Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
On the topic of shootings, schools, etc, may I suggest that perhaps the issue is neither guns nor security measures, but something else?
My grandfather brought firearms to school on a regular basis and just stacked them in the corner of the room to go plinking or rodent hunting after class. He could mail order machineguns to his door via the USPS without background checks or age requirements or NFA paperwork. His schools had no resource officers, and teachers were not armed. And yet...nobody walked through school hallways or nightclubs trying to kill as many people as possible.
What has changed in society, such that some people find that committing such acts to be acceptable recourse to their grievances?
Whether its stalking the halls of a high school with an AR15 or running people down with a rental truck in the streets, why do outliers see this course of action as viable and desireable, when in previous eras they did not? Especially when average levels of daily violence have been decreasing for decades.
I suspect that addressing that question may prove far more productive than gun bans or security measures or whatnot. That said, there is unlikely to be a simple compelling solution that fits into preexisting narratives, but if we really want to see a change, I feel thats where we should look first.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
As much as I contributed to the general area of the topic, we should probably leave general discussion about gun control and gun violence out of this thread. I didn't mean to start a separate gun control discussion, I merely meant to comment on what I see as a double standard by one organization.
Relapse wrote: Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
The difference is that alcohol is not designed to kill, while that is a very large part of the design philosophy of guns.
The Auld Grump - amazing how a device designed to kill is sometimes used to kill people....
Better to just leave it be, the guns-alcohol comparison will always be irrelevant because they simply aren't the same at all.
Vaktathi wrote: On the topic of shootings, schools, etc, may I suggest that perhaps the issue is neither guns nor security measures, but something else?
My grandfather brought firearms to school on a regular basis and just stacked them in the corner of the room to go plinking or rodent hunting after class. He could mail order machineguns to his door via the USPS without background checks or age requirements or NFA paperwork. His schools had no resource officers, and teachers were not armed. And yet...nobody walked through school hallways or nightclubs trying to kill as many people as possible.
What has changed in society, such that some people find that committing such acts to be acceptable recourse to their grievances?
Whether its stalking the halls of a high school with an AR15 or running people down with a rental truck in the streets, why do outliers see this course of action as viable and desireable, when in previous eras they did not? Especially when average levels of daily violence have been decreasing for decades.
I suspect that addressing that question may prove far more productive than gun bans or security measures or whatnot. That said, there is unlikely to be a simple compelling solution that fits into preexisting narratives, but if we really want to see a change, I feel thats where we should look first.
The most deadly attack on a school in history was probably during your Grandpa's day and age. I don't know him so I don't know for sure.... but.....
We glorify it in ways we didn't use to. Combine with US culture placing value on fame of any sort; dying in infamy is seen as a better outcome than living in obscurity. It's rarely stated explicitly but it isn't hard to see it. Take a gun to a school and fire it you'll make national news, actually hit someone and it's national news for a week, kill a few people and it's a month in the spotlight. Constrast with a culutre that has a different value system, like Japan, where the same type of person kills just themself instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/01 22:10:59
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
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) the organized militia, which consists of the 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.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
No other country comparable to the US has had a guaranteed right for citizens to be armed throughout it's existence so comparable nations really aren't comparable.
And multiple SCotUS opinions have affirmed that the 2nd amendment protects individual ownership of firearms.
Spoiler:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) - The court ruled Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because of his racial background. However, in its ruling, it implies all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:
"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - The Court stated in part:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) - A Supreme Court case which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial at the state level as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. In a concurring opinion by Justice Hugo Black, he used a statement by Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment, to help validate the Court's ruling that the Bill of Rights as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment forces states, and not just the federal government, to protect the same individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights:
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ...the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms..."
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990) - A case dealing with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are "the People" when referred to in the Constitution:[5]
"[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
As well as numerous state court cases:
Spoiler:
Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
Aymette v. State[edit]
In Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee’s 1834 Constitution that “ ‘the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ ” Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment , the court wrote: “The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment.”
1. The act of 1837-8, ch. 137, sec. 2, which prohibits any person from wearing any bowie knife, or Arkansas tooth-pick, or other knife or weapon in form, shape or size resembling a bowie knife or Arkansas tooth-pick under his clothes, or concealed about his person, does not conflict with the 26th section of the first article of the bill of rights, securing to the free white citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.
2. The arms, the right to keep and bear which is secured by the constitution, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and constitute the ordinary military equipment; the legislature have the power to prohibit the keeping or wearing weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare.
3. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense, is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand, and the rulers on the other; and although this right must be inviolably preserved, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
Nunn v. Georgia[edit]
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in Nunn v. Georgia (1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)) that a state law ban on handguns was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[20] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said Nunn, "Perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause."[21]
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!”
Wilson v. State of Arkansas[edit]
In Wilson v. State of Arkansas (Ark., 1878),[28] the Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with a conviction arising under an Arkansas state law which prohibited a person from carrying a pistol except upon his own premises or when on a journey, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, the same law addressed in the Buzzard[29] decision of 1848.
At trial, Wilson was indicted and convicted of the act, and appealed to the state supreme court. The court reversed the trial court's decision citing an array of state decisions which permitted the state to regulate the manner of carrying a concealed weapon, but that the law at issue restricting such action to one's own premises, while on a journey, or when acting in aid of an officer was constitutionally invalid. The Wilson decision effectively overturned the prior holding in Buzzard. The opinion, authored by Chief Justice English, included the following assertion:
No doubt in time of peace, persons might be prohibited from wearing war arms to places of public worship, or elections, etc. But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.[30]
Salina v. Blaksley[edit]
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court, in Salina v. Blaksley,[31] became the first court to interpret the right to keep and bear arms as being only a collective right.[32] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"
In 2010, Salina v. Blaksley was overruled by the passage of an amendment to the Kansas State Constitution. The amendment provides:
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.[33]
People v. Aguilar[edit]
In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar held that a total ban on carrying firearms outside the home violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. Applying Heller, McDonald, and Moore v. Madigan (a Seventh Circuit decision), the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Aguilar, stating that the right to self-defense was at the core of the Second Amendment.[34]
d-usa wrote: As much as I contributed to the general area of the topic, we should probably leave general discussion about gun control and gun violence out of this thread. I didn't mean to start a separate gun control discussion, I merely meant to comment on what I see as a double standard by one organization.
Fair enough, I'll drop it since it wasn't your intent to initiate a discussion on it. However, some people seem to think that "gun control" is going to be a big issue in the midterms so it may come up again later.
Relapse wrote: Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
The difference is that alcohol is not designed to kill, while that is a very large part of the design philosophy of guns.
The Auld Grump - amazing how a device designed to kill is sometimes used to kill people....
Better to just leave it be, the guns-alcohol comparison will always be irrelevant because they simply aren't the same at all.
I think it's quite apt since we have students walking out of school in order to protest gun violence and ignoring the fact that alcohol is responsible for around 3400 deaths of children per year and 120,000 being sent the ER per year.
For something not designed to kill, alcohol does a pretty good job of killing people.
This is why I find the arguments of gun control advocates hypocritical in the extreme. Guns are villified, yet alcohol, which causes carnage on a far greater scale is glorified in the media, and the companies that produce it are supported by many gun control advocates through their purchases.
A very obvious double standard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/01 23:06:49
Relapse wrote: Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
The difference is that alcohol is not designed to kill, while that is a very large part of the design philosophy of guns.
The Auld Grump - amazing how a device designed to kill is sometimes used to kill people....
Better to just leave it be, the guns-alcohol comparison will always be irrelevant because they simply aren't the same at all.
I think it's quite apt since we have students walking out of school in order to protest gun violence and ignoring the fact that alcohol is responsible for around 3400 deaths of children per year and 120,000 being sent the ER per year.
For something not designed to kill, alcohol does a pretty good job of killing people.
This is why I find the arguments of gun control advocates hypocritical in the extreme. Guns are villified, yet alcohol, which causes carnage on a far greater scale is glorified in the media, and the companies that produce it are supported by many gun control advocates through their purchases.
A very obvious double standard.
More people died in the US in 2001 of food poisoning than on 9/11. Did you see anyone funding a whole new agency and promote an invasion of another couple of countries over it?
Sometimes a single dramatic event does more to galvinize a population than deaths over a period of time.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
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) the organized militia, which consists of the 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.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Relapse wrote: Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
The difference is that alcohol is not designed to kill, while that is a very large part of the design philosophy of guns.
The Auld Grump - amazing how a device designed to kill is sometimes used to kill people....
Better to just leave it be, the guns-alcohol comparison will always be irrelevant because they simply aren't the same at all.
I think it's quite apt since we have students walking out of school in order to protest gun violence and ignoring the fact that alcohol is responsible for around 3400 deaths of children per year and 120,000 being sent the ER per year.
For something not designed to kill, alcohol does a pretty good job of killing people.
This is why I find the arguments of gun control advocates hypocritical in the extreme. Guns are villified, yet alcohol, which causes carnage on a far greater scale is glorified in the media, and the companies that produce it are supported by many gun control advocates through their purchases.
A very obvious double standard.
No, it isn't, because they aren't the same thing. That's like saying heart attacks should be treated the same way gun violence is. The only reason to even make the comparison is to deflect from the main discussion where gun advocates are both losing and very bad at advocating for guns.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
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) the organized militia, which consists of the 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.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
Oh man, I wish I was as smart as you guys. If you had asked me, I'd have said that when you guys started this gun discussion you wouldn't have been able to resolve it. No one has ever been able to before! And yet here you are practically there! I'd be astounded if the gun talk continued another page even! It's gonna be different this time for sure, because you guys wouldn't do this again only to have the same conclusion as literally every other time this has been attempted ever before!
I gotta go get the others and make sure everyone knows! This is going to be awesome!
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
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) the organized militia, which consists of the 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.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extrem[spoiler]ely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
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) the organized militia, which consists of the 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.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
I'm sorry...what? How can they irrelevant? o.O
Because it doesn't fit his argument.
He’s also choosing to ignore federal and state court precedent affirming the 2A protects the individual right to own firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If the militia is defined, it is only able bodied males.
So now you must pass an annual physical to own guns!
Bubba was t always obese and diabetic. It says you have to be able bodied to join the militia but it doesn’t say you lose your 2A rights if you get fat later. RAW interpretation still wins.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/02 00:50:25
The Trump administration reportedly will not follow an Obama-era executive order that requires it to release a yearly report on the number of civilians and enemy fighters killed by U.S. anti-terrorism strikes.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extrem[spoiler]ely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
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) the organized militia, which consists of the 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.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
I'm sorry...what? How can they irrelevant? o.O
Because it doesn't fit his argument.
He’s also choosing to ignore federal and state court precedent affirming the 2A protects the individual right to own firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If the militia is defined, it is only able bodied males.
So now you must pass an annual physical to own guns!
Bubba was t always obese and diabetic. It says you have to be able bodied to join the militia but it doesn’t say you lose your 2A rights if you get fat later. RAW interpretation still wins.
In my desire to type quickly (to get out of the house and do errands), I failed to fully type out my argument.
See in the lofty days of the first half of the 20th century, advocacy groups argued, in essence, that "we the people" were allowed to individually own firearms by the goodwill of the government. Congress could, at any time, create a law that nullifies large parts of 2A, particularly the clauses that have been interpreted to mean personal ownership. Basically, 2A was something they did not take for granted, and argued from principles of "we must behave responsibly if we are to maintain this right." After Heller, these arguments shifted, and 2A became this unassailable right, even more protected than even the first. People today are taking for granted that Congress could write new legislation that better defines things and ultimately legislate out portions of, or all of 2A rights.
The second part, Yes, there is an unorganized militia. In my example, Bubba Ray is not part of "the militia" because he is inelligible for service. This is defined in that same law elsewhere. Under the definitions of the law, I'm not even a part of the militia owing to how I have fulfilled service obligations and have medical exemptions now. In short, the unorganized militia per definitions of the Acts which govern the National Guard and its formations, are those who are eligible for drafting. Locally formed 3% "militias" simply are not such under the law. You can't create an organization, call yourself a militia and actually be one, as defined.
The Trump administration reportedly will not follow an Obama-era executive order that requires it to release a yearly report on the number of civilians and enemy fighters killed by U.S. anti-terrorism strikes.
The Trump administration reportedly will not follow an Obama-era executive order that requires it to release a yearly report on the number of civilians and enemy fighters killed by U.S. anti-terrorism strikes.
The Trump administration reportedly will not follow an Obama-era executive order that requires it to release a yearly report on the number of civilians and enemy fighters killed by U.S. anti-terrorism strikes.
How accurate were the reports? If we really know how many civilians are dying in US strike as collateral damage I think we should be up front about it and publicize the information. Avoiding bad PR isn’t a valid reason to put the truth out there about what’s being done on behalf of the country. However if the reports are just rough guesses like if we’re only putting out a range of somewhere between 8-250 people died I’m not sure how useful the reports are. We shouldn’t deny that it happens but if the reports aren’t accurate and we’re just churning the reports out for the sake of producing them I don’t see the point.
d-usa wrote: Let’s move the gun posts to the gun thread, unless we want to spend the midterms without a politics thread.
no
Keep that crap out of the gutter thread, it doesn't discuss politics.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extrem[spoiler]ely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
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) the organized militia, which consists of the 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.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
I'm sorry...what? How can they irrelevant? o.O
Because it doesn't fit his argument.
He’s also choosing to ignore federal and state court precedent affirming the 2A protects the individual right to own firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If the militia is defined, it is only able bodied males.
So now you must pass an annual physical to own guns!
Bubba was t always obese and diabetic. It says you have to be able bodied to join the militia but it doesn’t say you lose your 2A rights if you get fat later. RAW interpretation still wins.
In my desire to type quickly (to get out of the house and do errands), I failed to fully type out my argument.
See in the lofty days of the first half of the 20th century, advocacy groups argued, in essence, that "we the people" were allowed to individually own firearms by the goodwill of the government. Congress could, at any time, create a law that nullifies large parts of 2A, particularly the clauses that have been interpreted to mean personal ownership. Basically, 2A was something they did not take for granted, and argued from principles of "we must behave responsibly if we are to maintain this right." After Heller, these arguments shifted, and 2A became this unassailable right, even more protected than even the first. People today are taking for granted that Congress could write new legislation that better defines things and ultimately legislate out portions of, or all of 2A rights.
The second part, Yes, there is an unorganized militia. In my example, Bubba Ray is not part of "the militia" because he is inelligible for service. This is defined in that same law elsewhere. Under the definitions of the law, I'm not even a part of the militia owing to how I have fulfilled service obligations and have medical exemptions now. In short, the unorganized militia per definitions of the Acts which govern the National Guard and its formations, are those who are eligible for drafting. Locally formed 3% "militias" simply are not such under the law. You can't create an organization, call yourself a militia and actually be one, as defined.
Wrong. SCOTUS has consistently interpreted 2A as protecting the individual right to own firearms from Federal infringement. We have over 150 years of federal and state precedent that shows that.
And multiple SCotUS opinions have affirmed that the 2nd amendment protects individual ownership of firearms.
Spoiler:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) - The court ruled Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because of his racial background. However, in its ruling, it implies all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:
"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - The Court stated in part:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) - A Supreme Court case which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial at the state level as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. In a concurring opinion by Justice Hugo Black, he used a statement by Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment, to help validate the Court's ruling that the Bill of Rights as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment forces states, and not just the federal government, to protect the same individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights:
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ...the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms..."
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990) - A case dealing with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are "the People" when referred to in the Constitution:[5]
"[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
As well as numerous state court cases:
Spoiler:
Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
Aymette v. State[edit]
In Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee’s 1834 Constitution that “ ‘the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ ” Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment , the court wrote: “The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment.”
1. The act of 1837-8, ch. 137, sec. 2, which prohibits any person from wearing any bowie knife, or Arkansas tooth-pick, or other knife or weapon in form, shape or size resembling a bowie knife or Arkansas tooth-pick under his clothes, or concealed about his person, does not conflict with the 26th section of the first article of the bill of rights, securing to the free white citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.
2. The arms, the right to keep and bear which is secured by the constitution, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and constitute the ordinary military equipment; the legislature have the power to prohibit the keeping or wearing weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare.
3. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense, is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand, and the rulers on the other; and although this right must be inviolably preserved, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
Nunn v. Georgia[edit]
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in Nunn v. Georgia (1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)) that a state law ban on handguns was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[20] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said Nunn, "Perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause."[21]
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!”
Wilson v. State of Arkansas[edit]
In Wilson v. State of Arkansas (Ark., 1878),[28] the Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with a conviction arising under an Arkansas state law which prohibited a person from carrying a pistol except upon his own premises or when on a journey, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, the same law addressed in the Buzzard[29] decision of 1848.
At trial, Wilson was indicted and convicted of the act, and appealed to the state supreme court. The court reversed the trial court's decision citing an array of state decisions which permitted the state to regulate the manner of carrying a concealed weapon, but that the law at issue restricting such action to one's own premises, while on a journey, or when acting in aid of an officer was constitutionally invalid. The Wilson decision effectively overturned the prior holding in Buzzard. The opinion, authored by Chief Justice English, included the following assertion:
No doubt in time of peace, persons might be prohibited from wearing war arms to places of public worship, or elections, etc. But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.[30]
Salina v. Blaksley[edit]
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court, in Salina v. Blaksley,[31] became the first court to interpret the right to keep and bear arms as being only a collective right.[32] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"
In 2010, Salina v. Blaksley was overruled by the passage of an amendment to the Kansas State Constitution. The amendment provides:
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.[33]
People v. Aguilar[edit]
In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar held that a total ban on carrying firearms outside the home violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. Applying Heller, McDonald, and Moore v. Madigan (a Seventh Circuit decision), the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Aguilar, stating that the right to self-defense was at the core of the Second Amendment.[34]
They will do everything to avoid a personal interview, but in the end declining will only make matters look worse. Trump himself seemed less phased by it in the past than his lawyers.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City