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112131415
16
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018