- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I came here to post that it would reduce them some, but not nearly as much as anti-gun idiots would like to think. Certainly not enough to forsake our basic human right to keep and bear arms.
It would increase the homicide rate dramatically, because somebody's got to collect all those guns and many of them aren't going along quietly.
lefties need men with guns to get rid of guns
They could give it a crack with women with guns..
It wouldn't matter to me if it completely eliminated those things. It would be flat unconstitutional, and that's the end of it. There is a good reason the Second Amendment is placed right after the First, but leftist authoritarians don't give a damn about either one. The Supreme Court has made clear that all the rights protected by the First Amendment and the right protected by the Second are fundamental. In fact it is only because the right to keep and bear arms IS fundamental that it applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Any law or other government action that restricts a fundamental right violates the constitutional guarantee of due process, unless the government can show it is necessary for a compelling government interest. That is the "strict scrutiny" standard, and in practice it is almost impossible to meet.
That is how basic and revered that right is--up there with the freedoms of speech and religion--and yet again and again on these forums, I see it casually dismissed--"We should do _________ with firearms, because it will make us all safer." These people all have their pipe dream solutions, and to hell with whether government has the authority to implement them. They sound like they are all sweetness and light, with their nice talk about safety. But it's an illusion. They are dangerous, and their impulses are totalitarian. I'll take my chances with armed criminals, rather than let these collectivist mutts trash one of the most important rights we enjoy.
I came here to post that it would reduce them some, but not nearly as much as anti-gun idiots would like to think. Certainly not enough to forsake our basic human right to keep and bear arms.
I can find nothing in the constitution that indicates government can find a reason to limit the 2A, in fact quite the opposite. It says shall not be infringed and I would say that is pretty clear what it means. Out of interest the courts do not determine what the constitution is supposed to mean to anyone. They have no power to do so. These are the peoples laws government must OBEY and officials swear to do exactly that.
It wouldn't matter to me if it completely eliminated those things. It would be flat unconstitutional, and that's the end of it. There is a good reason the Second Amendment is placed right after the First, but leftist authoritarians don't give a damn about either one. The Supreme Court has made clear that all the rights protected by the First Amendment and the right protected by the Second are fundamental. In fact it is only because the right to keep and bear arms IS fundamental that it applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Any law or other government action that restricts a fundamental right violates the constitutional guarantee of due process, unless the government can show it is necessary for a compelling government interest. That is the "strict scrutiny" standard, and in practice it is almost impossible to meet.
That is how basic and revered that right is--up there with the freedoms of speech and religion--and yet again and again on these forums, I see it casually dismissed--"We should do _________ with firearms, because it will make us all safer." These people all have their pipe dream solutions, and to hell with whether government has the authority to implement them. They sound like they are all sweetness and light, with their nice talk about safety. But it's an illusion. They are dangerous, and their impulses are totalitarian. I'll take my chances with armed criminals, rather than let these collectivist mutts trash one of the most important rights we enjoy.
It would increase the homicide rate dramatically, because somebody's got to collect all those guns and many of them aren't going along quietly.
enforcing a gun ban would probably cost more lives than would be allegedly saved by the full imposition of said law
lefties need men with guns to get rid of guns
They could give it a crack with women with guns..
If I wanted to kill someone, I'd find a way. If I wanted to kill myself, I'd find a way. Guns only work when a person pulls the trigger. So if people kill, why do away with guns?
In summary, the notion that less guns mean less violence is just absurd. Sadly, the ones who think that a piece of metal is at fault will never be convinced otherwise.
One handy thing about citing studies nearly 9 years old? It's already been debunked and/or its sources contradicted. Numerous times.
1) The order of amendments is completely and utterly irrelevant.There is a good reason the Second Amendment is placed right after the First, but leftist authoritarians don't give a damn about either one.
If you say soThe Supreme Court has made clear that all the rights protected by the First Amendment and the right protected by the Second are fundamental.
Or, not so casually.That is how basic and revered that right is--up there with the freedoms of speech and religion--and yet again and again on these forums, I see it casually dismissed--"We should do _________ with firearms, because it will make us all safer."
Funny, that's what leftists say about the far right. Go figure.They are dangerous, and their impulses are totalitarian.
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy ~ Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
The PDF won't let me copy/paste so you'll have to read it yourselves. The obvious answer of course is "No, banning firearms will not reduce murder and suicide".
Here's another PDF worth looking at.
Will Gun Control Make Us Safe? Debunking the Myths
Enjoy!
That's a bit more like it... much betterTo be completely accurate, strict scrutiny applies to government actions that restrict fundamental rights in both due process AND equal protection challenges. The general rule is that if a fundamental right is denied to everyone, it is a substantive due process problem.
Yes, I think they are well aware of the legal restrictions. However, as often happens with lawmakers on the right as well as the left, they are likely to push the line and let the courts hash it out.That is a very big question, because if strict scrutiny does apply, the people drafting gun laws will have to be awfully careful about how far they restrict the right.....
Not really. Ultimately, it depends on the will of the people.But all this may not last much longer. Unfortunately, strong protection of the right to keep and bear hangs on a single vote on the Supreme Court....
Very few people are genuinely advocating total bans. There are definitely some people like that out there, but most people are more interested in restricting ownership.If I wanted to kill someone, I'd find a way. If I wanted to kill myself, I'd find a way. Guns only work when a person pulls the trigger. So if people kill, why do away with guns?
And yet, it's the ones who think that "a piece of metal is at fault" are usually the ones demanding more data -- and being stopped by those who don't want the slightest restrictions on gun ownership. Go figure.In summary, the notion that less guns mean less violence is just absurd. Sadly, the ones who think that a piece of metal is at fault will never be convinced otherwise.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim courts may not interpret the Constitution. It's about as basic in constitutional law as it gets that the Supreme Court may do that, the principle having been established in Marbury v. Madison more than 200 years ago. At the same time, I think it's clear the Court does not have the final word on what the Constitution means. There are several ways for the other two branches, especially Congress, to limit the power of federal courts--including the Supreme Court. Congress is made up of legislators the people have elected, so the ultimate power to say what the Constitution means remains with the people. IF enough people wanted it badly enough, Congress could impeach and remove a Supreme Court justice, make a law reversing a decision by the Court, remove the Court's jurisdiction to hear cases involving a particular matter, and so on. But drastic measures like that are very unlikely.
I agree that it's pretty clear what "shall not be infringed" means. What the text of the Second Amendment does not say is just what the right that phrase refers to consists of. I believe Justice Scalia cleared that question up well in D.C. v. Heller, when he described exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms that were already widely acknowledged by 1791. The right that is codified in the Second Amendment is not a right to carry any firearm anyplace, at any time, any more than the right to free speech codified in the First Amendment is a right to say anything anyplace, at any time. No serious person would claim, for example, that the Constitution protects a right to defame a person, or to drive a sound truck through a residential neighborhood at 3 A.M., blasting loud messages. And no serious person would claim the Constitution protects a right for a mental patient or a felon to bring a machine gun into a courtroom.
OK I'll bite how will it reduce them some? I'm the kind that likes to know how things work as that to me ensures the people proposing any law understand the functional mechanism, it is repeatable and results are guaranteed. I believe no government should be instituting laws with public money that have no chance of working. Government is not expected to waste our money.
Could you explain how this reduction works?
In this case, it may make a lot of sense to empower a court to temporarily remove guns from a person who is at high risk of suicide.
A ban wouldn't have much effect, not immediately anyway. You'd have to engage in major confiscation of firearms before you'd have an effect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?