My biggest pet peeve in gun debates

[Glitch]

if a firearm is in common use (which is up on the air and Scalia hinted later on that the government couldn't ban a new firearm and claim it was not in common use if civilian authorities commonly used it but I cannot recall if that was a speech or dicta) and is not "unusually dangerous" it was protected.

Not any more according to Scalia. Now, according to Scalia in Heller, if a weapon system is designed specifically for the military, or employed in a military capacity (even if it is in "common use") then it is exempt from Second Amendment protection.

I believe that scalia got as good as he could get given four justices thought the ban was ok and Kennedy was erratic

now that the court is "better" they need to make sure that crap like the Maryland gun bans are stricken

I believe that Scalia wanted to truly screw over Americans, and he succeeded. Firearms that nobody would think about banning before Heller, can now be banned easily. Just get the military to employ them.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not any more according to Scalia. Now, according to Scalia in Heller, if a weapon system is designed specifically for the military, or employed in a military capacity (even if it is in "common use") then it is exempt from Second Amendment protection.


I believe that Scalia wanted to truly screw over Americans, and he succeeded. Firearms that nobody would think about banning before Heller, can now be banned easily. Just get the military to employ them.

I didn't read Heller that way

 

[Nickyjo]

Your belief appears to stem from a desire to attack legal gun ownership for political reasons. There is nothing in the words of the founders or the context of when the constitution was drafted, that suggests your revisionist interpretation has any support

I have no wish to take guns from people. I believe that like militias (and other things like dangerous drugs) that guns and gun ownership should be well-regulated. There is a body of legal theories, represented by jurists who disagreed with the Supreme Court, for example, that interpret the Second Amendment differently.

 

[Glitch]

I didn't read Heller that way

That was the definition Scalia applied in Heller under 1b) "Keep and bear Arms."

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

None of which is true, obviously. Since just prior to Scalia's perverse and entirely made-up definition he cites both Samuel Johnson's and Timothy Cunningham's definitions from the 1770s, and neither make any such claims and both had a completely different definition from Scalia. Scalia clearly completely lost his mind.

Scalia's new unconstitutional definition allows both the federal government and the States to establish a Heller Test: Is the weapon specifically designed for military use, or employed in a military capacity? If the answer is "yes," then the weapon can be banned. All thanks to Scalia and his complete lack of a spine.

 

[Rucker61]

I have no wish to take guns from people. I believe that like militias (and other things like dangerous drugs) that guns and gun ownership should be well-regulated. There is a body of legal theories, represented by jurists who disagreed with the Supreme Court, for example, that interpret the Second Amendment differently.

Which jurists and decisions are those?

 

[TurtleDude]

I have no wish to take guns from people. I believe that like militias (and other things like dangerous drugs) that guns and gun ownership should be well-regulated. There is a body of legal theories, represented by jurists who disagreed with the Supreme Court, for example, that interpret the Second Amendment differently.

guns are well regulated-everything the left wants now is designed to harass honest gun owners

 

[Nickyjo]

Which jurists and decisions are those?

The four dissenters in the recent decision, and the lower courts who decided differently, and the justices in a previous SC decision that decided the issue somewhat differently. Google “Heller decision dissenting opinion” for a Britannica article and other stuff. (I don’t know how to copy and paste on my phone.)

 

[TurtleDude]

The four dissenters in the recent decision, and the lower courts who decided differently, and the justices in a previous SC decision that decided the issue somewhat differently. Google “Heller decision dissenting opinion” for a Britannica article and other stuff. (I don’t know how to copy and paste on my phone.)

did you find Steven's pathetic dissent compelling or do you just like what was clearly a poorly reasoned argument because it supports your views? Do you actually think that the federal government was intended to have gun control powers through the commerce clause?

 

[Rucker61]

The four dissenters in the recent decision, and the lower courts who decided differently, and the justices in a previous SC decision that decided the issue somewhat differently. Google “Heller decision dissenting opinion” for a Britannica article and other stuff. (I don’t know how to copy and paste on my phone.)

Those jurists, unlike you, wanted to ban guns. Heck, Stevens wanted to repeal the Second Amendment.

 

[Nickyjo]

did you find Steven's pathetic dissent compelling or do you just like what was clearly a poorly reasoned argument because it supports your views? Do you actually think that the federal government was intended to have gun control powers through the commerce clause?

First I meant more than the arguments of just the dissenters on the SC. Sorry for the lack of clarity. But whatever, it’s no more ridiculous an opinion than deciding that an amendment about a “well regulated militia” is about an individual right to bear arms. If we take the language of the second part of the Amendment literally, Scalia and company were wrong when they (thankfully) said guns could be regulated. “Shall not be infringed” is a pretty strong phrase countering that notion of theirs.

 

[TurtleDude]

First I meant more than the arguments of just the dissenters on the SC. Sorry for the lack of clarity. But whatever, it’s no more ridiculous an opinion than deciding that an amendment about a “well regulated militia” is about an individual right to bear arms. If we take the language of the second part of the Amendment literally, Scalia and company were wrong when they (thankfully) said guns could be regulated. “Shall not be infringed” is a pretty strong phrase countering that notion of theirs.

its not about a well regulated militia-it is about the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms not being infringed,

are you able to tell me what part of the constitution actually delegates a power to the federal government to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms by private citizens? it is only after you can establish such a power properly exists, that we have to talk about the second.

Your position is common, from what I have seen, with those who start off wanting to ban or restrict honest gun owners, and then they work backwards to try to contort the second to fit their agenda

 

[calamity]

its not about a well regulated militia-it is about the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms not being infringed...

The founders likely did not account for irresponsible gun owners who would point their weapons at other Americans, shooting one in the gut and then bragging about it on a chat board.

 

[calamity]

Pet Peeve: Irresponsible gun nuts.

Case in point.

Lauren Boebert allows 8-year-old to play alone, next to possibly-loaded firearm

In apparent violation of Colorado's new gun safety law, congresswoman's son plays alone near rifle and handgun

www.salon.com

...the 8-year-old son of Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., can be seen singing, dancing and playing with cigarette lighters — while left alone in a room a few feet away from a high-capacity rifle. This would appear to violate a new Colorado state law, under which gun owners are required to store their deadly weapons in a gun safe, with a trigger or cable lock, whenever the owner is aware, or should reasonably be aware, that a "juvenile or a resident who is ineligible to possess a firearm can gain access to the firearm."

Boebert is a ****ing idiot.

 

[calamity]

Pet Peeve: When a poster @Big Steve says pulling a gun on unarmed teenagers is clearly irresponsible behavior with a loaded firearm but then backtracks and runs away from his statement once he finds out that the irresponsible gun owner is one of his gun-buddy allies.


lol...

 

[Big Steve]

Pet Peeve: When a poster @Big Steve says pulling a gun on unarmed teenagers is clearly irresponsible behavior with a loaded firearm but then backtracks and runs away from his statement once he finds out that the irresponsible gun owner is one of his gun-buddy allies.


lol...

No, that's not what happened.

I'm not inclined to go back through this entire thread to show just how wrong you are, but you initially presented the case as someone who simply grabbed a gun and started pointing it at people. Yes, that would be irresponsible.

The problem, though, is that we started to look at why the weapon was drawn, and it turned out that the individual felt he had a need to protect himself.

That said, I love that you think about me constantly. I love living in your head.























Rent free...

 

[TurtleDude]

No, that's not what happened.

I'm not inclined to go back through this entire thread to show just how wrong you are, but you initially presented the case as someone who simply grabbed a gun and started pointing it at people. Yes, that would be irresponsible.

The problem, though, is that we started to look at why the weapon was drawn, and it turned out that the individual felt he had a need to protect himself.

That said, I love that you think about me constantly. I love living in your head.























Rent free...

he constanly lies about the facts.

 

[calamity]

he constanly lies about the facts.

Here's a "fact."

On numerous occasions, you bragged about shooting another human being.

That's a fact.

 

[Big Steve]

Here's a "fact."

On numerous occasions, you bragged about shooting another human being.

That's a fact.

Bragged?

No, I absolutely have not...

 

[Nickyjo]

its not about a well regulated militia-it is about the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms not being infringed,
++ Yes it is, according to me and others who have argued and decided differently. It is, however, a badly written sentence open to different interpretations.

are you able to tell me what part of the constitution actually delegates a power to the federal government to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms by private citizens? it is only after you can establish such a power properly exists, that we have to talk about the second.
++ Same power that the federal government has used in placing many, many other regulations and restrictions, like mileage standards, environmental regulations, etc. Commerce clause is one that is often used.
Your position is common, from what I have seen, with those who start off wanting to ban or restrict honest gun owners, and then they work backwards to try to contort the second to fit their agenda

++ I have no problem with honest gun owners per se, but gun control in our country is as old as the Gunfight at the OK Corral, which was about restricting honest gun owners. Tombstone and other western towns banned guns. Dangerous items like guns/drugs/autos are all regulated in free societies. I do see the huge number of guns in our society as problematic, having myself almost been shot by cops who naturally but falsely assumed I was armed. My objective is to support laws the Supremes will tolerate and hopefull limit the number of unnecessary deaths.

 

[calamity]

Bragged?

No, I absolutely have not...

You haven't. In fact, your Post #741 shows you did the opposite of brag.

You self-reflected on the matter.

... I'm someone who's actually used his firearm to protect himself and his loved ones, resulting in the death of another human being. I think about that every single time I put my sidearm in its holster and slip that holster into the hip of my jeans. I think about how I made the conscious decision to end the life of another person. After nine years I still question myself as to whether or not there was another way I could've handled it....

Note how your post is the exact opposite of the braggadocios garbage below.

...two mopes jump me in an alley as I was coming home from the local grocery carry some food. I gave one of them a 9mm Colonoscopy

he lived-his first date in prison was probably a bad one given the bullet blew out his rectum

 

[TurtleDude]

++ I have no problem with honest gun owners per se, but gun control in our country is as old as the Gunfight at the OK Corral, which was about restricting honest gun owners. Tombstone and other western towns banned guns. Dangerous items like guns/drugs/autos are all regulated in free societies. I do see the huge number of guns in our society as problematic, having myself almost been shot by cops who naturally but falsely assumed I was armed. My objective is to support laws the Supremes will tolerate and hopefull limit the number of unnecessary deaths.

you seem to confuse state with federal powers and ignore incorporation.

what laws do you think will accomplish what you want

 

[Nickyjo]

you seem to confuse state with federal powers and ignore incorporation.

what laws do you think will accomplish what you want

Universal background checks, magazine limits, removal of the special liability exemption that gun manufacturers have, stuff like that.

 

[Glitch]

Universal background checks

Held to be in violation of the Tenth Amendment by the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and struck from the illegal Brady Bill.

magazine limits

Held to be in violation of the Second Amendment by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2020.

Federal appeals court overturns California ban on high-capacity magazines - Washington Examiner

The National Rifle Association scored a massive victory in California on Friday when a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the state's ban on large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.Writing for the panel's majority, appellate Judge...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

removal of the special liability exemption that gun manufacturers have, stuff like that.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-92) is here to stay. The bill passed the House just 7 votes shy of a two-thirds majority, and it passed the Senate with just 2 votes short of a two-thirds majority. So there will be no repealing this law. You and your ilk will just have to find some other way to impose your anti-American fascism, because frivolous law suits against gun manufacturers won't cut it.

Any judge who even attempts to hear a case against gun manufacturers can be impeached for violating the above law.

 

[calamity]

you seem to confuse state with federal powers and ignore incorporation.

what laws do you think will accomplish what you want

Laws banning irresponsible gun owners from possessing them would go a long way. Cases in point: someone who pulls guns on innocents for kicks or a moron like Boebert who allows her young child to play around loaded guns.

 

[Rucker61]

Universal background checks

In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.

In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 0.8% come from gun shows. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

What does a UBC do to prevent criminals from getting guns?

California's comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality

In 1991, California implemented a law that mandated a background check for all firearm purchases with limited exceptions (comprehensive background che…

www.sciencedirect.com

, magazine limits

What limit is needed? Denver said 20; Colorado said 15; California uses 10; New York wanted 7; Oregon has proposed just 5.

Given that there will still be over 2 billion "large capacity magazines" in circulation, what's the point with this law?

, removal of the special liability exemption that gun manufacturers have, stuff like that.

Why should a manufacturer be liable a crime committed by someone not legally allowed to possess a gun? How can they prevent a felon from shooting someone with a gun acquired illegally?