Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-12-2015, 09:45 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 07:27 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  If you think that it is OK for the government to bypass the rules as long as they are doing something you think needs to be done then I'm sorry, but we are going to have to disagree.

That is a ludicrous conclusion to draw from what I said.

(15-12-2015 07:27 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  The reason I give a shit about what people two hundred years dead thought about how societies should work is because they wrote the document that once ratified by the states legitimized our current government. It is far from perfect, but it is what we have. It spells out how our government is organized, who holds what authority and even has provisions as to how to go about changing it.

And it can and has been constantly amended and reinterpreted by the lights of contemporary actors. As it should be.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
16-12-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Ironically, it was the original assault weapons ban that caused their popularity to soar in the first place. This isn't the first time we've learned similar lessons.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(16-12-2015 09:51 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Ironically, it was the original assault weapons ban that caused their popularity to soar in the first place. This isn't the first time we've learned similar lessons.

Unintended consequences.....

Like Prohibition of alcohol..... It was supposed to make the world a better place - and all it did was spawn organized crime -- and make the government bigger and more powerful..............

And Billy Clinton's "assault weapon ban"......

Billy was considered by many gun shop owners to be the best gun salesman of all time....... Sales rocketed....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(16-12-2015 07:35 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Yet I don't hear anyone claiming women weren't considered people.

You're right insofar as legal personhood was not categorically and universally denied blacks, but the matter of who did and did not count as a person under the law, and under what circumstances, excluded an awful lot of people well into the 20th century.

So while it's a touch glib to say they weren't considered people without further specificity, because that word has very distinct colloquial and legal meanings even without touching on potential nuance, it's grindingly obvious to say that they weren't considered anything like equal (up to and including in the eyes of the law).

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
16-12-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(16-12-2015 07:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 10:38 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  You told me on another thread that hyporbole doesn’t advance the discussion and here I’ll tell you that neither do bad analogies.

It's not actually that bad an analogy.

We could have a society without personal vehicles and use only mass transit and hired vehicles with professionally-trained drivers,
and bring the road deaths down from the tens of thousands to a very few thousands or even hundreds.
Highway deaths are largely preventable as they are caused by poorly-trained or incompetent or inattentive or distracted drivers and their poorly maintained vehicles.
These deadly objects should only be possessed and operated by trained professionals.

I still think it’s a bad analogy but just for the fun of it let’s compare the two.

Purpose of design: transportation vs killing
(That almost any tool or household item can be used as a deadly weapon renders this comparison moot)

I could probably stop there but let’s go on.

Ability to easily conceal: advantage guns.
(Even a mini-Cooper won’t fit in a handbag or under a trenchcoat so I’m told)

Registration, tag, yearly renewal of license and transfer of title: advantage vehicles.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2013/0...s-to-cars/
"So let’s legislate guns just like we legislate motor vehicles:

Learners permit at age 15 and a formal test required for a license at 16.
This kind of law would prevent deaths of young children who are taken by their parents to firing ranges to “try out” weapons. Or parents letting their kids shoot a gun in any situation. Just as a nine-year old isn’t allowed to drive a car, so they shouldn’t be allowed to fire a 9 mm Micro Uzi. It is doubtful children firing automatic weapons was the intention of our founding fathers when they crafted the second amendment. Hunting is no exception. Kids can’t drive a car or truck for any purpose and nor should they be shooting a firearm.

Require renewal of the license every 2-3 years.
I have to renew my driver’s license, why not renew a license to (own) a gun?

Require a different license for different classes of weapons.
A driver of an 18 wheeler requires a different license. Handling a vehicle of that size with air brakes is very different from driving an automatic, 6 cylinder car. If you want to purchase a semi-automatic weapon, it should require a different license*

Registration. Cars have to be registered, so all guns should be too. Remember, we’re saying guns are no more lethal than cars, so if it’s good for a car it’s good for a gun. Registering a weapon doesn’t infringe on the right to own. Gun licensing and registration will create government jobs!

Require gun insurance.
If I ever intend on driving my car, I need insurance, so that same standard should apply to firearms. Safe gun owners (gun not stolen and used in a crime, no accidents around the house, trigger locks etc.) will get breaks, and the insurance money can be used to pay hospital bills (just like car insurance) if you inadvertently injure someone with your weapon.*

Safety testing.
I have to get my car smog tested every 2-3 years, so why not bring the gun in for inspection? Failure to present the gun without proof of legal sale would imply illegal sale or theft and impart significant penalties. Gas stations do smog testing, so firing ranges could easily step up to the plate as I am sure they are advocates of gun safety and maintenance.

Tax ammunition.
Heavily. Gasoline is taxed. Heavily. However, ammunition is relatively cheap. For example, a 40 round magazine for an AK-47 can be purchased online for $29.99, which is less than a dollar a bullet and far less than a tank of gas. I propose a steep tax on ammunition that exponentially increases with the size of the magazine. The tax money can go for education about gun safety or to pay medical expenses for victims injured in gun crimes.

Prevent online sales of ammunition.
Since you can’t buy gasoline online for home delivery, you shouldn’t be able to buy ammunition online. Alaska; California; Cook County, IL; Hawaii; Massachusetts; New York City; and Washington, D.C. already restrict shipping ammunition from online sales, so why not the rest of the country? If it’s illegal in several states and D.C. the laws preventing online sales must have survived legal challenges, so it’s time to go national.

Require trigger locks.
Cars have locks to prevent theft and protect children from climbing in and starting the car. No one argues, “Cars shouldn’t have a key for the ignition in case you are being chased so you can make a quick getaway.” If you can take time to start your car, you can take time to start your gun. The news is rife with stories of teenagers or young children either accidentally or intentionally killing with a gun from the home. A lock could prevent this. Obviously, people can choose to leave their guns unlocked, but… (see below).

Require more of gun manufacturers.
If 15 people a year were killed by a Prius in a freak accident Toyota would be all over it, yet somehow gun manufacturers get away with no press after gun deaths. I’m not talking about homicides, but accidental ones. Like the five people shot by accident at gun shows on gun appreciation day. Not quite 100 people a year were killed by vehicles backing up, but car manufacturers responded with rear-end camera and alarms. Couldn’t gun manufacturers find a way to make guns safer? To make trigger locks difficult to bypass? Car manufacturers want to keep their drivers and occupants safe, shouldn’t gun manufacturers do the same?”

And finally the Economist reports that for the first time ever there are more gun deaths for people under 26 than vehicle caused deaths.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-sta...-v-bullets

[Image: 20150110_USC666.png]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
16-12-2015, 10:47 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(16-12-2015 09:45 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 07:27 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  If you think that it is OK for the government to bypass the rules as long as they are doing something you think needs to be done then I'm sorry, but we are going to have to disagree.

That is a ludicrous conclusion to draw from what I said.

(15-12-2015 07:27 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  The reason I give a shit about what people two hundred years dead thought about how societies should work is because they wrote the document that once ratified by the states legitimized our current government. It is far from perfect, but it is what we have. It spells out how our government is organized, who holds what authority and even has provisions as to how to go about changing it.

And it can and has been constantly amended and reinterpreted by the lights of contemporary actors. As it should be.

Is it? Many in these gun threads seem to think it is OK for the government to ignore the second amendments standing as an individual right as long as doing so achieves goals they find desirable. This why I think it is important to consider original intent. i.e what those 200 years dead guys thought. They setup the government to operate under a set of rules. I want to see our current government follow those rules anytime they attempt to limit the rights of the people of the US. If you don't like the original intent amend the document to something you find more palatable. There is a process for that. Don't give what they did new meaning because you believe times have changed. That is not the way it is supposed to work even though it often does.

As you say the constitution can and has been amended multiple time. Adding the Second Amendment was one of those times. Changing the Second Amendment to make it clear it is not an individual right is certainly an option. A difficult one at best. The thing is that doesn't even need to happen. All gun control advocates need is for SCOTUS to change their opinion of its meaning, and they can take guns away from whoever they want. I wouldn't necessarily agree with such a decision, but at least we would still be following the process we have been following for the last 200 plus years.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2015, 11:15 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(16-12-2015 10:47 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(16-12-2015 09:45 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That is a ludicrous conclusion to draw from what I said.


And it can and has been constantly amended and reinterpreted by the lights of contemporary actors. As it should be.

Is it? Many in these gun threads seem to think it is OK for the government to ignore the second amendments standing as an individual right as long as doing so achieves goals they find desirable. This why I think it is important to consider original intent. i.e what those 200 years dead guys thought.

There is a vast yawning gulf of difference between "ignore" and "reinterpret".

Notwithstanding one's views on the purpose of that right, let alone directly amending it in any case...

(16-12-2015 10:47 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  They setup the government to operate under a set of rules. I want to see our current government follow those rules anytime they attempt to limit the rights of the people of the US.

Your current government bears essentially no resemblance to how the country was governed in the 1790s.

This is not a bad thing.

For that matter, there are dozens of other countries that are at least as free and well-off, each with their own legal history and theories; it's not like there's just the one possible way to do things. But that is quite an ancillary point...

(16-12-2015 10:47 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  If you don't like the original intent amend the document to something you find more palatable. There is a process for that. Don't give what they did new meaning because you believe times have changed. That is not the way it is supposed to work even though it often does.

A few dozen words written centuries are not unambiguous (see also: religion). That means that legal interpretation has always been and will always be a necessary component of the machinery of state.
(that's part of why there is judicial review in the first place!)

I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of a "living" legal document. You might disagree with that opinion, but it's no more wrong than literalism (see, for example, the Canadian doctrine on constitutional matters).

In any case, how can you possibly know how it's "supposed" to work? "Original intent" is necessarily evanescent, and the US constitution itself certainly doesn't proscribe any interpretive method, so on what basis do you form that judgement? A preoccupation with original intent collapses into absurdity regardless when applied to matters which did not exist when the thing was written (ie most of modern life).

(16-12-2015 10:47 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  As you say the constitution can and has been amended multiple time. Adding the Second Amendment was one of those times. Changing the Second Amendment to make it clear it is not an individual right is certainly an option. A difficult one at best. The thing is that doesn't even need to happen. All gun control advocates need is for SCOTUS to change their opinion of its meaning, and they can take guns away from whoever they want. I wouldn't necessarily agree with such a decision, but at least we would still be following the process we have been following for the last 200 plus years.

Right, but that's what I just said. To me this suggests that when you first said "ignoring", what you really meant was "ignoring what you think the interpretation should be". That's not at all the same thing!

I am still left with the question:
Just who - you even specified it was many, and here on this forum to boot, so I'm doubly wondering - do you think advocates government action independent of legal review? Is that even possible? Do they really, truly want to ignore precedent and procedure, or do they actually just favour a different interpretation, which you come around to saying is playing by the rules after all, even though you may disagree? I've only seen the latter...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
16-12-2015, 12:10 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(16-12-2015 10:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-12-2015 07:35 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Yet I don't hear anyone claiming women weren't considered people.

You're right insofar as legal personhood was not categorically and universally denied blacks, but the matter of who did and did not count as a person under the law, and under what circumstances, excluded an awful lot of people well into the 20th century.

So while it's a touch glib to say they weren't considered people without further specificity, because that word has very distinct colloquial and legal meanings even without touching on potential nuance, it's grindingly obvious to say that they weren't considered anything like equal (up to and including in the eyes of the law).

Well, whatever meaning of 'people' was extant at the time, the Constitution still says 'the people', not 'the state'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2015, 01:29 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(16-12-2015 11:15 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-12-2015 10:47 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Is it? Many in these gun threads seem to think it is OK for the government to ignore the second amendments standing as an individual right as long as doing so achieves goals they find desirable. This why I think it is important to consider original intent. i.e what those 200 years dead guys thought.

There is a vast yawning gulf of difference between "ignore" and "reinterpret".

Notwithstanding one's views on the purpose of that right, let alone directly amending it in any case...

(16-12-2015 10:47 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  They setup the government to operate under a set of rules. I want to see our current government follow those rules anytime they attempt to limit the rights of the people of the US.

Your current government bears essentially no resemblance to how the country was governed in the 1790s.

This is not a bad thing.

For that matter, there are dozens of other countries that are at least as free and well-off, each with their own legal history and theories; it's not like there's just the one possible way to do things. But that is quite an ancillary point...

(16-12-2015 10:47 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  If you don't like the original intent amend the document to something you find more palatable. There is a process for that. Don't give what they did new meaning because you believe times have changed. That is not the way it is supposed to work even though it often does.

A few dozen words written centuries are not unambiguous (see also: religion). That means that legal interpretation has always been and will always be a necessary component of the machinery of state.
(that's part of why there is judicial review in the first place!)

I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of a "living" legal document. You might disagree with that opinion, but it's no more wrong than literalism (see, for example, the Canadian doctrine on constitutional matters).

In any case, how can you possibly know how it's "supposed" to work? "Original intent" is necessarily evanescent, and the US constitution itself certainly doesn't proscribe any interpretive method, so on what basis do you form that judgement? A preoccupation with original intent collapses into absurdity regardless when applied to matters which did not exist when the thing was written (ie most of modern life).

(16-12-2015 10:47 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  As you say the constitution can and has been amended multiple time. Adding the Second Amendment was one of those times. Changing the Second Amendment to make it clear it is not an individual right is certainly an option. A difficult one at best. The thing is that doesn't even need to happen. All gun control advocates need is for SCOTUS to change their opinion of its meaning, and they can take guns away from whoever they want. I wouldn't necessarily agree with such a decision, but at least we would still be following the process we have been following for the last 200 plus years.

Right, but that's what I just said. To me this suggests that when you first said "ignoring", what you really meant was "ignoring what you think the interpretation should be". That's not at all the same thing!

I am still left with the question:
Just who - you even specified it was many, and here on this forum to boot, so I'm doubly wondering - do you think advocates government action independent of legal review? Is that even possible? Do they really, truly want to ignore precedent and procedure, or do they actually just favour a different interpretation, which you come around to saying is playing by the rules after all, even though you may disagree? I've only seen the latter...

It's my opinion that original intent should be part of the equation but not the only consideration. Others disagree. That's more or less where this conversation started when you commented that what 200 years dead men thought didn't matter. I disagree. SCOTUS considered original intent in Heller and rendered a decision I agree with. That decision was that the second amendment protects an individual right. Once again others disagree. At least one other individual on this forum has been insisting that it is a fact that the second amendment only applies to militia members. That's opinion not fact, and as long as SCOTUS is of the opinion the second amendment protects an individual right that's the law of the land until either they overturn it or it is amend it whether or not you believe their decision is correct.

I believe it is SCOTUS's job, one ceded to them by congress on prior precedent, to interpret the constitution. I'm OK with that even though it isn't specifically written into the constitution because it is the only check to a super majority in congress passing any law they want. Both congress and the states have the ability to overrule a decision by SCOTUS they don't agree with by amending the constitution.

Yes, SCOTUS has the ability to change their mind. West Coast Hotel v. Parrish overturned Lochner v. New York. Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York overturned Adler v. Board of Education. Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick. These were all, in my opinion, good decisions. In the case of Lawrence v. Texas I doubt if the likes of Pat Robertson would agree. I doubt many here would agree with a decision by SCOTUS to overture Roe v. Wade. It could certainly happen though if public opinion were to swing heavily against abortion rights. According to the last poll I saw public opinion heavily supports the second amendment as an individual right. Public opinion is by no means the final word, but SCOTUS seldom overturns a prior decision without the support of public opinion. They could overturn Roe or Heller, but of the two overturning Heller would be much more unpopular with the citizens of the United States.

None of this means the government can't pass laws that ban certain people from having firearms, assault rifles, high capacity magazines or oodles of other restrictions including more in depth background checks. A ban on handguns in general would probably go a lot further in lowering gun violence than banning assault rifles, but it would be difficult because that would mean overturning Heller. About all it does mean is that the government at any level can't pass laws that keep the majority of law abiding citizens within their jurisdictions form owning firearms in general.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
17-12-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 12:28 PM)Ace Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 04:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  I think your reading is incorrect. They are saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary to the protection of a free state, the people as a whole (not just militia members) shall not have their right to bear arms infringed (i.e. they will always be ready to form a well regulated militia).

alright, time to bust out the videos... tyt has perfect timing on their uploads




Quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear High Explosive Arms, shall not be infringed

Quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Nuclear Arms, shall not be infringed

Quote:A well regulated Police force, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Ah... The Young Turds. Epic level of stupidity.

First, Well regulated means functioning.

Second, a form of the recognized militia are all males from 17-45 that are not in the armed forces.

Third, the first part gives reason but is not conditional to the right to bear arms.

Read the amendment on free speech or press from the New Hampshire constitution. We have the reasons or explication for a right stated in many state constitutions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: