93EXCivic said:
In reply to bobzilla :
Because Western Europe, Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand have people gunned down at the rate we do.
I'm curious why this is brought up every page or so. What those countries do or don't do has nothing to do with the USA. They don't have the 2nd Amendment to their constitutions. Their governments are allowed to do whatever they like to their citizens as far as guns are concerned.
The 2nd Amendment is there to stop that from happening in this county. To specifically limit the power of the government to tell the citizens they may not own a gun.
If you want to change that, you have to amend the Constitution.
In reply to Toyman! :
Expect the Second Amendment specifically mentions a well regulated militia.
Well a new day has brought about new information. The Highland Park Police did file a "Clear and Present Danger" report to prevent the shooter from obtaining a FOID. And he was issued one because the checks came back clean with no reports in the system (hence me saying loophole) but the new info today is that the reason why it wasn't there is because the State Police didn't think the Highland Park report had enough merit to be flagged, so bobzilla you are right, this one was ineffective government. Why one LE agency has the ability to ignore another is beyond me.
http://The New York Times: Highland Park Shooting Reveals Limits of Illinois’s Gun Restrictions. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/us/highland-park-shooting-guns.html
A respect point to you Javalin for clarifying something you believed not to be the case.
93EXCivic said:
In reply to Toyman! :
Expect the Second Amendment specifically mentions a well regulated militia.
And the 9th Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words if the Constitution does not deny a right specifically then we retain it. Also known as Natural Rights. With the 9th it does not matter which interpretation of the 2nd is followed; we still retain the right to own and carry weapons. This includes swords, etc, by a strick reading.
93EXCivic said:
In reply to Toyman! :
Expect the Second Amendment specifically mentions a well regulated militia.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms in the United States, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home...
Toyman! said:
93EXCivic said:
In reply to Toyman! :
Expect the Second Amendment specifically mentions a well regulated militia.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms in the United States, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home...
And I think that was a terrible ruling.
In reply to 93EXCivic :
It doesn't matter what you think. That's the whole point of the Constitution and the Amendments.
It keeps the whims of the legislature, police, and the bureaucrats from walking all over our rights without a significant effort to change the constitution by a large majority of the citizens.
Edit: Do you like the 4th amendment? How about the 1st? Would you like for the legislature to have the authority to just ignore those?
In reply to Javelin :
Its why I look for as many sources on these stories as possible and never follow/believe just one. More and more we are seeing ineffective implementation of the tools at hand as an excuse to enact more legislation to restrict the rights of those that are not at fault.
In reply to bobzilla :
This is why I'm pro universal background checks. Instead of trying to get 50+ different laws to work how they were written or intended and plug every little government hole, we could wipe it all with one system.
I know pro 2A doesn't want to be on a database, and that's not what I'm proposing. It should be a "you don't have 2A rights" database. So every single time someone tries to buy a weapon the system is checked and if you're not on the database than it should be green light and walk out the door with your firearm same day.
Think red light, yellow light, green light. You definitely don't have 2A rights (convicted violent felons, etc) it pops up red the store calls LE. If there's a hold or more info is needed, it's yellow and you wait 3 days while LE gets it figured out. Green and you're good.
I wish that's how it was anyway.
In reply to Javelin :
The problem with that line of thinking is the No Fly List. How did you get on it? How do you get off of it when it's not correct? I know a few people that have been put on the NFL and it took several months, thousands in attorney fees to prove that A.) it wasn't them and 2.) they shouldn't be on that list. I know for a fact that it would be as abused if not more than the current NFL. In this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not prove you're innocent because we say you're guilty. There has to be a check and balance. Due process. There isn't even with the current NICS program. You can find yourself on the no-go list out of no where.
It's like the red flag laws that have been abused to dox/swat people. There needs to be due process and the accused the benefit of the doubt and not guilty until proven innocent. That's not how this counr was founded and its soething that will undoubedly be abused. We've already seen the California gov release the names, addresses of all licensed gun owners in retaliation for an unfavorable SC ruling. What else can they do?
Toyman! said:
In reply to 93EXCivic :
It doesn't matter what you think. That's the whole point of the Constitution and the Amendments....
I don't think he was criticizing the Constitution, just the interpretation of it. In that case, it doesn't matter what he thinks, but it does matter what the SC thinks, and that thinking tends to "wander" as the years go by.
Regarding Heller decision: From what I can tell, the interpretation of the 2A is essentially that the "bear arms" part of it is considered the essential part because it is required to fulfill the second part "militia"... but, that is not exactly a 100% solid interpretation. Of note is that this was a narrow decision (5-4).
Also of note is that although it is essential to allow an armed populace to have a well regulated militia, that does not really translate well to modern times. Currently, the militia is essentially the National Guard, and I don't think there is any National Guard units (that I know of) that relies on the individuals possession of arms.
I guess the point here is that this interpretation is far from obvious (it does read a bit contrived), and there is clearly room for interpretation, and potentially, change of interpretation.
The majority held that the Second Amendment’s preamble, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is consistent with this interpretation when understood in light of the framers’ belief that the most effective way to destroy a citizens’ militia was to disarm the citizens. The majority also found that United States v. Miller supported an individual-right rather than a collective-right view, contrary to the dominant 20th-century interpretation of that decision.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment
https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller
In reply to bobzilla :
That's why I want it to be all new. The red list is literally maintained by the courts only, so you have to have been convicted period. Yellow is where your red flag laws and other holds issued by a judge or LE go and keeping the 3 day proceed to sale lights a fire under LE to review the request and get it right. It would replace NICS completely.
aircooled said:
at although it is essential to allow an armed populace to have a well regulated militia, that does not really translate well to modern times. Currently, the militia is essentially the National Guard, and I don't think there is any National Guard units (that I know of) that relies on the individuals possession of arms.
the National Guard is a State run "militia" and not a true "citizens militia" in the traditional sense. IT's still reliant on US military training, standards, equipment etc and fills in place of the current federal standing army. It's like a reserves for the reserves.
I agree, but it is still the only thing in the US that is close to a militia, at least in relation to what the 2A is referring to, since that was for the intent of national defense.
I believe National Guard units can be called up for National defense in some circumstances so that ties it in a bit better.
In reply to Javelin :
That's pretty much how it works except for person to person sales.
In reply to Javelin :
Let me start by saying I don't necessarily disagree with you.
My opinion is your wish runs afoul of the 10th Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the feds can institute gun control or require background checks for the purchase of weapons. This is how we end up with a 50-state patchwork.
My other issue is the government sucks at everything it does. It is staffed by incompetents. Any system they implement won't work or will end up like the no-fly list. Mostly useless.
Toyman! said:
My other issue is the government sucks at everything it does. It is staffed by incompetents. Any system they implement won't work or will end up like the no-fly list. Mostly useless.
Despite being on the far opposite end of the political spectrum from Toyman (from what I can tell), I think we overlap here a significant amount.
I disagree on how to resolve this, but I share the frustration. Possibly more frustration is the general 'side' I support doesn't seem to see the problem or want to take steps to fix it.
I think its possible to have "big" as in far-reaching government without having "big" inefficient ineffective bureaucratic nightmare government.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Let me put it this way.
If our government wasn't so universally useless at everything it does, we could have a discussion about universal healthcare.
But they are. I would rather die because I can't afford the treatment than die because some bureaucrat was too useless to do their job in a timely manner.
The FBI can't keep its current background system up to date because government employees are too incompetent, lazy, or stupid to add names to the list. Why would we expect a new system to be any better?
I wouldn't trust them to watch my dogs.
Toyman! said:
I wouldn't trust them to watch my dogs.
Good god no! Those are my kids. Plus they have a track record of just shooting the dog because its easier.
Toyman! said:
In reply to ProDarwin :
Let me put it this way.
If our government wasn't so universally useless at everything it does, we could have a discussion about universal healthcare.
But they are. I would rather die because I can't afford the treatment than die because some bureaucrat was too useless to do their job in a timely manner.
The FBI can't keep its current background system up to date because government employees are too incompetent, lazy, or stupid to add names to the list. Why would we expect a new system to be any better?
I wouldn't trust them to watch my dogs.
I'm with you here.
I don't want to give up yet. I think if we could fix it so it wasn't so useless it would open up a lot of common ground on issues so we could have important discussions. Like gun control, or universal healthcare, or [insert issue here].
I would like to see some(many) take the stance of "fix how govt programs operate" instead of "govt program all the things" or "govt program zero of the things"
I think the government is fairly efficient given the ridiculous constraints they place upon themselves. Each group is so silod and barely works together.
anyways.
In reply to ProDarwin :
The problem is there's no money in "fix how gov programs operate" and theres a lot of money in "govt program all the things". Unfortunately its all about the $$ with the gov.
