Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

US gun owners show off their Christmas 'toys'


dudeone

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I'd like to see (Hear? Read?) the spin doctoring necessary to answer that question. But haven't we been here before with this question? And it has yet to be answered 9 pages later? Several different threads later? Yet still the same person pushing their agenda. While all the while ducking, weaving and dodging having to actually answer the question(s) put to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it's clear you religiously believe the only "facts" support your claim (due to only looking at those you agree with, Spaghetti Monster bless Google), at the end of the day, regardless of how much you self aggrandise your beliefs into something greater than opinion, a bizarre fascination with guns is justified by the US Constitution. Obviously someone with a bit more sense than you made the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0/10

You should change your name to Stand-up Casualty.

They would have a point if it happened here in Canada.

Good sense in that law abiding citizens can use guns responsibly, murderers cannot. Courts also have the sense to not make law abiding citizens guilty for a criminal's acts like you personally, naively wish. Sense isn't limited to the founding fathers for establishing the second amendment, it extends to judges for reasonably preserving it. You, much like Wetcoaster, have an aggrandisement issue believing you know more than all of these people and know what's best for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What rules? This is an opinion from SCOTUS and is 4 years old.

It was not until the Heller case in 2008 (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

478 F. 3d 370) that a slim majority of SCOTUS (5-4) changed past interpretation of the Second Amendment to find an individual right to bear arms separate from the militia requirement.

The dissent found the majority reasoning baffling (as do I) based upon the wording of the Second Amendment and past decisions of SCOTUS:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “
n 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.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;2 we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).3 No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.

The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; postenactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Court’s decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself.

Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).

http://www.law.corne.../07-290.ZD.html

Since every valid peer-reviewed published study I have seen comes to the conclusions that I set out, the problem seems to be with your perception, not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

New research finds Pb is the hidden villain behind violent crime, lower IQs, and even the ADHD epidemic. And fixing the problem is a lot cheaper than doing nothing.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline?page=1

This was an interesting read. Maybe the lead from all the firearms in the country is keeping Americans dumber? Does it explain Bush and the Republicans? I kid of course, but the very real effects of lead on intelligence and aggressiveness can't be disputed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

New research finds Pb is the hidden villain behind violent crime, lower IQs, and even the ADHD epidemic. And fixing the problem is a lot cheaper than doing nothing.

http://www.motherjon...gasoline?page=1

This was an interesting read. Maybe the lead from all the firearms in the country is keeping Americans dumber? Does it explain Bush and the Republicans? I kid of course, but the very real effects of lead on intelligence and aggressiveness can't be disputed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCOTUS' opinions took far more peer-reviewed studies into account that you cited, and that's the difference between them and you.. you are only posting studies and literature that you personally agree with, and you've certainly made your rather biased opinion well known. I've posted others, and there's far more than even I can cite that show what insignificant difference gun control makes in the US. To pass constitutional muster the onus is on gun control to extensively show cause for why it's necessary.

Also, as far as judges are concerned, we've been over what little it would take for them to reverse that ruling, but again, someone with an excessively higher opinion of self wishes to tell me how rare this is all while being outraged at how quickly opinion changed with Heller.

There was nothing of substance to dispute, and I don't waste much time with your type of substance lacking ad hominem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must have a special edition of the Heller decision because in the one I read they did not get into the various studies - the majority simply posited a right to self-defence by handgun.

Not surprising since the way in which the majority set out the question to be answered:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.

The only biased and uninformed opinions are coming from you as you completely ignore valid studies in favour of gun nutty claims.

Heller was not a quick reversal of opinion by SCOTUS. It took about two hundred years to change the prior line of cases finding the right to bear arms was not an individual right but rather one connected to a "well-regulated militia") that were last exemplified by the 1939 case of in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, some users have put me on ignore and can only see my posts when they get quoted by someone else.....unfortunately, there seems to be a huge case of pot calling going on regarding substance and some users are notorious for just ignoring the questions they don't want to answer or don't have any legitimate answers for. Classic cowardice...deflect, deflect, DEFLECT....... when it comes to learned debate and discussion..........

It is most amusing in this thread to watch someone skillfully manhandling someone else who seems to believe that THEIR opinion should trump all..........regardless of the facts cited and staring them irrefutably in the face. Unfortunately for them, a very well-educated, hands on, learned man is willing to step up and attempt to educate despite the (no doubt) extreme frustration in attempting to do so. It's quite entertaining, actually....... almost like being in a courtroom.

As I have said, several times........as someone who has grown up with shotguns and rifles at home.......someone who has their Dad's prized collection of firearms in their own home, now.....there is no need I can see for ownership of automatic weapons in homes in the US.....or Canada. It may be different in a country where guerilla warfare is being waged house to house, street to street..........but that is not the life we live here in Canada, nor is it the life my brother and his family live in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... it's either there are thousands of Americans shooting themselves and others on purpose or accidentally? Golly gee. So which is it, most deaths are by thugs? Or are they accidental/self defense? We already know it's not by gangsters as you implied earlier.

Firearm homicides

  • Number of deaths: 11,493

  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm' rel="external nofollow">

We took them out. That leaves about 9,500. That's not much better, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heller's examination of Miller:

Miller ruling also points out that the specific type of weapon was not what they had in mind, even though clearly they ignore that these types of guns were used by their own state militia. "Militia" in the second amendment means citizens, as in citizens forming a militia. Military was established in the articles, not in the Bill of Rights, there was no need to make an amendment to reassert government can form a military.

More US constitutional studies are needed from you.

Some of us are well aware that this is a right bestowed upon citizens not government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...