Travis In Austin

Not unless you are a slave and living under the 3/5th provision of the constitution in 1787.Alas, even if you were a person of color and free you would not qualify for the 3/5th clause because free blacks received one vote along with free whites. The 3/5ths provision was proposed by the democrats and didn't give people in slave states less power, it actually gave them more. I don't know about being a female, but in my house, we have a system; my wife and I both get one vote in each matter, and if I want peace in the family, my vote doesn't count. I don't want fairness, just quiet. +++ Where is Ibeza Flame, our PhD History student when we need him, to explain all this to us? How did I do, Michael? You get a 98. Art. 1, Sec 2, which contains the 3/5 language was a compromise between northern and southern states, It didn't really have anything to do with a political party, the Democratic party of today didn't really exist then.It didn't have anythin to do with voting, it had to do with counting. The more people in a state, the more representatives you got, and the more power a state had. The South wanted slaves counted as 1, the North zero, the compromise was 3/5. The Constitution doesn't contain the word "slave" or "slavery." In that clause they used the term "other people." I would have to check again on the viting requirements ar the time of the enactment, but I don't believe many blacks were eligible to vote. Women couldn't vote, white or black. Most states had a propery requirement to bote, unless you owned land, you were ineligible to vote. Here is the text of the Enumeration Clause Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting . . . .

Quit trying to change our country? You mean on the gun issue, or in any respect? Is it perfect now, as is, or can it be improved? If it is perfect now we need people to run that will commit to blocking anything new, voting NO on any bill, regardless of what it is and with a dedication to not offer any new legislation during their term. If it is just the gun laws that need to remain the same and not be changed, who is trying to change them and how? Or is it that they are just expressing an opinion as to how they would like things to be, or political dissent? If you want to change something does that necessarily mean you dislike America? That was an interesting article. I have read some things by that law professor before, he seems to be pretty middle of the road. He said this at the end of the article: "Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1 percent of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). Still, people had asked for examples of some shootings in which a civilian armed with a gun intervened and brought down the shooter, so here is what I found." That is consistent with what a few people on here have said.

Yeah, only 18 months, and commuted by a new president, Harding, he ran against from prison. He was disenfranchised for life. For speaking out against a war, and the Supreme Court affirmed it. I don't know if his being a socialist was brought up in his trial or not, he represented himself as I recall.

Here is a link to the full Heller opinion. http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/mobile/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63

They have, and it is recent. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago which both held that you cannot ban hand guns from the home.https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 That is a link to the oral arguments, briefs and everything else in Heller. They just declined to review a case from San Francisco where the City passed an ordinance that required handguns in the home must have trigger locks. States and cities can place reasonable restrictions on hand guns. The question is what is reasonable. Requiring gun locks while inside the home is apparently reasonable. Thanks Travis…i’m certainly no expert; but, seems to me that the intent of the right to bear arms was in case a militia was needed (at that time, a militia as opposed to an official government army). wouldn’t then that “right” be applicable only for serving in a militia? history has clearly shown me to be wrong on this matter--i guess i’m saying that it seems more of a individual right only because individuals would make up the militia. i don’t know why it is viewed now as strictly an individual right.am i correct that the court’s decisions seem to involve only handguns? states can ban other firearms? Steve I don't really take a position on the Heller decision. Scalia, in his opinion goes through a very extensive history of the right to bear arms. I haven't read it in a very long time, but I seem to recall he agreed with your interpretation, so he started to discuss the history of the right to self defense. He concluded that the 2nd Amendment must have been drafted with this long established defense in mind.It is one of the opinions everyone should read, regardlesd of where they sit on the issue, because the final authority on the subject of what the 2nd Amendment means (the Court) doesn't agree with what either side say it means. I need to go back and read it again, it has been a long time. Dwi, would you be able to post a link to the scalla opinion, I would like to read that Here is a link to the SCOTUS blog on Heller which has forum discussions on legal issues relating to Heller, links to all the briefs filed on both sides, and a link at the top to the Scalia opinion. I will post a seperate link to the opinion so it is easy to find.http://www.scotusblog.com/case- files/cases/dc-v-heller/

Actually, I think per the Terms of Use your vote counts double.

I think history is the key, and it should be right up there with math and science. The United States has a long history of infiringing upon the right of free speech during times of war, even some of the founding fathers were guility of this as well. The most well known example is the Alien and Sedition Acts, part of which is still on the books and used to prosecute speech during WWI and WWII. http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp In light of Heller and McDonald I don't see any realistic possibility that the government is going to be taking away any guns, at least for the forseeable future, and probably not in our lifetimes. They may put more restrictions on them, or regulate them more.

Pretty much. I haven't been able to find a legal shoulder fired stinger missile yet, but we freely give them to other people around the world. California has many restrictions on named firearms. Several of which I own and sometimes carry. PIA when I forget that Calif does not allow the firearm I'm carrying and I get close to the border and have to turn around. Don't go there much anymore. Do the restricted guns listed fall within certain catagories? Semi-auto pistols? High capacity semi-autos? "Assault" rifles? I remember hearing my brother say he was picking up some stuff before the laws went into effect there, but I cannot remember what it was. It seemed that it centered around what the gun was able to hold in the magizine.

I agree. I think the media has a lot to do with it. There's no media sensation when a large city has 200 murders a year. But a psychotic shooter gets notoriety from a mass shooting. The mass shootings are just a small fraction of the murders in this country. About 1% isn't it? Then what's the problem? Why is it news? If you define a mass shooting as one in which four or more are shot in one incident we average more than one a day. Seems like it would be no big deal. It either isn't a problem or is a problem with apparently no solution. No one has posted, unless I missed it, a solution. Well that may be overly simplistic. Restoring the family unit and banning abortion have been suggested as having a correlation. That Professor from the University of Alabama seems to suggest that one of the motivators is notoriety, at least based on some of the titles of his publications, none of which I read. Is there a problem? It is Taz's town, maybe we should ask him. Is there a problem? The Sheriff there didn't think so, it is the cost of doing business in a free society according to him. Maybe that is just the answer. How about a ban on naming the perpetrator of any mass shooting?

That's the problem these days. Science and math are the core subjects. It shoukd be English and history. They would know who Eugene Debs was. Wait, didn't he get ten years for sedition during WW I?

How much? Is it pre-ban or post-ban Zircon. Who the heck is it? When I am on my phone with these tiny letters that I can't see it doesn't show signatures. I know there is an option where you can block specific member's signatures from appearing on your screen. That could help until there has been an official vote to shun or burn the individual at the stake.

That is some really sad news.

They have, and it is recent. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago which both held that you cannot ban hand guns from the home.https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 That is a link to the oral arguments, briefs and everything else in Heller. They just declined to review a case from San Francisco where the City passed an ordinance that required handguns in the home must have trigger locks. States and cities can place reasonable restrictions on hand guns. The question is what is reasonable. Requiring gun locks while inside the home is apparently reasonable. Thanks Travis…i’m certainly no expert; but, seems to me that the intent of the right to bear arms was in case a militia was needed (at that time, a militia as opposed to an official government army). wouldn’t then that “right” be applicable only for serving in a militia? history has clearly shown me to be wrong on this matter--i guess i’m saying that it seems more of a individual right only because individuals would make up the militia. i don’t know why it is viewed now as strictly an individual right.am i correct that the court’s decisions seem to involve only handguns? states can ban other firearms? Steve Heller was a ban on handguns in the District and so involved federal law. The decision said the federal government could not ban handguns in the HOME. McDonald was a city ordinance in Chicago, and a suburb as well, banning handguns. The court held that 2nd Amendmwnt applied to the states under the 14th Amendment. The Bill of Rights was only a limit on the federal government. States were free to do what they wanted as long as they didn't get into areas reserved for the federal government. It was that way until the 14th Amendment. The Court has gone throug the various Amendments over time and specificalky stated that they apply to the states. It is called "incorporated." It was an open question whether the 2nd Amendment even applied to the states until the McDonald decision. Even then the court couldn't come up with a majority of what provision of the 14th Amend. that "incorporates" it. The plurality say it is the "due process" clause of that amendment, others say it is the "privileges and immunities" clause. It is too technical to go into here, but that is significant. The federal government and states can put "readonable" restrictions on firearms. It is known as the "balancing test." Even though something is protected under the Constitution, the Court has held that federal, state or local government can place reasonable restrictions on that right. The classic example is that even though there is freedom of speech, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. They can severely restrict automatic weapons, suppressors, types of ammunition, where you can have a gun outside the home, and for what purpose, etc. Given the decision in Heller I think it would be difficult for a state to ban long guns (typical shotguns and rifles).. They can limit high capacity magazines, and other things, I think a very interesting case, one that the Court would hear, would be an attempt to ban semi-auto handguns. There would be good solid arguments raised on both side of that issue, from the Court's perspective. I do not know if it would be possible for a government entity to have strong enough evidence that banning semi-autos would have some practical benefit. That would be their challange in trying to enact any ordinance and have it withstand a constitutional challange. Residents would still have have the right to obtain handguns, but they would be limited to revolvers. I think this is an area that the court would take up a case and decide it. It may be that there isn't any data that limiting handguns to revolvers serves any "legitimate govt. purpose" which they would have to show in order to survive a challange. Edited: Content and fixing errors

They have, and it is recent. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago which both held that you cannot ban hand guns from the home.https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290That is a link to the oral arguments, briefs and everything else in Heller. They just declined to review a case from San Francisco where the City passed an ordinance that required handguns in the home must have trigger locks. States and cities can place reasonable restrictions on hand guns. The question is what is reasonable. Requiring gun locks while inside the home is apparently reasonable. Thanks Travis…i’m certainly no expert; but, seems to me that the intent of the right to bear arms was in case a militia was needed (at that time, a militia as opposed to an official government army). wouldn’t then that “right” be applicable only for serving in a militia? history has clearly shown me to be wrong on this matter--i guess i’m saying that it seems more of a individual right only because individuals would make up the militia. i don’t know why it is viewed now as strictly an individual right.am i correct that the court’s decisions seem to involve only handguns? states can ban other firearms? Steve The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Their rulings were in regards to handguns as they are the most commonly used firearms carried for self defense. I suspect that you may see future litigation regarding what constitutes firearms commonly used for self defense. That is not exactly the holding in either Heller or McDonald. I believe they held in Heller that a ban on handguns was an unreasonable infringement on the right of self-defense implied in the 2nd Amendment. There have been numerous cases litigated in the federal courts since Heller and McDonald which have been appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court thus far has not been interested in hearing any of those cases. The most recent was in June which left intact a city ordinance in San Francisco that requires that a handgun have a trigger lock installed inside the home, or be in a locked box or safe, unless it is being worn on the person, inside the home. The Court declined to hear that case. I linked to the Heller decision, you can listen to the oral arguments from both sides, link to the opinions, etc. The problem is that most people learn of the holding of a case based on how it is reported to them by the media, or perhaps an organization they belong to. This results in a little, to a lot, of spin on what the court held. Anybody who has an interest in this issue should read Heller for themselves to see what is says and make up their own minds.

They have, and it is recent. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago which both held that you cannot ban hand guns from the home.https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 That is a link to the oral arguments, briefs and everything else in Heller. They just declined to review a case from San Francisco where the City passed an ordinance that required handguns in the home must have trigger locks. States and cities can place reasonable restrictions on hand guns. The question is what is reasonable. Requiring gun locks while inside the home is apparently reasonable. Thanks Travis…i’m certainly no expert; but, seems to me that the intent of the right to bear arms was in case a militia was needed (at that time, a militia as opposed to an official government army). wouldn’t then that “right” be applicable only for serving in a militia? history has clearly shown me to be wrong on this matter--i guess i’m saying that it seems more of a individual right only because individuals would make up the militia. i don’t know why it is viewed now as strictly an individual right.am i correct that the court’s decisions seem to involve only handguns? states can ban other firearms? Steve I don't really take a position on the Heller decision. Scalia, in his opinion goes through a very extensive history of the right to bear arms. I haven't read it in a very long time, but I seem to recall he agreed with your interpretation, so he started to discuss the history of the right to self defense. He concluded that the 2nd Amendment must have been drafted with this long established defense in mind. It is one of the opinions everyone should read, regardlesd of where they sit on the issue, because the final authority on the subject of what the 2nd Amendment means (the Court) doesn't agree with what either side say it means. I need to go back and read it again, it has been a long time.

Well I am listening? What is the solution? Welcome to the forum! Thank You! I was hoping you would tell me. Well, as I said, we are being assaulted, so let's devise a defense to at least mitigate the damage. I think we could all agree that schools seem to be the favorite target right now. So let's devise a defense to keep our children safe, shall we? I propose immediate defensive measures to include additional police resources. Yes, defend the schools with armed guards. Permanently? Perhaps no. But at least until we can get our footing and identify what our issues are so that we can eventually work towards a workable solution. How do we fund this effort? Well our government spends billions on needless crap every year. I'm sure we can rummage up a few billion to finance this program. Some might see armed guards at our schools as a drastic action. I would like to point out that we guard our courthouses with armed guards and metal detectors. We guard our state legislative buildings with armed guards. We guard our airports. Heck, I've even seen police officers sitting in their cars at road construction sites. Now tell me, are our children any less valuable than these people? My child certainly is not. It's a start. It's not necessarily the final result. And frankly, it's better than what we are doing now. sounds bout right. welcome It is simple. Arm the kids. Teach them gun safety and marksmanship in grades 1, 2 and 3. Start arming them in 4th, 5th and 6th. Instead of fire drills, you conduct shooter drills. By the time they are in Jr. and high school it would be the last place a crazy gunman would show up. They will have to concentrate on churchs, movie theaters and old folks homes. Kids who did well in marksmanship can get jobs sitting in churches, theaters and retirement homes ready to pounce. It is a win-win. Keeps gun makers employed, kids learn learn math skills re: balastics, creates jobs, and the top shooters can compete against other schools. I think you could probably fund the whole thing by cutting just a sport or two. In Texas our solution in this last legislature was to arm teachers and allow folks to openly carry guns on their person. They need to think bigger in my opinion.

Well he was in the Falkland Islands War covering that, and he did win a Peabody.

That's about on par with our wealth. 5% of the population, 25% of the wealth. Wealth causes mass murder! Well that Sheriff in Oregon reposted a video on his Facebook page that claimed Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy designed to result in legislation to away our guns. I still think is much more likely that it is because of The Beatles.

Well I am listening? What is the solution? Welcome to the forum!

No cities are gun free zones. McDonald v. Chicago was clear that the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment and makes it applicable to the states. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521

Whoa, there! You are defending the former practice because the law protects the right to engage in it. Yet, when taking the side of gun opponents, you are arguing that it should be against the law to have guns. Wouldn't this position on guns, as you say, "require a logical fiction?" Not often, do you know the median age of his viewer? Way older than me.

Someone should have infringed on her right to bear children. I think Francis Galton and Henry Goddard would have agreed with you entirely.

Whoa, there! You are defending the former practice because the law protects the right to engage in it. Yet, when taking the side of gun opponents, you are arguing that it should be against the law to have guns. Wouldn't this position on guns, as you say, "require a logical fiction?" I am nit dedending, nor advocating, anything. His premise was (paraphrasing) abortion is killing and it desensitizes society to the point that we have devalued all human life, including kids in school. We should therefore report these deaths. That is a moral judgement, not a logical or legal progression. His argument actually supports gun control. Ban abortion, and you end them, and save lives. Ban guns and eliminate mass shootings. I don't see either one as legally ir constitutionally possible.

Really? Wouldn't that infringe on her right to bear arms?

They have, and it is recent. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago which both held that you cannot ban hand guns from the home. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 That is a link to the oral arguments, briefs and everything else in Heller. They just declined to review a case from San Francisco where the City passed an ordinance that required handguns in the home must have trigger locks. States and cities can place reasonable restrictions on hand guns. The question is what is reasonable. Requiring gun locks while inside the home is apparently reasonable.