Jump to content

I respectfully request


Taz

Recommended Posts

Studies on gun culture and how it correlates to video games, society, tv, laws, types of weapons, etc.

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4

And gun murder is higher in the south- where guns are more prevalent & laws are looser.

Edited by MercedesBerater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia.  So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"  

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the  "well-regulated" right. 

Edited by BigStewMan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We have had something like 45 school shootings this year alone! These kids are able to get guns too easy! It's not that gun-control advocates want no guns. We want it harder to get. It doesn't seem like that's too much to ask. For law abiding citizens it won't be an issue. We have proficiency exams and renewals for driving... Why not guns?

 

Take a look at some of the US cities with the strictest gun control laws.  They have the highest occurance of gun related crimes.  As Derrick (I believe) pointed out, it's a societal problem first and foremost.  You have the break down of the family unit, glamorization of violence in video games and movies and instant gratification and notoriety on social media.  There's a lot of contributors as to what's happening.   

 

Although I do agree with the mindset of family breakdown. That and the other issues you raised are also prevalent here in Canada without the degree of violent behavior. 

How is that explained away? I've tried, but always come back accessibility of weapons and violent mindset of the population in general is the core difference in our 2 societies.

I live in a city of 5 million or so and don't feel that need of 'being on my guard'  as when I visited big US cities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The 'gun free' zone didn't work.

Unfortunately, a gun-free zone is a easy soft target. IMO, gun control is NOT the answer. This loser would have gotten a weapon no matter what. There is no easy way to stop this type of cowardly violence.

 

I agree that the killer should not be identified and should be denied the fame/infamy he was seeking.  Of course, the press does not agree, and believes that you sell the most papers with the most sensational coverage of tragedies like the one in Oregon.

 

Here's a link to the 4chan discussion group he was posting on.  While a few posters tried to discourage him, some others actually offered advice on how to be more efficient.  It's pretty creepy reading.

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OZGEjT1ilSUJ:https://archive.moe/r9k/post

 

One guy posts:  "You're only shooting college age students, correct? I have grandparents that live up there."

 

It’s like they actually approve of doing mass murder, as long as he doesn’t kill somebody they know.

 

The “beta uprising” thing is disturbing, too.  It’s like there’s a large number of people who are convinced they’ll always be second best to the alphas, so let’s all get guns and show the “normies” how manly we really are.  It sounds like they think they’re not even second best, because the alphas are exceptional, so the betas would actually be the normal types.  If some of these self-declared losers see themselves as less than normal, they’d be gammas or deltas.  The Greek alphabet starts “alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon”.  I had to look that up.

 

A wanker revolt will just show them to be wankers, so nothing is gained.

 

The whole country of Canada is in certain ways a gun-free zone.  This makes us feel like we are in less danger in our everyday lives, not more.  Concealed-carry permits are very hard to get.  This makes it very easy to spot the bad guys.  Anyone seen with a gun is suspected of being about to commit a crime, unless they have a rifle in a rural area during hunting season.

 

Most shootings take place within rough areas in some of the largest cities, and generally involve drug gang members shooting each other in turf wars.  In most other areas, shootings are rare, and attract a lot of attention.

 

The handguns used in crimes are mostly smuggled into the country from the US, since they're hard to buy legally.  In some other cases, guns are stolen from collectors by burglars, which means a gun collection can attract criminals, rather than keeping them away from your home.  It's always important to look at the big picture.

That is some extremely scary stuff, on many, many levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about others but I dont walk around on Guard, I do asses my surroundings and may make a decision based on that assessment to move on etc... I made those same assessments when I was in Canada, Germany, Holland, and every state here in the USA

 

The USA gets a lot of bad press across the world for one reason or another and I think that press pre disposes  some to feel like they are in a bad place and so being on guard would make sense.  I would be on guard in Baghdad, or maybe china town at 3am, I am sure every country has some areas where people would feel the need to be on guard for 1 reason or another

 

I drove a truck over the road for a few years a while back and visited pretty much every major city east of the Mississippi, I would drive in the evening prior to delivery and stay in the truck as close to the consignee as legally possible over night, I would assess the area of course but never felt the need to be on guard

(except in Detroit  :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia.  So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"  

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the  "well-regulated" right.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The romance of the Wild West might be a cultural factor in making it seem like at one time every man had a pistol or two on his belt, and real men had shootouts to settle their disagreements.  They were actually duels, of course, but "duel" sounds a bit like some sissy European thing, so let's not call them that.

 

The Wild West period didn't last that long, maybe twenty years, 1860-1880 or so, and yet the legends of those times are still glorified today.  Feel free to correct those years if they seem wrong.  In reality, many Americans lived in cities in the eastern part of the country, living lives similar to many people today.

 

However, there was the vision of the frontier, only a week or two away by train and horseback, where legends were being made.  Lots of pulp writers made lots of money telling tall tales about the frontiersmen and the cowboys.  The eastern city folk just ate up all that stuff.

 

Canada never really had a Wild West period.  The brutal winters made cooperation essential, so attitudes were different.  There are no famous Canadian gunslingers, as far as I know.  No Billy the Kid, Wyatt Earp, or anyone else like that.

 

In 1869, some whisky traders from Montana set up a trading fort in Alberta, which was seen as kind of presumptuous.  One Canadian response was to form the North-West Mounted Police, which eventually became the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Whoop-Up

 

 

The movie Gunless is about an American gunslinger, the Montana Kid, who finds himself on the Canadian side of the border after being shot and pursued.  When he takes offence at something that's said to him in the town's saloon, he calls out the offender, who is the town's blacksmith.  For a duel.

 

The only problem is that nobody has a working pistol, just rifles and shotguns for hunting.  The only pistol in town is broken, and it belongs to the blacksmith, so the Montana Kid has to convince him to fix it so they can have a shootout.  Hilarity ensues.

 

Here's the trailer:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK-Md46Exxs

Edited by Islander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia.  So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"  

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the  "well-regulated" right.

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

Edited by BigStewMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
There are lots of forum's out there, to discuss every issue. This is a Klipsch forum, about speakers, music, and audio equipment. I hope it stays that way.

True but this is the Lounge section for things that do not fit the Audio category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia.  So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"  

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the  "well-regulated" right.

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia. So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the "well-regulated" right.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia. So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the "well-regulated" right.

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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

these atrocities happen in a free society. don't think they can be stopped. maybe shortened by armed guards?

a free society with armed guards. sounds a lot like Cuba, or Russia, or etc.  As for naming the perp, who here off the top of their heads can name the perp of Shady Hook?  Of Va Tech?  of Ft. Hood?  How about even the Columbine guys, or after that the Aurora theater shooter?  Who can name all or even more than two or three of these guys?  off the top of your heads without a search engine?  What difference does it make?
an armed county cop in schools sounds like cuba?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

 

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia. So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the "well-regulated" right.

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

Edited by dwilawyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

states can ban other firearms?

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia. So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the "well-regulated" right.

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  :emotion-21:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...