Political stuff

[AlexBailey]

The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of "firearms," only "arms," yet many "arms" are illegal and regulated.

Many types of guns are illegal, many types of knives and martial arts weapons are banned with no constitutional challenges.

The second amendment could be redefined without overturning it, especially now that the conservative court has thrown out the concept of "settled law." I'm not saying that it's likely to happen, just that there is no specific protection for "firearms" that cannot be revisited .

 

[Rightguide]

The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of "firearms," only "arms," yet many "arms" are illegal and regulated.

Many types of guns are illegal, many types of knives and martial arts weapons are banned with no constitutional challenges.

The second amendment could be redefined without overturning it, especially not that the conservative court has thrown out the concept of "settled law." I'm not saying that it's likely to happen, just that there is no specific protection for "firearms" that cannot be revisited .

At the time of the founding "arms" included all manners of guns and weapons. There were no national gun controls. Prior to the NFA in 1934 a Thompson submachine gun could be legally purchased off the shelf.

 

[AlexBailey]

At the time of the founding "arms" included all manners of guns and weapons.

"All manner"? LMFAO!

Rifling, cartridges, and cap-locks weren't even around then. Meanwhile many types of arms are now banned. That slope has just become a lot more slippery since the court now has a precedence of redefining settled law.

 

[Rightguide]

DPS spokesman: Police 'could've been shot' and decided to 'contain the gunman' with his victims​

JOHN SEXTON May 26, 2022 9:20 PM ET

Olivarez said officers were inside the school quickly, and they heard gunfire when they arrived. They called for reinforcements, he said. The officers in the building waited for a special tactical team to show up as they isolated the shooter to one classroom.

“Don’t current best practices, don’t they call for officers to disable a shooter as quickly as possible, regardless of how many officers are actually on site?” Blitzer asked him.

Correct, the active shooter situation, you want to stop the killing, you want to preserve life, but also one thing that – of course, the American people need to understand — that officers are making entry into this building. They do not know where the gunman is. They are hearing gunshots. They are receiving gunshots.

At that point, if they proceeded any further not knowing where the suspect was at, they could’ve been shot, they could’ve been killed, and that gunman would have had an opportunity to kill other people inside that school.

So they were able to contain that gunman inside that classroom so that he was not able to go to any other portions of the school to commit any other killings.

Read the whole article here:

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/05...o-contain-the-gunman-with-his-victims-n472342

Right now I'm listening to a police commander trying to justify the fact that his officers did nothing for almost an hour while children were being murdered. It's a pitiful display to behold. I'm sorry to say that every officer standing behind him look guilty, knowing he's trying to defend people who didn't rise to the public's expectation of their duty to defenseless children.

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK, buying military hardware after WW1 was encouraged to repay some of the costs. Anyone could buy a Lee-Enfield and ammo. or a crew-served machine gun (not submachine guns. the Army didn't have any).

You had to own land to buy artillery - but you could, any size up to the heaviest guns and ammo.

The laws were changed from the 1666 law 'everyone (if Protestant) has a right to own firearms' to you must register and obtain a certificate in the 1920s and 1930s.

During the American Revolution, every citizen had the right to have arms.

 

[Rightguide]

"All manner"? LMFAO!

Rifling, cartridges, and cap-locks weren't even around then. Meanwhile many types of arms are now banned. That slope has just become a lot more slippery since the court now has a precedence of redefining settled law.

Use your brain. The founders left in the hands of the citizenry, weapons of sufficient lethality that were used to defeat the World's most powerful military at the time.

 

[oggbashan]

Use your brain. The founders left in the hands of the citizenry, weapons of sufficient lethality that were used to defeat the World's most powerful military at the time.

With the help of the French who provided most of the heavier weapons and warships...

 

[Dribble]

Since the Supreme Court is about to decide that States can control women's rights...then States should also be able to control how militias can be used...and therefore, what weapons should be allowed. Ain't it a bitch?

 

[Rightguide]

With the help of the French who provided most of the heavier weapons and warships...

All I'm saying is the weapons technology used to defeat the British in the revolution was left in the hands of the American people when the Constitution and Second Amendment were written and amended.

 

[AlexBailey]

Use your brain. The founders left in the hands of the citizenry, weapons of sufficient lethality that were used to defeat the World's most powerful military at the time.

"At the time".

You can still order muzzle-loaders online with no ID. Even in California a muzzle-loader is not legally considered a firearm unless it is primed and ready to fire.


Or are you saying citizens should now be allowed to have "weapons of sufficient lethality" to defeat armies of other nations?

Are you using your brain?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of "firearms," only "arms," yet many "arms" are illegal and regulated.

Many types of guns are illegal, many types of knives and martial arts weapons are banned with no constitutional challenges.

The second amendment could be redefined without overturning it, especially not that the conservative court has thrown out the concept of "settled law." I'm not saying that it's likely to happen, just that there is no specific protection for "firearms" that cannot be revisited .

If the Supreme Court reversing itself constitutes throwing out “settled law”, it’s nothing new. SCOTUS has reversed itself more than 150 times.

 

[AlexBailey]

If the Supreme Court reversing itself constitutes throwing out “settled law”, it’s nothing new. SCOTUS has reversed itself more than 150 times.

So you agree that the second amendment does not specifically protect the private ownership of firearms, it's only a currently held opinion?

 

[AlexBailey]

Prior to the NFA in 1934 a Thompson submachine gun could be legally purchased off the shelf.

Why do you suppose this "infringement" is allowed by the courts and supported by law enforcement and public opinion?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So you agree that the second amendment does not specifically protect the private ownership of firearms, it's only a currently held opinion?

SCOTUS has said it does protect private ownership. A future court could reverse it but given how many guns are in private hands it certainly wont happen in my lifetime

 

[pecksniff]

At the time of the founding "arms" included all manners of guns and weapons. There were no national gun controls. Prior to the NFA in 1934 a Thompson submachine gun could be legally purchased off the shelf.

And we've never had cause to regret the NFA.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

This is a fairly long-winded way of saying "SCOTUS can basically just say whatever."

It's a trivially true statement. It certainly does make the debate simpler if we all accept it as either good, or as fait accompli. We don't have to worry ever again what any law was supposed to mean, or pretend we care about constitutionalism, legalism, contractualism, etc. etc.

That would certainly put a halt to most of the conversations I try to have about the 2nd Amendment. Why bother? It's just a policy debate at that point, and the policy debate itself is moot because of the usual considerations: out-and-out GOP obstructionism, and the fact that the Democratic coalition isn't unified in the first place.

 

[pecksniff]

All I'm saying is the weapons technology used to defeat the British in the revolution was left in the hands of the American people when the Constitution and Second Amendment were written and amended.

Have you never stopped to wonder whether that was a good idea?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

All I'm saying is the weapons technology used to defeat the British in the revolution was left in the hands of the American people when the Constitution and Second Amendment were written and amended.

ALL American people?

 

[pecksniff]

Look, just imagine trying to shoot up a school with a single-shot muzzle-loading musket. That's what the FFs had in mind by "arms."

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

And the First Amendment doesn't mention fuck or fire in a theater...


Your "point" is a fallacious point.


__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

Look, just imagine trying to shoot up a school with a single-shot muzzle-loading musket. That's what the FFs had in mind by "arms."

Or, imagine a little training and two swords...
"Turning Japaneesa."

What a logical putz I do perceive.
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).

 

[Chobham]

And the First Amendment doesn't mention fuck or fire in a theater...


Your "point" is a fallacious point.


__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).

A point that makes no point one could say.

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

He won't get "the point."



__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).

 

[Chobham]

This thread got my mind to wandering back to "Set Theory" and the argument over whether a "set of no sets" could be said to exist at all.

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

Now I'll have those nightmares of having missed a last final and never really graduating.


Thanks for that.
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).