God, I hope not. I think Obama was exactly right about this at the second debate -- if you want to reduce handgun violence, invest in education and social support programs so that the people who would otherwise be packing get jobs instead. Urban gangs are not some foregone conclusion -- they're a result of a structure designed to create a permanent underclass. I'm not really interested in treating the symptom instead of the disease, especially when we have a constitutional right to bear symptoms.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
God, I hope not. I think Obama was exactly right about this at the second debate -- if you want to reduce handgun violence, invest in education and social support programs so that the people who would otherwise be packing get jobs instead. Urban gangs are not some foregone conclusion -- they're a result of a structure designed to create a permanent underclass. I'm not really interested in treating the symptom instead of the disease, especially when we have a constitutional right to bear symptoms.
I'll be honest I think they're just trying to rip into him because they can't not confirm him. He's too qualified. McCain said he wouldn't block him and if anyone was going to it would be McCain.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
We don't. A state can limit that "right."
Heller was wrong. People should challenge it instead of taking it for granted. Scalia made up new consitutional rights
NYCmetsfan
Banned
HAHA
Nah, Hagel will make it through, Congress just loves finding any reason to espouse their love for Israel for some reason.
Maybe. As I've posted before, I believe consistency requires that I take the same broad reading of the Second Amendment that I do of the Fifth and Fourteenth. Since I don't believe we need to ban guns, I don't find it necessary to come up with a contrived constitutional justification for doing so.
Well, good news is that the GOP finally seems to be toning down their rhetoric:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ompares-obamacare-to-holocaust_n_2591351.html
Notice how he didn't directly compare Obama to Hitler.
Progress!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ompares-obamacare-to-holocaust_n_2591351.html
Notice how he didn't directly compare Obama to Hitler.
Progress!
Does she realize the private insurance industry is getting millions of new, paying customers because of the ACA?
Black Mamba
Member
Gotta admit, I didn't see Godwin and Private Insurances happening, so kudos for that one.
Maybe in the same way that the death camps got millions of new customers.
(my phone was oddly unenthusiastic about autocorrect suggesting "death camps")
D:
soul creator
Member
was at my lady friend's place yesterday. Well, technically she's taking care of her Grandma's house while she's in the hospital, but apparently there was an old pistol in the household they found out about. Her uncle showed her how to load/unload it and everything, and she was showing me how small the gun was, but she was being a bit too casual when she was holding it, so it would end up being pointed at me.
I, of course, being the pansy (harhar) urban city boy liberal that I am commence to freak out, matrix dodge out of the way and tell her "TREAT THAT SHIT LIKE IT'S LOADED STOP POINTING THAT FUCKING THING AT ME I DON'T CARE HOW SURE YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT IT'S UNLOADED YO LOCK THAT SHIT UP B"
Oh, and she also casually mentioned to me that a while ago her grandma accidentally fired off a round, because, hey, the trigger is pretty light! I swear all those stats of accidental gun deaths flashed through my head during this entire conversation. Oh, and the brother of a friend of hers accidentally killed himself with a gun just a few weeks ago as well. I was stressed as fuck just looking at the thing. Fuuuck.
Anyways, as someone who is rarely, if ever around a gun, I thought it was interesting, lol. Yeah, sure, I guess I was a bit over the top...but fuck it, I'd rather be "irrationally" scared of guns, rather than being too casual around them.
I, of course, being the pansy (harhar) urban city boy liberal that I am commence to freak out, matrix dodge out of the way and tell her "TREAT THAT SHIT LIKE IT'S LOADED STOP POINTING THAT FUCKING THING AT ME I DON'T CARE HOW SURE YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT IT'S UNLOADED YO LOCK THAT SHIT UP B"
Oh, and she also casually mentioned to me that a while ago her grandma accidentally fired off a round, because, hey, the trigger is pretty light! I swear all those stats of accidental gun deaths flashed through my head during this entire conversation. Oh, and the brother of a friend of hers accidentally killed himself with a gun just a few weeks ago as well. I was stressed as fuck just looking at the thing. Fuuuck.
Anyways, as someone who is rarely, if ever around a gun, I thought it was interesting, lol. Yeah, sure, I guess I was a bit over the top...but fuck it, I'd rather be "irrationally" scared of guns, rather than being too casual around them.
You've got an old lady with a gun that has a history of randomly going off? Shit man I don't care who is holding that thing, I would not go anywhere near that shit. I mean I've been around guns a lot (my ex's dad was a cop and he'd be cleaning that thing every time I came over) but what you just described is just scary dude.
Although you may have overreacted you were right to be concerned. Too many gun owners are careless with their guns and don't know it. These are the very gun owners the NRA calls "good guys with guns" or "responsible gun owners".
Sirpopopop
Member
Heller is the law and it's not changing anytime soon. There is no FDR coming along with a nifty court packing plan to get Supreme Court Justices to change their mind.
Regardless, I wouldn't be so dismissive of individual rights arguments. They do have merit.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Are you talking about "the people" being collective or individual? Stevens has a pretty good retort to that
There are not different readings of the phrase. The phrase means different things. Its on page 9 of his dissent.
I don't think we need ban guns but we need to better regulate them. By making them a "right" we're limiting the government's ability to do just that.
I actually witnessed an accidental shooting once. A friend of ours had come home from Iraq (the first one) and was showing off a Russian pistol he'd gotten there and managed to accidentally shoot another friend, who was sitting on a couch across from him. No fatalities, as the bullet went through his bicep into the couch, but we were all pretty damn shocked.
Black Mamba
Member
lol?
LOL
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't really see it having a lot of merit. Since they individual rights people also argue for a limitation on that right that is not in the consitution. They create a right for a certain class of people. You can't hold that its an individual right the same as the 14th, and 4th amendment but restrict that right only to "law abiding citizens" the other rights aren't so limited.
If you want to read "the people" all the same criminals have the right to bare arms.
And you don't need court packing to change the law it was 5-4. If the make up changes, I'd like to see a state or city challenge it.
Rewatching the hagel confirmation and just saw Grahams questions. Even as a Jew, the congress is way too in love with everything Israel does especially with the current government thats done a lot of horrible racist and morally questionable things.
empty vessel
Member
As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent, "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right.' Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."
And there'll be no need for court packing. The court is likely at the height of its conservatism activism. Most of its decisions, like those of the Lochner era, will come to be repudiated in time. Granted, it won't be the very near future.
soul creator
Member
Damn. I'm a pretty optimistic, and reasonable dude overall. Around a gun though, I get pessimistic as hell, and will always assume the worst, lol.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Besada, say you do get bans on handguns. Would not a substitution effect occur with a switch to rifles? You just replaced one problem with another and rifles are more deadly than handguns in their ability to output more DPS. Shit, I just used an MMO term.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Rifles are hard to hide. You can't sneak up on someone with a Rifle the same as a handgun.
Edit: member status!
So GOP senators oppose Hagel because:
He isn't "hawkish" enough? Meaning he actually values human life and doesn't want to rush into more poorly planned wars.
Isn't supportive of Israel? Meaning he is still mostly supportive of Israel but tells it like he sees it sometimes.
Was right about the Iraq war? Meaning he was right about the Iraq war.
Is that about it?
He isn't "hawkish" enough? Meaning he actually values human life and doesn't want to rush into more poorly planned wars.
Isn't supportive of Israel? Meaning he is still mostly supportive of Israel but tells it like he sees it sometimes.
Was right about the Iraq war? Meaning he was right about the Iraq war.
Is that about it?
Pretty much. Specifically the second one.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Truth is treason in the empire of lies.
Ive never understood why politicians have to back Israel unconditionally. It makes no sense to me and I bet the majority of Americans would agree
Sirpopopop
Member
Individual rights folks simply believe that people can keep and bear arms. That's it. They ignore the militia part.
Sure they could have this right. However, the individual rights model doesn't preclude all regulation. Heller didn't go that far.
If you want Heller overturned any time soon within, let's say the next 2-3 years, you would. Barring any unexpected deaths on the court.
One of my idiot ex-roommates owned a shotgun of some kind and was showing it off to one of our friends. I was on my way to my room as he came out of his, shotgun in hand. I close my door, and about 2 minutes later I hear a VERY LOUD almost explosion-esque noise. I get out of my room and run to the living room and find out that my roommate accidentally blew a hole in the ceiling. Not sure how it went off exactly but he apparently didn't have any idea that the shotgun was loaded. The friend who he was showing it to was right next to him as it went off, and fortunately wasn't hurt, but was shaken up for the rest of the night. Pretty sure they stopped talking to each other after that.
Which brings me to a question I've had for a long time. When I heard the gun go off, like I said, it was super fucking loud. I mean, I was in my room with door closed and like 50 feet away from where it happened and it sounded like it went off right in my room. How do you guys keep from going deaf?
You wear ear protection when you've planned on shooting. Most people never accidentally fire a gun and most people are never in an unplanned situation where shooting is called for. Even police officers don't fire their guns very often at people.
There'd be some, sure. But experience in other countries suggests we'd still see a considerable reduction. Long guns aren't easily concealable, so unless you want people to think you're a nutjob, you're not going to take it out to the bar on Friday. So when you get into that argument, it's going to be fists you have at hand. The perception of gun homicide as a planned activity is part of the perception problem we have that so skews the discussion on firearms.
Most gun crimes are crimes of passion. We have a weapon on us when we lose our control, and we shoot someone. Often someone we love or at least know.
To be fair, I'd also want bans on public carry, except for going hunting or going to the range. I know it's difficult to tell where someone carrying a long gun is going, but it gives cops a reason to stop people toting for no reason. The rule of transporting, in my state at least, used to be that the weapon had to be unloaded in your trunk or locked in a rack. Not perfect, but it would still give people a few more seconds to think.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
How do they include regulation? Why do some people get the right and others not?
Its not the same as fire in a crowed theater limitation on free speech rights since thats the extent of the right not who it extends to it. Individual rights people argue for limitations on who can exercise that right that they pull out of thin air. Rights don't work that way at least constitutional rights.
I'm looking at 10-15 years. I'm rather young so thats still soon to me. I'd only be 30-40 then.
Sirpopopop
Member
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Where does scalia get the ability to limit that right? Why does he read this right differently than the first amendment?
Should have just pointed her to that new story about the number of people injured during guns shows on 'gun appreciation day'. These people treat firearms as their professional interest and hobby, and they still don't know what the fuck they're doing.
Sirpopopop
Member
Sure they can. As Scalia did, they'll point to the commentary of William Rawle:
"Rawle further said that the Second Amendment right ought not “be abused to the disturbance of the public peace,” such as by assembling with other armed individuals “for an unlawful purpose”—statements that make no sense if the right does not extend to any individual purpose."
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html)
A lot can change in 10-15 years. For example, who would have thought 10-15 years ago that Rick Santorum would have finished in second place in a primary?
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -Emerson
It's pretty obvious that an amendment like second is really different from the others and can't held to the same standard. No one dies from the fifth or the fourteenth. I don't see any problem in restricting this particular amendment until the problems it causes are eliminated. After all, no one gives a shit about the third amendment and justifiably so.
Where does the supreme court get the ability to do anything?
None of it is codified, it's all precedents and traditions, and such interpretive readings of the bill of rights are pretty much a tradition of the court at this point.
You mean the right to privacy amendments, from which we derive the right to abortions?
If you don't care what the constitution says, just say so -- it's a perfectly reasonable position. Much more reasonable than claiming that particular amendments are "obviously different."
Giant Panda
Member
From what I saw of the Hagel confirmation hearings he looked really weak and folded like a paper chair under the Republican onslaught. He'll fit into the Obama administration just fine.
I take a broad reading of the 9th. I view the 2nd and 3rd as outdated relics. I view the 10th as nothing but textual fluff that adds nothing to the constitution, mirroring the opinion of US V. Darby:
I actually view the 2nd similarly: It was basically stating the purpose for restricting congress's ability to appropriate an army for longer than biannual periods (as mentioned in Article 1, Section 8): The purpose was to allay fears by anti-federalists that the federal government would become as oppressive as the british empire, by making the federal government rely on standing armies run by the states.
I view amendments like the 15th, 19th, and 24th through a historical lens. None of these should have been necessary under a broad view of the 9th or 14th, which allows for the creation of new rights (held by the people and respected at ALL levels of government and law enforcement) through the federal judiciary and legislature as societal attitudes and opinions change naturally over time. Which is how it should be.
The constitution should not discuss things like who can marry who, or who can drink what kind of beverage. It should fundamentally be a government charter, describing how the government functions and how it relates to the people, the different branches and their purposes, etc. A framework.
You totally missed the point here. A "broad" interpretation of the fifth doesn't cause thousands of people to die every year. A right that enables violence is pretty different from a right of preserving oneself from legal action, and I feel it is pretty obvious that it needs to be treat differently. Like the third amendment, the second is a relic and if we're not going to repeal them they should be minimized or ignored.
Edit: what gaimeguy said mostly.
Precisely, it's a framework. I view the 2nd Amendment as a frame that we've all disregarded for the most part anyway. To me the framework the 2nd Amendment provided was that the country's defense would basically be provided by the people on a militia level, since that was the best way to go about it. By its very nature and wording it's a very framework Amendment to me. But it's a frame we've thrown out, since we now have a standing army made up not of the people from state militias that have to use their own guns. It's essentially the opposite of the frame they've envisioned, and thus I kind of think the whole thing needs to be thrown out and rewritten. It doesn't make any fucking sense anymore in this day and age and realistically we're all just stuffing it with what we want at this point.
Even in a very broad reading of that amendment, I have a hard time throwing out the context of the military rather than the civilian.
Really, I just wish it were a bit easier to modernize some of these things in an easier way, or that people didn't so highly regard the founding fathers so much that we can't. I mean don't get me wrong, what they wrote down and created was great. It's just some of what they wrote down was great for the 1700s, and really doesn't have any relevance now.
HanShotFirst
Member
Hahaha, He stands absolutely no chance against Corey Booker, no one does really.
We have a standing army that we simply renew funding for as a standard budgetary practice, and we also federalized the militias about 100 years into a common organization, the national guard, which consists of reserve forces from the army and air force, and is run by a 4-star general of the army or air force. So essentially, the national guard is a domestic federal standing army. Which means the 2nd amendment should be viewed as a worthless relic
Why can't others see this?
Why do so many people want to pass amendments restricting corporate personhood, or defining what marriage should be, or so many other things that have no business being issues explicitely covered by the framework of our country's governance?Bwuh? Maybe you missed my point -- many people believe abortions are murder, but the constitution guarantees a right to them in any case, so from their perspective it absolutely does kill thousands. I think this idea that some amendments are necessary and others are relics is pretty obviously a self-serving analysis rather than a principled one, especially since the evidence put forward to support it is literally nothing except that you feel that way. Again, if what you really mean is that you don't care what the constitution says and you would rather change it to say what you want it to say, just say so, so that we can talk about Platonic fantasy societies instead of the actual country we live in. Personally, again, I don't think banning guns is the correct place to start worrying about society's manifold ills (in fact, I think you can make a solid case that it's the result of a privileged misunderstanding of the current state of society).
This is absurd what you said here. No one who believes abortion is murder is OK with that reading. Even people who support the right to an abortion want to minimize the number of abortions. And the second is very directly enabling real murders in a way that the fifth never did. Unless your arguing that murder is actually a good thing what you're saying is nonsense.
The rest of your post sounds too much like one of those NRA talking points about how its society that's the problem, usually descending into blaming video games, drugs, gangs, etc, or whatever else that comes to mind. Sorry, that's just a huge distraction from the issue and we should not put those issues above that of guns.
Now now, it is a reality that with the exception of accidental deaths a lot of the gun deaths really do happen because of societal problems. Not that video games are doing it, but things like poverty and the class systems we still have really hurt people and sometimes force them into bad situations. If you reduce inequality and provide for people in a prosperous society your gun deaths will go down. It's not distracting from the issue. As much as I think there are some gun related things we can do the real issues should be combatting poverty and creating a prosperous society where people don't feel the need to rob or join a gang or whatever quite as much.
Guns make violence easier and do more damage when someone gets violent, and that's a good reason to think about limits on them, but we shouldn't forget that there is violence to begin with.
Giant Panda
Member
Would banning handguns really have greater benefits than costs though? I think there are many other things that could be done to reduce gun violence that would probably cost a lot less; we should explore those options first.
- Status