Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I would like to see gun owners required to participate in monthly training and safety classes. I believe that this would give gun owners more respect for the damage these tools can do, plus education is never a bad thing.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I would like to see gun owners required to participate in monthly training and safety classes. I believe that this would give gun owners more respect for the damage these tools can do, plus education is never a bad thing.

I'm sure the libertarians would love that.

Posted

I'm tired of mentally ill and/or angry people easily getting their hands on guns. I'm tired of irresponsible parents/relatives giving guns to their family members who cannot get guns on their own. I'm tired of irresponsible gun owners treating the world like it's the OK Corral.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
13 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I'm tired of mentally ill and/or angry people easily getting their hands on guns. I'm tired of irresponsible parents/relatives giving guns to their family members who cannot get guns on their own. I'm tired of irresponsible gun owners treating the world like it's the OK Corral.

So, under current Supreme Court precedent, we can't actually create any new restrictions on gun ownership. But, we could make a new federal cause of action that applied strict liability to gun manufacturers and sellers for criminal conduct using their manufactured/sold firearms. Something like that could be really effective I think AND I'm pretty sure would pass constitutional muster (at least until Calvinball). 

Posted
2 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:


Or, we get judges on the supreme court who correctly (or more correctly) interpret the 2nd amendment as it was for 200 years. We banned the shit out of weapons of war at the state and federal level for the longest time.

The 2nd amendment permitted communities to raise militias with adequate arms without obstruction from a central government. Militias are codified in the Constitution, even to repel armed insurrections when called. The federalist papers outlined this need, so citizens could defend themselves from “Natives, Foreign Invaders, and Armed Factions.”

But, militias were made irrelevant with the need for a professional standing army and reserve guards. Alas, the right wingers have redefined this right as a right to open carry and get any weapon, whether the person is properly trained and/or willing to serve to protect their community and be accountable.

the "Or we get" is doing a lot of work there. You "get" judges when they die, retire or you blackmail them into retirement. I don't know how you can adjust that without appearing to be especially political with the courts. FDR tried to stack the courts but he was rebuffed and he was a really popular POTUS. 

Maybe you could get some consensus around putting term limits on SCOTUS judges which would mean every president could start their term by appointing 2 judges but I think you would run the risk of that getting struck down by SCOTUS which would put everyone in an awkward bind. 

Posted
21 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

If you want a safe victory parade the solution is simple.

Issue everyone a gun when they show up.

Problem solved.

If the issue is that there aren't yet enough guns everywhere to prevent mass shootings, why don't they just pass out guns everywhere? Go out to eat, collect your gun at the door (provided you don't have one already, of course). Same with sporting events, schools, etc. The logic is sound, IMO.

Posted
On 12/11/2023 at 10:48 AM, C-Man said:

Y'all are gonna love this story. One of my wife's friends has been staying with us off-and-on over the past 3-4 months as she extricates herself from a bad marriage. (Her husband is a decent enough former aggy Corps guy albeit a little on the strange side but he's got permanent brain damage from alcohol abuse that only became apparent just before their wedding. He's since fallen off the wagon in a big way, has taken two trips to rehab in the last 13 months, neither successful, as well as a drunken wreck in the neighborhood where he miraculously avoided a DWI. He's recently lost his sweet job with Morgan Stanley and is completely off the rails. I doubt he sees his 50th birthday. I think he's 47 or 48 now. He's got brain encephalopathy, etc.)

At any rate, he wants to cook dinner for our friend last night. He's had a string of good sober days in a row and planned to go to a sober living situation tomorrow. Our friend suspects he's been drinking by his texts but goes over there anyway. Immediately after arriving, she knows he's drunk, does a 180 and leaves. He gets pissed and starts blowing up her phone with calls and texts. At one point, he says he's going to Uber to a pawn shop to buy a gun and shoot himself in the head. Friend calls Dallas PD to do a wellness check after he sends a picture of some countertop with a Ruger pistol case on it. (Turns out he was at Academy.) Cops go by and he's not there.

FF to late in the evening and he calls me while I was showering for bed and follows up with four texts. Says he can't get ahold of her and asks me if I can just drop her by for a few mins so they can discuss something involving insurance. It's midnight, mind you. Not a fucking chance I'm doing that and I tell her. She again calls DPD, who goes by again. They wind up kicking in the back door and determine that he's fired at least one round inside the house and then jammed the gun by loading the clip/magazine backward.

They take the gun and our friend's husband for a 72-hour psych hold at Parkland. However, they say he's free to retrieve the gun when he gets out of there and is 'normal' again.

Long story short -- inebriated/troubled guy drives to Academy and purchases a handgun, which he brings home and discharges in his home all within a few hours. No telling what he's capable of in his agitated state, especially now that he seems to be realizing there's really zero chance our friend decides to go back to being his wife.

Update: He's dead, Jim. Dude was found dead in his bed last Thursday afternoon. Cause of death indeterminate at this time. Toxicology will be back in seven or eight weeks. He was served child protective papers back in early Jan from his first wife and our friend served him with divorce papers on Monday. Died at some point within the next 48 hours.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

If the issue is that there aren't yet enough guns everywhere to prevent mass shootings, why don't they just pass out guns everywhere? Go out to eat, collect your gun at the door (provided you don't have one already, of course). Same with sporting events, schools, etc. The logic is sound, IMO.

This was also Archie Bunker's solution to all of the airplane hijackings back in the 70's so it has to be the solution. 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, C-Man said:

decent enough former aggy Corps guy

does not compute. He's been exhibiting signs of diminished mental capacity since at least his late teens/early twenties. 

Edited by Blotto
  • Haha 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

So, under current Supreme Court precedent, we can't actually create any new restrictions on gun ownership. But, we could make a new federal cause of action that applied strict liability to gun manufacturers and sellers for criminal conduct using their manufactured/sold firearms. Something like that could be really effective I think AND I'm pretty sure would pass constitutional muster (at least until Calvinball). 

It’s called original intent bro, and it’s super important. At the time, muskets were very unreliable and took a minute to load and fire, but they all could see the future and knew that eventually guns would be capable of mowing down dozens of people in a few seconds, and wanted to be sure than anyone could get one at Walmart. Hence no gun laws ever. It’s science.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
the "Or we get" is doing a lot of work there. You "get" judges when they die, retire or you blackmail them into retirement. I don't know how you can adjust that without appearing to be especially political with the courts. FDR tried to stack the courts but he was rebuffed and he was a really popular POTUS. 
Maybe you could get some consensus around putting term limits on SCOTUS judges which would mean every president could start their term by appointing 2 judges but I think you would run the risk of that getting struck down by SCOTUS which would put everyone in an awkward bind. 

It would be far easier to have Congress use their authority to pack courts than repeal 2nd amendment. Or same difference.
Posted
21 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Update: He's dead, Jim. Dude was found dead in his bed last Thursday afternoon. Cause of death indeterminate at this time. Toxicology will be back in seven or eight weeks. He was served child protective papers back in early Jan from his first wife and our friend served him with divorce papers on Monday. Died at some point within the next 48 hours.

Sorry he succumbed to his addiction, but glad he didn't take anyone with him.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:


It would be far easier to have Congress use their authority to pack courts than repeal 2nd amendment. Or same difference.

But it's not the right thing to do. The language of the 2nd Amendment in no way limits protected firearm use to militias. It basically says in modern message board English "Because access to firearms is required to organize a militia and being able to organize a militia is so fucking important, you can't make any laws limiting access to firearms."

Yes it's antiquated as hell and should be repealed, but that's what it says.

Posted
20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But it's not the right thing to do. The language of the 2nd Amendment in no way limits protected firearm use to militias. It basically says in modern message board English "Because access to firearms is required to organize a militia and being able to organize a militia is so fucking important, you can't make any laws limiting access to firearms."

Yes it's antiquated as hell and should be repealed, but that's what it says.

That’s what many thinks it means.

Posted
2 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

I would like to see gun owners required to participate in monthly training and safety classes. I believe that this would give gun owners more respect for the damage these tools can do, plus education is never a bad thing.

A militia act for the 21st century.

Posted
28 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But it's not the right thing to do. The language of the 2nd Amendment in no way limits protected firearm use to militias. It basically says in modern message board English "Because access to firearms is required to organize a militia and being able to organize a militia is so fucking important, you can't make any laws limiting access to firearms."

Yes it's antiquated as hell and should be repealed, but that's what it says.

You kind of skipped over the “well regulated” part

Posted
1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Damnit. I was trying to get this together and you beat me. 

That would be awesome if true. He can clarify the author’s intent because it clearly wasn’t the bullshit we are dealing with today.

Posted
16 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

You kind of skipped over the “well regulated” part

Insert it in my modem language translation and that has zero effect on the meaning. The controlling clause is the part where no law can be made. The preceding is simply a justification. It's the same as the below: 

Reproduction of the species being necessary to the continuation of society, the right to have sex shall not be infringed. 

That says no laws can be made infringing on our right to have sex. It does not say the sex has to be for the purpose of reproduction. The above amendment would also be a bad one needing to be repealed, by the way.

Posted
1 hour ago, mchookem said:

he forgot Walmart and grocery store. 

At the combination football championship parade and grocery store.

image.jpeg.8da5335efdba10ac8d4824e5c7363ac6.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:


It would be far easier to have Congress use their authority to pack courts than repeal 2nd amendment. Or same difference.

packing the courts seems like a poorly thought out approach as it will just become an arms race as each dsyfunctional party has the opportunity to swing things back in their favor. We'll wind up with 300  partisan fucksticks on the bench. I'd much prefer 8 year term limits so human waste like Thomas gets cycled out and other justices like RGB dont hang on through their late 80's. Its not like there is a shortage of lawyers in this country to cycle through there.

Posted
You kind of skipped over the “well regulated” part

Militia is defined in the constitution as a group well abled “men” organized and controlled by congress.

It was never meant to be a free for all of gun ownership.

Why not change the law to if you buy a gun, you are automatically enrolled in your state militia (national guard), where you must report for training and service within 30 days.

That would be more inline with how it was intended.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Insert it in my modem language translation and that has zero effect on the meaning. The controlling clause is the part where no law can be made. The preceding is simply a justification. It's the same as the below: 

Reproduction of the species being necessary to the continuation of society, the right to have sex shall not be infringed. 

That says no laws can be made infringing on our right to have sex. It does not say the sex has to be for the purpose of reproduction. The above amendment would also be a bad one needing to be repealed, by the way.

That was certainly the Supreme Court's interpretation in DC v. Heller, but that doesn't mean that historically, all Justices would have agreed with that interpretation.  Warren Burger certainly wouldn't have when he wrote "At the time of the Bill of Rights, people were apprehensive about the new national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. It guarantees, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago".  With the repeal of Roe v. Wade, we saw how the makeup of the Supreme Court can drastically alter its interpretation of the Constitution.  We may, in time, see a Supreme Court that is willing to adopt a collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment more in line with the Court's previous ruling in United States v. Miller.

As to your sex amendment example, I think it is more than likely that the current Supreme Court would interpret that amendment to mean that an individual's right to have sex was predicated on their intent to reproduce rather than any unfettered right to have sex.  They certainly wouldn't interpret it to mean that sex between same-sex partners was an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution.

Edited by NeverMarryAStripper
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:


Militia is defined in the constitution as a group well abled “men” organized and controlled by congress.

It was never meant to be a free for all of gun ownership.

Why not change the law to if you buy a gun, you are automatically enrolled in your state militia (national guard), where you must report for training and service within 30 days.

That would be more inline with how it was intended.

 

Galileo had better odds.

 

 

.

Edited by yoladu
Posted
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Insert it in my modem language translation and that has zero effect on the meaning. The controlling clause is the part where no law can be made. The preceding is simply a justification. It's the same as the below: 

Reproduction of the species being necessary to the continuation of society, the right to have sex shall not be infringed. 

That says no laws can be made infringing on our right to have sex. It does not say the sex has to be for the purpose of reproduction. The above amendment would also be a bad one needing to be repealed, by the way.

I am of the opinion that (as you pointed out) that our current interpretation of sentence structure may not be the same as in the past. I believe the first clause "A well-regulated militia" is a pre-condition for the rest of the amendment. But as worded it needs to be repealed/clarified.

Sorry if I am repeating what others have already said, but the insertion of the 2A into the Bill of Rights was to assuage the concern of many that a standing professional army could be a tyranny that a militia would be able to counter. The founders would be looking at our situation now and thinking "WTF is wrong with y'all?" We got a lot of damage to repair in a large part due to the NRA.

Posted
But it's not the right thing to do. The language of the 2nd Amendment in no way limits protected firearm use to militias. It basically says in modern message board English "Because access to firearms is required to organize a militia and being able to organize a militia is so fucking important, you can't make any laws limiting access to firearms."
Yes it's antiquated as hell and should be repealed, but that's what it says.

But the 2nd amendment doesnt say that, that wasn’t the original intent, and prior to 1990 and for 200 years thats not how courts interpreted it. We banned the shit out of guns, with broader authority given to States.

Congress can set the number of SCOTUS seats. Should democrats secure control over both bodies, they should ignore the gentlemen’s agreement and use their authority to set the number of seats. There is no unspoken rules about these things anymore. And it’s not even unethical. It’s authority they have.

But it’s largely academic, If we talking moving our country to being a functional democracy, there’s about a dozen major things that need to change.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:


But the 2nd amendment doesnt say that, that wasn’t the original intent, and prior to 1990 and for 200 years thats not how courts interpreted it. We banned the shit out of guns, with broader authority given to States.

Congress can set the number of SCOTUS seats. Should democrats secure control over both bodies, they should ignore the gentlemen’s agreement and use their authority to set the number of seats. There is no unspoken rules about these things anymore. And it’s not even unethical. It’s authority they have.

But it’s largely academic, If we talking moving our country to being a functional democracy, there’s about a dozen major things that need to change.

That actually is exactly what it says. A similarly tortured reading as your Second Amendment interpretation if applied to the First Amendment would mean that the right to peaceably assemble is only protected if the group is petitioning the government. 

Posted

Arguing the wording or phrasing is purposeless. In Heller, Scalia said, “[It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The words in the USC mean what a majority of the nine say it means. They will torture the phrasing as they please and find persuasive whatever fact/anecdote/lie/gibberish gets them the result they like.

This bickering is pointless. Power is all that matters, and those with power think their hobby, manufacturers stock price and/or gun lobby campaign donations are more important than human lives, let alone predicate phrases or antiquated syntax. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

That logic means that it's pointless to discuss anything here. Which while quite possibly true may not be the marketing angle immamac is looking for. 

Pointless discussion can be entertaining. This one would be unlikely to bring in unique views even with an MS Paint dick drawing showdown.

Posted
That actually is exactly what it says. A similarly tortured reading as your Second Amendment interpretation if applied to the First Amendment would mean that the right to peaceably assemble is only protected if the group is petitioning the government. 

I dont see the connection. In context, militia is like 50% of the text. You have to revise its interpretation to make it relevant and do some mental gymnastics to apply it to more circumstances than having rights to carry for service in militias and being able to be trained and outfitted (well-regulated) without impediment by the government.

Phrases have meaning. i.e - I enjoyed your mom’s company…in bed. Remove “in bed”. That phrase drastically changes and limits what it means. The 2nd amendment has an “in bed” qualifier both literally and in framers intent.

I’m no lawdog, but I’m more inclined to side with 1800-1990 scotus over Rehnquist/Roberts courts on gun regulation (aside from the weird decisions that cropped up).

IMO, 2nd amendment was redefined at the close of the 20th century by rightwing activists. How is that even debateable?
Posted
9 minutes ago, MirrOlure said:


Why did you bring “black people” into this discussion?

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have said "gangster"

Marvel Studios Smile GIF by Disney+

 

I'm curious, would the Vegas shooting have been prevented by not allowing "gangsters" to attend? What about the Walmart shooting in El Paso, could we have stopped that by simply stopping gangsters? Or the night club shootings in Florida, or all the school shootings. Really, how many of the mass shootings over the last 20 years do you think would have been stopped by preventing gangsters from coming out? 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Literally no thread in DT about this.  They used to at least give mass shootings lip service.

Probably because any thread about this subject inevitably involves logical people saying "man, we should take measures to make sure this doesn't happen and that we can go to the grocery store, or a movie, or a championship parade, and not have to fear for my life or be prepared to have to kill another person at a moment's notice" and that's a political stance now and you're an absolute piece of shit for saying those words at all, let alone in a forum not marked "the cloak room".

Edited by Pam Cummings
Posted
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have said "gangster"
200.gif
 
I'm curious, would the Vegas shooting have been prevented by not allowing "gangsters" to attend? What about the Walmart shooting in El Paso, could we have stopped that by simply stopping gangsters? Or the night club shootings in Florida, or all the school shootings. Really, how many of the mass shootings over the last 20 years do you think would have been stopped by preventing gangsters from coming out? 

This wasn’t a mass shooting by a lunatic. This was a shootout between two or more dipshits. Two totally different categories of problems.
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, MirrOlure said:


This wasn’t a mass shooting by a lunatic. This was a shootout between two or more dipshits. Two totally different categories of problems.

Weird. Guns seem to be a common factor in both of them. It is almost like if we made laws that prevented dipshits and lunatics alike from getting access to guns we could end up at a solution to both categories of problems. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Late, and perhaps uninteresting, but regarding 2A:  I am inclined to believe it is saying that SINCE we need a well-regulated militia, we cannot infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  What it DOESN'T say is that the people have the right to keep and bear "any and all" arms, and indeed, we have restricted (and continue to restrict) the right to keep and bear certain types of arms over the years.

Glad I cleared that up.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Late, and perhaps uninteresting, but regarding 2A:  I am inclined to believe it is saying that SINCE we need a well-regulated militia, we cannot infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  What it DOESN'T say is that the people have the right to keep and bear "any and all" arms, and indeed, we have restricted (and continue to restrict) the right to keep and bear certain types of arms over the years.

Glad I cleared that up.

Yes. That is correct and consistent with how other amendments have been interpreted. For instance, "Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech" has never meant that speech is completely immune from regulation.

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...