Gunman in shooting spree at Florida high school. Many injuries. ...What is wrong in the USA? - Page 26 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14891592
Yesterday:

POLITICS & ELECTIONS Oregon passes gun control bill aimed at domestic abusers

Updated Feb 23, 1:22 PM; Posted Feb 22, gfriedman@oregonian.com, The Oregonian/OregonLive

Gov. Kate Brown will sign a bill the Legislature sent her Thursday to ban convicted domestic abusers and stalkers from buying or owning guns.

Brown praised lawmakers for passing the bill, saying it will keep guns from dangerous people. She said bipartisan support for the proposal reflects many Americans' desire for more restrictions on owning guns.

The bill that the Oregon Senate approved Thursday, House Bill 4145, would close a loophole in Oregon's gun laws that allow convicted domestic abusers and stalkers to legally buy and own firearms if they aren't married to or living with the victim and they don't have children together.


Victor Saturday

No. You're confusing gun laws with guns.
Last edited by Stormsmith on 25 Feb 2018 01:01, edited 1 time in total.
#14891595
Private car ownership has social costs but almost no societal benefit, while guns have a huge social benefit. Gun owners bring criminals to justice, dead or alive as the old saying goes.


:lol: :lol:

Bad troll is bad troll.
The changes to gun laws doesn't require a constitional amendment, full stop.


Absolutely correct. We have all of the legal authority right now to ban assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and even perhaps handguns. We can certainly require licensing to carry any weapon. The SCOTUS has already upheld all of these. We could also prohibit the private sale of firearms unless through a dealer and then with a background check. We could shut down gun shows or require them to comply with the laws that apply to any retailer. All of this stuff could be done by a simple majority in the legislature and a willing president.

Note what Stormsmith just posted.
#14891597
Similar to existing laws in other states. Any move to restrict "assault weapons" or magazine capacity won't fly. Maybe raising age to 21 would.


On the contrary. Over 20% of states already do restrict assault weapons.
#14891601
Cheers, Dr Lee

In the 1990s automatic rifles were banned for 10 years, I think. I presume it was contested up to SCOTUS. I remember reading Judge Scalia's contribution as being oddly, or unusually unclear. (He gave little in the way of examples to illustrate his point). He didn't seem to have a problem with the concept, though

Also, this

Prior to the 1920s, there was little talk of gun control except at a state level, and many of those laws were aimed at keeping weapons out of the hands of African-Americans in southern states rather than regulating firearms more generally. In 1927, though, Congress reacted to the mob violence of Prohibition with the first federal gun restriction ever. The law banned the mail-order sale of handguns or any other concealable firearm.

Likewise, it was mobsters (and their predilection for "Tommy Gun" or Thompson submachine gun) who inspired Congress' second act of gun control, the National Firearms Act of 1934. This act taxed firearms under 18 inches (46 centimeters) in length and required registration of those same guns — a restriction later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1968, because it might require gun owners to self-incriminate if they attempted to register a weapon illegal in their home state, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The registration requirement was removed from later versions of the law.


For other examples, see https://www.livescience.com/26252-milestones-gun-control-history.html
#14891604
Just to address some incorrect information:
Stormsmith wrote:There are school shootings ever week. 18 from Jan 1 to Florida. That's 6 weeks or 3 per week.
To be honest, only 3 of these shootings involved anyone being injured or even killed. They call any discharge of a firearm on a school grounds as a school shooting, even if no one is hurt. A man committing suicide on a weekend ast a school is among those 18 school shootings. Still, 3 shootings/massacres is entirely too much.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no ... ca28c6b118

Semi-automatic rifles should be banned in the USA. Full stop.

Note: I am not talking about hunting rifles or pistols that people can use for self-defense. A semi-automatic rifle is not a self defense weapon any more than a rocket launcher is.
#14891609
Stormsmith wrote:No. You're confusing gun laws with guns.


If thats the case then laws regarding guns would not get struck down for violating the second amendment. The laws themselves, usually controls, have often been viewed by the Supreme Court as violating a free citizen's right to bear arms. Its not just guns v. no-guns. That absurdly simplistic.
#14891612
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If thats the case then laws regarding guns would not get struck down for violating the second amendment. The laws themselves, usually controls, have often been viewed by the Supreme Court as violating a free citizen's right to bear arms. Its not just guns v. no-guns. That absurdly simplistic.


Again, the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of the size of magazines or clips or whatever you wish to call them. So there is no "cover" given to the discussion on clip size. Obviously, while an attacker is re-loading, they are not firing the weapon, giving students time to leave the scene and/or armed defenders be it teachers, security, or other law enforcement, time to move in and take out or take down the active shooter.

Why would anyone be opposed to limits on clip size?
#14891617
4cal wrote:Again, the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of the size of magazines or clips or whatever you wish to call them. So there is no "cover" given to the discussion on clip size. Obviously, while an attacker is re-loading, they are not firing the weapon, giving students time to leave the scene and/or armed defenders be it teachers, security, or other law enforcement, time to move in and take out or take down the active shooter.

Why would anyone be opposed to limits on clip size?


Do you have any idea how long it takes to do a mag change in an AR-15?
#14891618
4cal wrote:Again, the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of the size of magazines or clips or whatever you wish to call them. So there is no "cover" given to the discussion on clip size. Obviously, while an attacker is re-loading, they are not firing the weapon, giving students time to leave the scene and/or armed defenders be it teachers, security, or other law enforcement, time to move in and take out or take down the active shooter.

Why would anyone be opposed to limits on clip size?


I was not addressing that argument, only those that claimed that the 2nd amendment is meant to protect the bare private ownership of an arm and nothing else whatoever and that gun controls laws have nothing to due with the constitutional amendment in question. My point is that the Supreme Court disagrees with that interpretation and has and will strike down gun control laws if they feel such infringes with the right, and the right's purpose, as designed by the founders.

Likewise, I was also addressing the argument that popular desire for gun control was grounds for its needing to be legislated, my point was that such a claim was exactly why our government was intentionally designed to NOT be a democracy in the first place, so that popular passion and whim did not dictate policy. Changing U.S. laws pertaining to constitutional rights is supposed to be difficult, it was difficult by design so that the mob and no one branch of government could infringe upon the rights of others simply because they got fired up over a recent tragedy or disaster.

Thats all.

BUT, I can tell you right now, that the Supreme court would see clip-size regulations as being in the perview of the states and would likely reject federal legislation on such. Further, if some states tried to pull a "one-bullet" limit for all clips...(like dumb-ass California would likely try to pull), I guarantee the Supreme Court would strike down all clip requirements nationwide is response to the litigation that would invariably result.

In Constitutional law, part of the grounds for interpreting a law's constitutionality stems from its potential implications in limiting a person's rights....I promise that a "one-bullet clip" limit would come up and be seen as violating the rights of free citizens and such a possibility would be a consideration in the Court's decision. I'll bet my right testicle on it.
#14891638
Godstud wrote:Semi-automatic rifles should be banned in the USA. Full stop.

Note: I am not talking about hunting rifles or pistols that people can use for self-defense. A semi-automatic rifle is not a self defense weapon any more than a rocket launcher is.

Our national self-defense is predicated on such weapons, and the purpose of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about the militia (all able-bodied men) having the right to keep and bear weapons appropriate for participation in a militia.

Victorious Spolia wrote:In Constitutional law, part of the grounds for interpreting a law's constitutionality stems from its potential implications in limiting a person's rights....I promise that a "one-bullet clip" limit would come up and be seen as violating the rights of free citizens and such a possibility would be a consideration in the Court's decision. I'll bet my right testicle on it.

It's pointless either way, since gun control is strictly commerce clause. You cannot buy or sell things that have been banned, but you can make them yourself. That used to be quite an imposition. With 3D printing, all that stuff is easy peasy now.
#14891639
The US has a well-maintained militia. It's called the National Guard. You want to bear weapons like that, go fucking join it.

You do not need a semi-automatic rifle for self defense, and pretending that the Founding Fathers had AR-15s in mind when they made this, is hilarious.

The Second Amendment was made when the USA was will a revolutionary country. It's not anymore. Amendments mean that you can change them. The Constitution is not static.
#14891643
Godstud wrote:The US has a well-maintained militia. It's called the National Guard. You want to bear weapons like that, go fucking join it.


That is not how the Supreme Court has interpreted the militia clause.

Godstud wrote:You do not need a semi-automatic rifle for self defense, and pretending that the Founding Fathers had AR-15s in mind when they made this, is hilarious.


Regardless, if it is the preferred weapon for self-defense, the Court ruled recently that it would be unconstitutional to ban a whole class of firearm:


On November 20, 2007, the Supreme Court granted (PDF) the petition for certiorari. The Court framed the question for which it granted review as follows: “Whether the following provisions – D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 – violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The briefs on the merits by the District of Columbia and respondent Dick Anthony Heller, as well as amicus briefs by some 67 “friends of the court,” have been collected here.

In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. It similarly found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right. The Court said it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the D.C. licensing requirement.


https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Godstud wrote:The Second Amendment was made when the USA was will a revolutionary country. It's not anymore.


Technically, the framers intended the USA to always remain a revolutionary country in order to avoid the encroachment of the state.

Godstud wrote:Amendments mean that you can change them. The Constitution is not static.


This is true.
#14891646
I am sure the Founding Fathers also didn't know that Americans could kill so many other Americans, and children, with those gun, or they would have changed it.

How long?
About 2 seconds.
#14891647
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I was not addressing that argument, only those that claimed that the 2nd amendment is meant to protect the bare private ownership of an arm and nothing else whatoever and that gun controls laws have nothing to due with the constitutional amendment in question. My point is that the Supreme Court disagrees with that interpretation and has and will strike down gun control laws if they feel such infringes with the right, and the right's purpose, as designed by the founders.

Likewise, I was also addressing the argument that popular desire for gun control was grounds for its needing to be legislated, my point was that such a claim was exactly why our government was intentionally designed to NOT be a democracy in the first place, so that popular passion and whim did not dictate policy. Changing U.S. laws pertaining to constitutional rights is supposed to be difficult, it was difficult by design so that the mob and no one branch of government could infringe upon the rights of others simply because they got fired up over a recent tragedy or disaster.

Thats all.

BUT, I can tell you right now, that the Supreme court would see clip-size regulations as being in the perview of the states and would likely reject federal legislation on such. Further, if some states tried to pull a "one-bullet" limit for all clips...(like dumb-ass California would likely try to pull), I guarantee the Supreme Court would strike down all clip requirements nationwide is response to the litigation that would invariably result.

In Constitutional law, part of the grounds for interpreting a law's constitutionality stems from its potential implications in limiting a person's rights....I promise that a "one-bullet clip" limit would come up and be seen as violating the rights of free citizens and such a possibility would be a consideration in the Court's decision. I'll bet my right testicle on it.


Perhaps the court would entertain the opportunity to address the mag size; perhaps it would not. If it sends it back to the States, it would seemingly forfeit its ability to weigh in on the topic. Rolling back the idiocy of the 2nd amendment is a long process. This would be a good first step.
  • 1
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 42
I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]

As president, he can certainly stop it. Why sho[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s) […]

Europeans and Russians are educated, this makes t[…]