Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

[Stevenson]

I turn on CNN and there’s a teenager yelling at me about gun control...

I switch to FOX and there talking about if we should reimplement prayer in the schools to see if that could help...

This ain’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Those teenagers have every right to yell, and they should be yelling. At least people are starting to listen and talk now because of their yelling.

 

[MarAzul]

Then it just seems weird that you demand suggestions that don't infringe,

>>>Well, he doesn't want to talk about an amendment. He said he wants the states to infringe.

Now, whether you WANT that or not doesn't change whether it COULD be constitutional, if through the proper channels.

>>> This part, I do not know what you are referring to.

 

[Cippy91]

 

[AFully22]

Those teenagers have every right to yell, and they should be yelling. At least people are starting to listen and talk now because of their yelling.

Oh I agree. I was just trying to point out the stark contrast and how seemingly far off we are from any real action of the consensus.

 

[jonnyboy]

The original intent of the phrase "shall not be infringed" was that you shouldn't be like this guy:

barfo

Ah, the Michael Moore defense. See, it makes sense because the second ammendment was a product of the 1700s, and so were muskets. The Natives really lose in this scenario, they only get tomahawks.

 

[riverman]

Ah, the Michael Moore defense. See, it makes sense because the second ammendment was a product of the 1700s, and so were muskets. The Natives really lose in this scenario, they only get tomahawks.

the joke was the fringe on his jacket....don't know how you get Michael Moore from that

 

[Further]

So just for the sake of clarity, you want the Constitution to be meaningless? Is that a fair take?

Not fair at all. I think you bend it to your conservative whims.

However, I do think time and advancements need to be considered as well. Firearms today are not the same as firearms in 1787.

 

[Further]

So just for the sake of clarity, you want the Constitution to be meaningless? Is that a fair take?

Just so you understand I’m not in support of the Federal govt banning guns. I’d like them to ban ancillary devises, put money towards mental health, provide a robust background check system and make sure those who pose a threat to the population are restricted. I think the Feds could also require tight regulations on ammunition. But I’d like states th pass more restrictive gun bans, age limits, firearm quantity limits.

But here’s the kicker, it doesn’t matter what you or I want or believe. The tide is changing. It may result in an amendment if the SC ends up siding with you, but one way of another guns are going to be much more tightly regulated soon. It might not be this tragedy that moves the needle the rest of the way, but as long as guns are so ubiquitous more tragedies will follow and the general population is getting fed up.

The 2nd amendment has been a single issue voting topic for about 5-10% of the right for some time, and that’s been enough to really fortify the rights position amongst politicians and get them to vote accordingly. Well, there is now a growing number of people, many Republicans included who are going to start making firearm restrictions a single issue topic on the other side, and as that side increases and your side decreases you will see politicians, even Republican ones acquiescing to the new voting block.

To quote good ol Bob Dylan “the times they are a changing”

 

[MarAzul]

I’d like states th pass more restrictive gun bans, age limits, firearm quantity limits.

So you do want to see the right infringed. Just lack the honesty to admit it.

 

[Further]

So you do want to see the right infringed. Just lack the honesty to admit it.

No - you misinterpret- no rights are being infringed by state regulations. That what 8 of the 9 justices believe.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

No - you misinterpret- no right are being infringed by state regulations. That what 8 of the 9 justices believe.

I read an article that said the 2008 ruling was about federal infringement but if a state infringes they may hear another case.

 

[MarAzul]

That boy in the school was not in any militia.

Actually this is not true. The militia is;

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1) National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.





The fellow is part of the unorganized militia. In practice we regulate the dickens out of (1) and do little with (2).
In the past we have call them to duty, the last time it was called the draft, administered by your local Draft board.
I think young men still must register upon reaching the age of 18 although they do not get called as it stands now.

The use of the militia in the 2nd amendment in my view is one of the reasons for the right that shall not be infringed.
However, It is not the only reason. As at least Madison knew, we the people have the God given right to defend ourselves and our rights with the force of arms when necessary. This has been a long standing right recognized in Natural Law.

 

[Further]

if I interpret the 1st amendment to mean I can scream fire in a crowded movie theater then I would be misinterpreting my rights. The justices have clearly spoken on that issue and no such right exists.

 

[MarAzul]

no right are being infringed by state regulations. That what 8 of the 9 justices believe.

I think you are in error. But I will not argue it further with you. You are in favor of the infringement and therefore do not support the Constitution.

 

[Further]

I read an article that said the 2008 ruling was about federal infringement but if a state infringes they may hear another case.

That could be the case, but there have been many state restrictions that have gone into place, cases brought and the SC has not accepted any of them. Usually indicates sellers law.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

That could be the case, but there have been many state restrictions that have gone into place, cases brought and the SC has not accepted any of them. Usually indicates sellers law.

Wouldn't it suck if some state does something really drastic and they end up throwing out all state restrictions?

 

[Further]

Wouldn't it suck if some state does something really drastic and they end up throwing out all state restrictions?

Well any ruling on any topic only applies to the case being decided. So, for something to overturn settled law would most likely not be a state overstepping boundaries (which certainly happens) but more likely it would be from a new slate of SC justices going with what had previously been a minority decision, it could certainly happen, I suspect if republicans hold the presidency for a couple more terms then gun legislation could become impossible, interpreters happen when absolute clarity doesn’t exist.

 

[MARIS61]

if I interpret the 1st amendment to mean I can scream fire in a crowded movie theater then I would be misinterpreting my rights. The justices have clearly spoken on that issue and no such right exists.

Google before you spread commonly known fake news.

You can scream fire in a movie theater (do you really think they'd specify the theater had to be "crowded")?

 

[Denny Crane]

Now we need to get those states infringing.

They do. If you care to, look at the history of gun cases in the courts.

In fact, SCOTUS just refused cert for a California case where the plaintiff sued over a 10 day waiting period to buy a gun.

If you think about it just a little, a 10 day waiting period for getting an abortion is roughly equivalent in terms of infringment.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well any ruling on any topic only applies to the case being decided. So, for something to overturn settled law would most likely not be a state overstepping boundaries (which certainly happens) but more likely it would be from a new slate of SC justices going with what had previously been a minority decision, it could certainly happen, I suspect if republicans hold the presidency for a couple more terms then gun legislation could become impossible, interpreters happen when absolute clarity doesn’t exist.

Federal gun legislation isn't possible without repealing the 2nd, or rewriting it. It would be unconstitutional, aside from being fascist and oppressive.

SCOTUS did exactly what you say would most not be likely. See the Heller case.

 

[Denny Crane]

if I interpret the 1st amendment to mean I can scream fire in a crowded movie theater then I would be misinterpreting my rights. The justices have clearly spoken on that issue and no such right exists.

You can shout "fire." No government law can prevent you. Nothing short of restraining you and putting a gag on you can prevent it.

You absolutely have the right to shout "fire." But as with any freedom, you can abuse it.

Freedom to own a gun. Shooting someone is abusing the right.

You can be sued in court for shouting "fire," but that is after the fact. Get it? You can put someone in the electric chair for shooting someone and killing them, but that too is after the fact. Get it?

We really don't want to make short-sighted but feel good changes that end up restraining us all and gagging us all.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Federal gun legislation isn't possible without repealing the 2nd, or rewriting it. It would be unconstitutional, aside from being fascist and oppressive.

SCOTUS did exactly what you say would most not be likely. See the Heller case.

Interestingly, looking back at SCOTUS gun-related rulings, one of the most significant appears to be U.S. v. Miller (1939), in which SCOTUS decision specifically stated that "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia," and that "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [firearm] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

The other one you reference--DC v Heller--supports this interpretation, saying that "Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I think you are in error. But I will not argue it further with you. You are in favor of the infringement and therefore do not support the Constitution.

Your definition of "infringement" differs from the Supreme Court's, who specifically said in the Heller ruling that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". There are acceptable and reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms, such as concealed weapons restrictions, licensure requirements, and prohibition of possession by felons.

 

[MarAzul]

There are acceptable and reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms, such as concealed weapons restrictions, licensure requirements, and prohibition of possession by felons.

In the case of felons, we have agreed to take the felons rights period, not just his right to bear arms, but even worse, his right to freedom and the pursuit happiness. Sometimes even his life. So I do not see an infringement of a right here, but the taking or suspending of rights for failure to uphold the bargain, being a law abiding citizen.
The license and concealed weapons restrictions are infringements, in my view, but they do not remove the right.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The license and concealed weapons restrictions are infringements, in my view, but they do not remove the right.

Precisely--SCOTUS holds that some things that you view as infringements are actually simply acceptable restrictions. It stands to reason, then, that other restrictions which you might also believe to be infringements (eg, unconstitutional) would also not be viewed as such by the Supreme Court.

This is why I see it as unreasonably dismissive when you say things like, "You are in favor of the infringement and therefore do not support the Constitution." According to prior SCOTUS rulings, one can be in favor of what you see as infringement and still support the Constitution, because it is simply your definition of "infringement" which differs.

 

[MarAzul]

This is why I see it as unreasonably dismissive when you say things like, "You are in favor of the infringement and therefore do not support the Constitution."

Unreasonable you say. And I say it is simply factual that when you infringe on what is not to be infringed, you are simply nibbling away at a right you would rather not have, or you are changing the meaning of the word, infringed to accomplish the same end. If you are going to infringe then the honest way is to amend.
When we can no longer agree on the meaning of the words used then the Constitution becomes less clear with each event. Yes sir, I do see this as the game plan by many that easily ignore it, or even find it pesky.

The courts are not in place to find "acceptable" but unlisted "exceptions" to the Constitution or the words used. The amendment process is in place to alter the word used or the basic meaning, when that is your intent. Now some do this all the time. That is a problem. Read Roe vs Wade, what a load of shit.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

So what about dishonorable discharges from the military? That's the feds taking away someone's gun rights for life.

Good? Bad? Unconstitutional?

 

[MarAzul]

Precisely--SCOTUS holds that some things that you view as infringements are actually simply acceptable restrictions.

Another example of arms being infringed that "everyone" finds acceptable! Look at the way machine guns were originally taken away from our rights.
They infringed with pure subterfuge. Requiring a "tax" be paid. You needed a tax stamp to show it was legal. The catch was the government would never issue the stamp. Now that sort of shit make a mockery of the Constitution. I know it is cumbersome and heavy to pass amendment but it is not intended to be done by a simple majority. Doing it by acceptable restrictions by a court is even worse, making a complete mockery of the Constitution and the court.

Some where along the line they did sort of correct the procedures with machine guns but it is still an unlisted infringement. Where as the 2nd should be clarified for all to see. Including the right to defend yourself and your rights with force of arms when necessary. Defense being the keyword here as apposed
there is no right of individuals to bear arm for offensive purposes. That belongs to the sovereign only. Thus we get ride of Machine guns as a right. Perhaps the bar should be somewhat lower. I am open to suggestion here.

 

[MarAzul]

So what about dishonorable discharges from the military? That's the feds taking away someone's gun rights for life.

Good? Bad? Unconstitutional?

Usually the negative discharge is the result of the military justice system. So in that sense not much different than the courts taking your rights.
But I am not an expert and do not know the whole store. We had a JAG person in the forum at one time?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Another example of arms being infringed that "everyone" finds acceptable! Look at the way machine guns were originally taken away from our rights.
They infringed with pure subterfuge. Requiring a "tax" be paid. You needed a tax stamp to show it was legal. The catch was the government would never issue the stamp. Now that sort of shit make a mockery of the Constitution. I know it is cumbersome and heavy to pass amendment but it is not intended to be done by a simple majority. Doing it by acceptable restrictions by a court is even worse, making a complete mockery of the Constitution and the court.

Some where along the line they did sort of correct the procedures with machine guns but it is still an unlisted infringement. Where as the 2nd should be clarified for all to see. Including the right to defend yourself and your rights with force of arms when necessary. Defense being the keyword here as apposed
there is no right of individuals to bear arm for offensive purposes. That belongs to the sovereign only. Thus we get ride of Machine guns as a right. Perhaps the bar should be somewhat lower. I am open to suggestion here.

You do realize that it is the Constitution itself that imbues the SCOTUS with the right and responsibility to interpret the Constitution, yes? You place significant value on Article V (which actually only states that the amendment process should be used when Congress deems it necessary), but seem to ignore Article III, Section 2 which states that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution". Their defining the word "infringed" is not a mockery of the Constitution, but in keeping with its express detailing of their responsibility.