So, the notion that armed guards will prevent shootings.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

They lose the privilege of owning a gun, but not any of their rights.

Since you apparently have such precise knowledge of the differences between rights and privileges, perhaps you could list those rights that government can never legally take away from an individual.

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

Since you apparently have such precise knowledge of the differences between rights and privileges, perhaps you could list those rights that government can never legally take away from an individual.

Of course. I've read lots of what your written and you're smarter than me so you could probably name them too.

[CHNOPS]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

Here again, the imprecision of the philosophy underlying the process of regulation that we go through, though it may result in the likelihood of the most dangerous weapons being regulated, is nothing like an "algorithm." If it was as simple as applying a formula, we would not be debating it.

Since one of the framer's intentions in the construct of the Second Amendment was to allow for the preservation of state militias in order for the collective citizenry to throw off an oppressive government by force, I will suggest that the default mindset when approaching the Constitutionality of firearms regulation ought to be for allowing personal ownership of as many firearms with as little regulation as possible.

In fact, that seems to me a preferable default mindset in any event: unfettered liberty favored over all but the most necessary constraints.

At bare minimum, the Supreme Court in affirming the individual Constitutional right to keep and bare arms did so, in the case of Heller, with an eye toward the lawful uses of firearms such as of self-defense, hunting and whatever recreational pleasure some find in inanimate target shooting or skeet. I would expect weapons suitable for these purposes to always enjoy Constitutional protection.

But the uniformity which the minimum Constitutional protection demands does not imply a uniform set of restrictions from state-to-state. This is the fallacy of approaching Constitutional interpretation through the search for "algorithms of restrictions" rather than the scope of rights to be protected.

Justice Scalia, in writing for the majority in Heller, addressed that point:

I think I may have been unclear.

"Arms," as understood contemporaneously, meant "the tools of warfare."

Guns are tools of warfare, to be sure, but so are bombs, gases, tanks, satellites, drones, grenades, rocket launchers, and so on.

The "algorithm" (my term again, not the court's or the framers') seems fairly straightforward on critical inspection: if any one weapon can allow one person to do disproportionate harm to many, we restrict or prohibit it outright.

We (global we) allow for the restriction of this Constitutionally granted right without much noise. There is not a National Nuclear Warhead Association lobbying for the rights of citizens to keep and bear nuclear rockets, nor a National Sarin Gas Association urging the widespread and responsible ownership of sarin gas. Yet when it comes to guns, that algorithm breaks down: some guns allow one person with a single weapon to do disproportionate harm to many, and we seem distinctly opposed to regulating them.

Why the exception for this single tool of warfare, as opposed to any other?

[BotanyBoy]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

So which amendment protects your right to remain alive?

No such thing champ...you exist only because the state allows it.

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by BotanyBoy

No such thing champ...you exist only because the state allows it.

That was my point.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

They lose the privilege of owning a gun, but not any of their rights.

I mean prisoners in general, not just those convicted of gun-related crimes.

[BotanyBoy]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

That was my point.

Right on...idk why everyone in murikuh keeps insisting that we have any or that we are a nation of free people, selling milk can land you in prison for fucks sake...#1 police/prison nation on earth. They will do whatever the fuck they want...

[the_kuntess]

Originally Posted by BotanyBoy

Right on...idk why everyone in murikuh keeps insisting that we have any or that we are a nation of free people, selling milk can land you in prison for fucks sake...#1 police/prison nation on earth. They will do whatever the fuck they want...

Yep, the US is right at the top of heap when it comes to per capita imprisonment.

There might be factors that skew these figures, you'd have to dig a little deeper to get a fair comparison.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

[BotanyBoy]

Originally Posted by the_kuntess

Yep, the US is right at the top of heap when it comes to per capita imprisonment.

There might be factors that skew these figures, you'd have to dig a little deeper to get a fair comparison.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Oh please...we have so many laws we can't even count all the fuckers....and that's just federal. The average citizen commits 3 felonies a day and doesn't even know it.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by CHNOPS

I think I may have been unclear.

"Arms," as understood contemporaneously, meant "the tools of warfare."

Guns are tools of warfare, to be sure, but so are bombs, gases, tanks, satellites, drones, grenades, rocket launchers, and so on.

The "algorithm" (my term again, not the court's or the framers') seems fairly straightforward on critical inspection: if any one weapon can allow one person to do disproportionate harm to many, we restrict or prohibit it outright.

We (global we) allow for the restriction of this Constitutionally granted right without much noise. There is not a National Nuclear Warhead Association lobbying for the rights of citizens to keep and bear nuclear rockets, nor a National Sarin Gas Association urging the widespread and responsible ownership of sarin gas. Yet when it comes to guns, that algorithm breaks down: some guns allow one person with a single weapon to do disproportionate harm to many, and we seem distinctly opposed to regulating them.

Why the exception for this single tool of warfare, as opposed to any other?

I suppose it is no more complicated than to speculate that it is a "popularity contest" that hand grenades and mustard gas lost. The tradition of personal ownership of guns in this country is not only historical, but it is also markedly utilitarian in a way that other arms are not.

When we think we hear a burglar rumbling around downstairs, we don't drag a howitzer behind us to investigate.

Duck hunters don't insist on wielding machine guns in their blinds because they seem satisfied with a mallard or two rather than trying to bag the entire flock as they take flight from the pond.

Gun owners insist on exerting their Second Amendment right with respect to handguns and rifles because it seems those weapons yield the best fit for the lawful personal use of firearms as they have for centuries.

I don't think there is much more to it than that.

[the_kuntess]

Originally Posted by BotanyBoy

Oh please...we have so many laws we can't even count all the fuckers....and that's just federal. The average citizen commits 3 felonies a day and doesn't even know it.

I get your point, but I sometimes wish we (Australia/NZ) would follow similar sentencing protocols to the US for certain crimes.

We roll our crims over way too fast. Life is not life, life can be 12 -15 years if you're a good criminal citizen.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

Of course. I've read lots of what your written and you're smarter than me so you could probably name them too.

Given your apparent calculus on the scope of an individual right vs. a privilege, I'm not certain I could.

Incarcerated felons have obviously forfeited the right to liberty and the "pursuit of happiness," and should they reside on death row, then their right to life hangs in the balance as well.

The fact that their cells may be searched without a warrant and contraband property seized without compensation are also well established deprived "rights" that those of us on the outside have retained.

About the only thing left is the right freeing us from self-incrimination and that any punishment to which we may be subjected is, by presumption, neither "cruel and unusual."

But I've lost the desire to argue the point with you. If your cynicism about government is so deep that few if any rights can be said to exist, that's your prerogative.

But justices writing legal opinions use words in specific ways which those engaged in legal debates understand and generally accept even when they disagree with the resulting legal finding. The law tends to be dismissive (if not worse) toward those who arrive at different interpretations based on their own rules and definitions, especially when bereft of any apparent supportive constituency.

[BotanyBoy]

Originally Posted by the_kuntess

I get your point, but I sometimes wish we (Australia/NZ) would follow similar sentencing protocols to the US for certain crimes.

We roll our crims over way too fast. Life is not life, life can be 12 -15 years if you're a good criminal citizen.

It's the same here in every state I believe....unless stipulated "without chance of parole" or something along those lines keeping them in for good. Our fed prisons are the only ones that you catch 10? You are doing 10...

I can appreciate that. I wish we would get a clue and quit executing people...doesn't do anything but run the bills up.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Originally Posted by SeanH

I see Vette and his bottom don't get it. OK, here's how it works. The right has been propounding a theory that more guns will prevent nutjobs shooters. It only takes ONE example of that not being the case to falsify the theory. Just one. Which I did in the OP.

No. Implicit in your post is deterence you cant measure. All kinds of things deter action.

[shoulderblade]

Originally Posted by the_kuntess

Yep, the US is right at the top of heap when it comes to per capita imprisonment.

There might be factors that skew these figures, you'd have to dig a little deeper to get a fair comparison.

When it comes to per capita imprisonment there really isn't any room for waggling, you are being held in prison or you are not.

When it comes to definition of crimes, process, length of sentence, parole terms or whatever there may be lots of room for comparison but jail is jail. Americans have a punitive oriented juatice system with lots of laws and enforcement capacity so a lot of people wind up in prison, simple as that.

[CHNOPS]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

I suppose it is no more complicated than to speculate that it is a "popularity contest" that hand grenades and mustard gas lost. The tradition of personal ownership of guns in this country is not only historical, but it is also markedly utilitarian in a way that other arms are not.

When we think we hear a burglar rumbling around downstairs, we don't drag a howitzer behind us to investigate.

Duck hunters don't insist on wielding machine guns in their blinds because they seem satisfied with a mallard or two rather than trying to bag the entire flock as they take flight from the pond.

Gun owners insist on exerting their Second Amendment right with respect to handguns and rifles because it seems those weapons yield the best fit for the lawful personal use of firearms as they have for centuries.

I don't think there is much more to it than that.

Fair enough. So, are there other instances where Constitutional protections are applied specifically and exclusively to the "majority" group in a population, and denied to the "minority"?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by CHNOPS

Fair enough. So, are there other instances where Constitutional protections are applied specifically and exclusively to the "majority" group in a population, and denied to the "minority"?

More to the point, is there anywhere else on Earth where retards think decisions made over two hundred years ago are the last word of wisdom on a subject?

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by CHNOPS

Fair enough. So, are there other instances where Constitutional protections are applied specifically and exclusively to the "majority" group in a population, and denied to the "minority"?

Quartering of troops.

[CHNOPS]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

Quartering of troops.

LOL plus two more characters

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Not so much.

FBI agents and U.S. Marshals understandably are well fortified, given their frequent run-ins with ruthless bad guys. However -- as my old friend and fellow columnist Quin Hillyer notes -- armed officers, if not Special Weapons and Tactics crews, populate these federal agencies: the National Park Service; the Postal Inspection Service; the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Labor, and Veterans Affairs; the Bureaus of Land Management and Indian Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Even Small Business Administration and Railroad Retirement Board staffers pack heat!


seanh forgot to tell the government.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by CHNOPS

Fair enough. So, are there other instances where Constitutional protections are applied specifically and exclusively to the "majority" group in a population, and denied to the "minority"?

Of course. Anywhere you find a legal precedent that holds that a specific right is not absolute I believe you will find an exception where the "minority" abuse of a right is denied protection because of its danger to the "majority."

If the majority of movie goers felt they had need to yell "fire" in a perfectly safe theater, courts might be inspired to tweak the law in a different way. But as long as such behavior is restricted to a minority of demented individuals, it seems reasonable to make the utterance an exception to the general rule of free speech.

This principle of qualification is common throughout the law. One of the challenges in applying it, however, is for judges not to rely upon it where and when a formal amendment through the legislative process is more appropriate. The debate around where this switch point is to be found is often at the core of our Constitutional disagreements, even when it is not being voiced.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by SeanH

More to the point, is there anywhere else on Earth where retards think decisions made over two hundred years ago are the last word of wisdom on a subject?

I found this in your trash out on the curb. I'm assuming you discarded it inadvertently.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

I found this in your trash out on the curb. I'm assuming you discarded it inadvertently.

If you can find me a bit of Magna Carta quoted every day in defence of some anachronistic bullshit, then you might have a point.

[BotanyBoy]

Originally Posted by shoulderblade

When it comes to per capita imprisonment there really isn't any room for waggling, you are being held in prison or you are not.

When it comes to definition of crimes, process, length of sentence, parole terms or whatever there may be lots of room for comparison but jail is jail. Americans have a punitive oriented juatice system with lots of laws and enforcement capacity so a lot of people wind up in prison, simple as that.

Let's see if we can outlaw some more naturally occurring plants, ban farmers markets all over (No FDA OVERSIGHT!!! PRISON!!!) the nation, maybe AIR!!! YEaaaaaa we can ban AIR and put EVERYONE in prison!! Profits will be at an all time high!!

Fucking embarrassing being american sometimes.

[butters]

the MC supplied the basics of English liberties - forcing King John to revert to using older laws combined with new with the intention of demonstrating how the power of an ordained king could be limited by a written document in the interest of the public.

i would say brits are far more concerned with the spirit of a law than its letter; they won't allow outmoded language or interests to stand in the way of progression for the betterment of society, but will frequently challenge ancient laws when their use becomes anachronistic with time.