Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Proposed Gun Control Legislation Does Not Violate Second Amendment - Say 52 US Law Profs


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#61 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 06:29 PM

There is an obvious compromise, but how does one compromise when Feinstein outright declares she's writing up an assault weapon ban legislation? There is no compromising with those who are determined to unjustifiably chip away at, or eliminate a very explicit right.

Republicans have their problems in other areas (particularly on the first amendment and fourth amendment) but as far as the gun debate is concerned, they clearly have a more vested interest in protecting it, so despite not supporting Republicans, hell, nor the NRA, at very least they are doing their part in preserving a right. Once the discussion veers off from the second amendment, you'll find me likely more to disagree with both of them, if not outright condemn their views. Despite the ACLU's clearly liberal policy, while I don't support them in any way, nor do I support Democrats, in all likelihood I would probably wind up siding with them (well, those for example who actually voted against retroactive immunity for AT&T, or voted against the PATRIOT Act) on first and fourth amendment issues.

There is a logical medium, which is why I voted for Gary Johnson. ;)


One last comment on this. I find that both of the groups, whether pro gun or anti gun have a little trouble with the Second Amendment and the context in which it was added to the Bill of Rights. While I agree that the pro-gunners are trying to preserve a basic right, they are also attempting to skew it so it fits their agenda. The anti-gunners take it to the other extreme. If both of them would take the time to comprehend the actual language of the second amendment, which clearly states that 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" does not specify individuals having the right to possess firearms at all...it actually doesn't mention the individual at all. As you are aware I hope, this amendment was added immediately following the battle for independence from Great Britain. I think we're relatively safe enough from invasion that ordinary citizens don't need to arm themselves with high-powered weaponry. That's just my interpretation.

Edited by Scott Hartnell's Mane, 31 January 2013 - 06:29 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#62 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:27 PM

One last comment on this. I find that both of the groups, whether pro gun or anti gun have a little trouble with the Second Amendment and the context in which it was added to the Bill of Rights. While I agree that the pro-gunners are trying to preserve a basic right, they are also attempting to skew it so it fits their agenda. The anti-gunners take it to the other extreme. If both of them would take the time to comprehend the actual language of the second amendment, which clearly states that 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" does not specify individuals having the right to possess firearms at all...it actually doesn't mention the individual at all. As you are aware I hope, this amendment was added immediately following the battle for independence from Great Britain. I think we're relatively safe enough from invasion that ordinary citizens don't need to arm themselves with high-powered weaponry. That's just my interpretation.

Unfortunately that is not the law.

That to me appears to be the correct interpretation and it was the one generally followed until the Heller decision when the in a 5-4 decision SCOTUS found a previously undiscovered individual right to bear arms independent of the well-regulated militia clause.

Even so the majority opinion still allows for gun control legislation as the opinion cited in my OP notes.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370 was a 5-4 decision.

And the four dissenting Justices noted that the majority opinion completely disregarded precedent and found a non-existent right.

IMHO the majority opinion was schizophrenic and terribly inconsistent as the dissents noted. Part of the majority opinion applied strict construction and referred to historical writings outside the Constitution to find as previously unknown individual right to bear arms divorced from the qualifier of the "well-regulated militia" prefatory clause. And then used what we call in Canada The Living Tree Doctrine "which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life" to account for modern weapons.

Per Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

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, “[i]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).

In this dissent I shall first explain why our decision in Miller was faithful to the text of the Second Amendment and the purposes revealed in its drafting history. I shall then comment on the postratification history of the Amendment, which makes abundantly clear that the Amendment should not be interpreted as limiting the authority of Congress to regulate the use or possession of firearms for purely civilian purposes.

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

Per Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment . The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.

I

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

In respect to the first independent reason, I agree with Justice Stevens, and I join his opinion. In this opinion I shall focus upon the second reason. I shall show that the District’s law is consistent with the Second Amendment even if that Amendment is interpreted as protecting a wholly separate interest in individual self-defense. That is so because the District’s regulation, which focuses upon the presence of handguns in high-crime urban areas, represents a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem.

Thus I here assume that one objective (but, as the majority concedes, ante, at 26, not the primary objective) of those who wrote the Second Amendment was to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense. Even so, a legislature could reasonably conclude that the law will advance goals of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing crime. The law is tailored to the urban crime problem in that it is local in scope and thus affects only a geographic area both limited in size and entirely urban; the law concerns handguns, which are specially linked to urban gun deaths and injuries, and which are the overwhelmingly favorite weapon of armed criminals; and at the same time, the law imposes a burden upon gun owners that seems proportionately no greater than restrictions in existence at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. In these circumstances, the District’s law falls within the zone that the Second Amendment leaves open to regulation by legislatures.

http://www.law.corne...07-290.ZD1.html

The dissent IMHO is much more cogent and rational and follows long established precedent. But that is not the law.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 31 January 2013 - 09:26 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#63 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,925 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:44 PM

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

These people are pretty radically anti-gun. Well...they claim that they are only anti gun violence but some statements made by Sarah Brady lead me to deduce that she's got an agenda almost as fanatical as the NRA does pro-gun. Their website features a counter keeping track of people shot so far this year, and one that keeps track of people shot so far today. That seems pretty nutty to me.


Thanks for the link. I didn't have time to browse the entire thing, but per your suggestion I checked out Sarah Brady's blog. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your assessment. Here's a sample


It’s also time for Congressional leaders, starting with Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker John Boehner, to move beyond the control of the NRA. No more excuses. Let it be noted, I’m referring to the NRA lobby and leaders in Washington, not to the many members across the country who are in favor of common sense solutions to gun violence.

Most Americans don’t know how weak our guns laws are. Gun owners aren’t licensed. Guns aren’t registered. Why not? Because the NRA said so. The Brady Law, named for my husband after he was shot in the 1981 attempt to assassinate President Reagan, required background checks for gun purchases from licensed gun dealers. Most private sales, including those at gun shows, don’t require background checks. That’s insanity. The background check system needs to be improved to insure that all prohibited purchasers are, in fact, prohibited from obtaining and possessing firearms.

And, yes, we need a real ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and on magazines of more than ten rounds. California’s state assault weapon ban should be the model.


Sounds completely reasonable to me...
  • 1
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#64 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:09 PM

Thanks for the link. I didn't have time to browse the entire thing, but per your suggestion I checked out Sarah Brady's blog. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your assessment. Here's a sample


Sounds completely reasonable to me...


You are certainly entitled to disagree with my assessment if you want, but it's people like her and Senator Feinstein that are actually pushing for more than just an assault weapons ban...because once they ban the assault weapons and are successful at getting them removed, then precedent is set..and who's to say they don't try to take away the rest of them? Hypothetically. I am actually sick of discussing guns...I've had enough for about the next three years in the last two months here on CDC and I actually live in the US where all this crap is going on. I'll never own a weapon in my life. Violence only begets more violence..however..I'm not going to tell someone they can't own a firearm for protection, and truthfully, as long as the assault weapon violence doesn't affect me personally...I could really give a crap whether anyone has them or not. I'm washing my hands of this issue.
  • 1
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#65 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:25 PM

You are certainly entitled to disagree with my assessment if you want, but it's people like her and Senator Feinstein that are actually pushing for more than just an assault weapons ban...because once they ban the assault weapons and are successful at getting them removed, then precedent is set..and who's to say they don't try to take away the rest of them? Hypothetically. I am actually sick of discussing guns...I've had enough for about the next three years in the last two months here on CDC and I actually live in the US where all this crap is going on. I'll never own a weapon in my life. Violence only begets more violence..however..I'm not going to tell someone they can't own a firearm for protection, and truthfully, as long as the assault weapon violence doesn't affect me personally...I could really give a crap whether anyone has them or not. I'm washing my hands of this issue.


that's why I try to avoid these topics (mostly.) Sure I'll jump in from time to time, but really nothing gets solved and too many people plug their ears and won't have a solid debate and find a compromise. I did (once) get into a really good debate/discussion about gun control on here with another poster (sorry if I can't remember who it was,) and we actually did come to a decent compromise (of course the extreme left/right people probably wouldn't have agreed to it.)
  • 1

#66 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,449 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:10 AM

You are certainly entitled to disagree with my assessment if you want, but it's people like her and Senator Feinstein that are actually pushing for more than just an assault weapons ban...because once they ban the assault weapons and are successful at getting them removed, then precedent is set..and who's to say they don't try to take away the rest of them? Hypothetically. I am actually sick of discussing guns...I've had enough for about the next three years in the last two months here on CDC and I actually live in the US where all this crap is going on. I'll never own a weapon in my life. Violence only begets more violence..however..I'm not going to tell someone they can't own a firearm for protection, and truthfully, as long as the assault weapon violence doesn't affect me personally...I could really give a crap whether anyone has them or not. I'm washing my hands of this issue.


You said it much better than I did in my earlier post. The ban is on assualt weapons will do little to curb gun violence since most gun deaths are caused by handguns.

It is really a slippery slope, what happens if the ban on assault weapons fails to stop gun deaths. Will the banning of all guns be next?
  • 2

#67 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:54 AM

You said it much better than I did in my earlier post. The ban is on assualt weapons will do little to curb gun violence since most gun deaths are caused by handguns.

It is really a slippery slope, what happens if the ban on assault weapons fails to stop gun deaths. Will the banning of all guns be next?

It cannot happen. Read the Heller case.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#68 thepedestrian

thepedestrian

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 06

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:02 AM

It cannot happen. Read the Heller case.


Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Edited by debluvscanucks, 01 February 2013 - 07:43 AM.

  • 1

#69 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:39 AM

Thanks for the link. I didn't have time to browse the entire thing, but per your suggestion I checked out Sarah Brady's blog. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your assessment. Here's a sample


Sounds completely reasonable to me...

You can disagree, but it's hard to deny the obvious when it was openly stated:

(I've posted this now 3 times)

Throttling research? Like anti-gun groups and think tanks akin to the Joyce Foundation don't do "research" that caters to their ideology?

And if you wonder why second amendment advocates don't want to compromise much on gun control, besides the non-existent foundation it has in proving that guns cause people to kill others, is prominent gun control movements that have already helped mold gun policy (the Brady Law) have more than openly espoused their give-a-mouse-a-cookie crap:

http://articles.balt...-brady-campaign

In reality, those so-called "gun safety advocates" want nothing less than the following, as quoted from then-chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields: "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily — given the political realities — very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."


  • 0

#70 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,925 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:45 AM

You can disagree, but it's hard to deny the obvious when it was openly stated:

(I've posted this now 3 times)

Nelson Shields said that in 1976 and is no longer with the Brady campaign. (in fact he is deceased)


The paragraph you quoted is at odds with the Brady campaign's stated mission:

"As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns."


  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#71 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:06 AM

Nelson Shields said that in 1976 and is no longer with the Brady campaign. (in fact he is deceased)


The paragraph you quoted is at odds with the Brady campaign's stated mission:

Of course they're taking that stance now, given since the 90's "assault weapon" ban passed, to now, a dramatic increase of Americans have accepted guns in the sense that Heller saw.

They understand marketing, and know calling for outright bans now would be completely ineffective and de-legitimise the clout they've built up on Capitol Hill re-branding themselves as light gun control. During the hippy decades, Americans were far more willing to accept gun control so people like Nelson Shields were more candid, much like The Weather Underground, Black Panther, abortion clinic bombers, Animal Liberation Front, and so on were far more openly "militant" whereas the elements today try to come off as more openly "moderate". They won't make that mistake now, but those vested in second amendment rights know the gimmick already.

Edited by zaibatsu, 01 February 2013 - 07:10 AM.

  • 0

#72 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,925 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:16 AM

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Edit: Wetcoaster, you keep acting as if they can never, ever, strip the right to own handguns. Are you really that foolish?

I suppose it depends on what your definition of "foolish" is....

Is it more foolish to assume that something which has already been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States will hold true moreso than it is to assume that a reasonable level of gun control, aimed at specific types of weapons and ammunition will eventually lead to a complete ban on all guns?

I'm going to go with the latter.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#73 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:23 AM

I suppose it depends on what your definition of "foolish" is....

Is it more foolish to assume that something which has already been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States will hold true moreso than it is to assume that a reasonable level of gun control, aimed at specific types of weapons and ammunition will eventually lead to a complete ban on all guns?

I'm going to go with the latter.

Well, given San Francisco, Chicago, and DC gun bans (which were indeed recently applied until held unconstitutional over the last several years), the obvious answer is YES.

But here's more:

http://gunscholar.com/gunban.htm

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Charles Krauthammer (columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996 (boldface added).
* * *

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).
* * *

Rep. William L. Clay (D-St. Louis, Mo.), said the Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases," Clay said.

Robert L. Koenig, NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill, St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 8, 1993, at 1A (boldface added).
* * *

[Peter] Jennings: And the effect of the assault rifle ban in Stockton? The price went up, gun stores sold out and police say that fewer than 20 were turned in. Still, some people in Stockton argue you cannot measure the effect that way. They believe there's value in making a statement that the implements of violence are unacceptable in our culture.

[Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991, available on LEXIS, NEWS database, SCRIPT file (boldface added).


  • 0

#74 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,925 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:28 AM

Of course they're taking that stance now, given since the 90's "assault weapon" ban passed, to now, a dramatic increase of Americans have accepted guns in the sense that Heller saw.

They understand marketing, and know calling for outright bans now would be completely ineffective and de-legitimise the clout they've built up on Capitol Hill re-branding themselves as light gun control. During the hippy decades, Americans were far more willing to accept gun control so people like Nelson Shields were more candid, much like The Weather Underground, Black Panther, abortion clinic bombers, Animal Liberation Front, and so on were far more openly "militant" whereas the elements today try to come off as more openly "moderate". They won't make that mistake now, but those vested in second amendment rights know the gimmick already.

Ah, I see. The Brady campaign is using creative "marketing" to disguise their true agenda. Meanwhile your quoting of a dead guy who made a statement over 36 years ago to support your claim, is nothing of the sort. :rolleyes:

Paul Helmke was the president of the Brady campaign from 2006 to 2011:

In November 2008, Paul Helmke endorsed the American Hunters and Shooters Association by stating, "I see our issues as complementary to theirs"


More propaganda, I suppose...
  • 2
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#75 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:29 AM

Ah, I see. The Brady campaign is using creative "marketing" to disguise their true agenda. Meanwhile your quoting of a dead guy who made a statement over 36 years ago to support your claim, is nothing of the sort. :rolleyes:

Paul Helmke was the president of the Brady campaign from 2006 to 2011:


More propaganda, I suppose...

I've quoted others..

But dismiss as "propaganda" when you can't refute what these people have said, and the attempts on gun bans that have already taken place, those in much more recent times than that single quote.

Predictable as ever.

Edited by zaibatsu, 01 February 2013 - 07:30 AM.

  • 0

#76 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:46 AM

Ah, I see. The Brady campaign is using creative "marketing" to disguise their true agenda. Meanwhile your quoting of a dead guy who made a statement over 36 years ago to support your claim, is nothing of the sort. :rolleyes:

Paul Helmke was the president of the Brady campaign from 2006 to 2011:


More propaganda, I suppose...


Daaaamn that propaganda, eh, Rup?


Predictable as ever........I believe I read a quote somewhere on here, perhaps even in this thread......about people who stick their fingers in their ears and yell "Lalalalalalal" as loud as they can in order not hear a balanced and fair argument against their beliefs. Unfortunately, some opinions are so entrenched in outdated and ridiculous notions that those expressing them and continuing to spew them regardless of facts etc. that prove them wrong begin to appear quite silly. And even when they are proven wrong or are provided with a gracious opportunity for compromise, try to deflect or just downright ignore what they have been presented with .......anything not in line with such a person's opinion is nothing but propaganda or hyperbole, apparently.
  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#77 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,925 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:50 AM

Well, given San Francisco, Chicago, and DC gun bans (which were indeed recently applied until held unconstitutional over the last several years), the obvious answer is YES.



"Until held unconstitutional".... So you're saying "yes" even though you must realize that the question referred to exactly that; The fact that the banning of handguns has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.?

Sounds awfully disingenuous to me.

But here's more:

http://gunscholar.com/gunban.htm
[/color]

So, again you use Pete Shields to support your case:

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.)


Edited by RUPERTKBD, 01 February 2013 - 07:51 AM.

  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#78 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:53 AM

When one must allow Charles Krauthammer to think and speak for them, one don's the apparel of a shill .. register all guns and hold the owners of said guns responsible for all unlawful acts committed with said weapon .. voila .. end of problem ..

No-one in their right mind would have guns laying around unsecured if they were to be held accountable for said weapons ..

Where would this go against the 2nd Amendment?
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#79 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:21 AM

"Until held unconstitutional".... So you're saying "yes" even though you must realize that the question referred to exactly that; The fact that the banning of handguns has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.?

Sounds awfully disingenuous to me.

So, again you use Pete Shields to support your case:

Congrats, a person that cites Pete Shields to support their personal view. I guess Pete Shields has multiple personalities? And that's just one of the sources cited, you predictably left the others alone. :)

How would something "sound" disingenuous? These three large cities with notable jurisdiction and clout with neighbouring metro areas did have gun bans in place. Are you saying this is false? How is this propaganda when gun bans have actually been attempted by passing them? If these weren't ruled unconstitutional what would have stopped other cities, states, and federal legislation from taking it one step further after each mass shooting outrage? Are you suggesting they wouldn't have taken it one step further? Some rational explanations are in order from you. Hopefully more than banally dismissing things without substance.

Edited by zaibatsu, 01 February 2013 - 09:22 AM.

  • 0

#80 Ovech Trick

Ovech Trick

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:32 AM

Seems to me these right wing idiots are more concerned with protecting their personal arsenal then they are with stopping gun violence.

Scumbag GOP - believes banning abortion will stop abortion, doesn't believe banning assault weapons will stop shootings.
  • 0
Posted Image

Capitalist Hockey League - Minnesota Wild GM

#81 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:41 AM

Seems to me these right wing idiots are more concerned with protecting their personal arsenal then they are with stopping gun violence.

Scumbag GOP - believes banning abortion will stop abortion, doesn't believe banning assault weapons will stop shootings.

Because giving up your rights and personal property is going to stop all the 50 year old wars and the anomalous killing sprees that seem to be drug induced for the most part? Rifles of any kind aren't even used in crime all that much.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#82 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:41 AM

Seems to me these right wing idiots are more concerned with protecting their personal arsenal then they are with stopping gun violence.

Scumbag GOP - believes banning abortion will stop abortion, doesn't believe banning assault weapons will stop shootings.

Note, it isn't just the GOP that doesn't believe banning assault weapons will stop shootings. Why? Because the last "assault weapons" bans didn't stop shootings. Ask the people of Columbine, Colorado.

This is just excessive outrage over mass shootings where people come up with these naive assumptions that restrictions/bans that target specific guns that didn't work before suddenly will work this time.

Edited by zaibatsu, 01 February 2013 - 09:42 AM.

  • 1

#83 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:44 AM

When one must allow Charles Krauthammer to think and speak for them, one don's the apparel of a shill .. bregister all guns and hold the owners of said guns responsible for all unlawful acts committed with said weapon .. voila .. end of problem ..

No-one in their right mind would have guns laying around unsecured if they were to be held accountable for said weapons ..

Where would this go against the 2nd Amendment?


new problem... would the same law be carried over to automobiles? Same logic... if you can't keep your car safe and out of the hands of those that would do harm with them, then you should get blame?
  • 0

#84 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,925 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:33 AM

Congrats, a person that cites Pete Shields to support their personal view. I guess Pete Shields has multiple personalities? And that's just one of the sources cited, you predictably left the others alone. :)

How would something "sound" disingenuous? These three large cities with notable jurisdiction and clout with neighbouring metro areas did have gun bans in place. Are you saying this is false? How is this propaganda when gun bans have actually been attempted by passing them? If these weren't ruled unconstitutional what would have stopped other cities, states, and federal legislation from taking it one step further after each mass shooting outrage? Are you suggesting they wouldn't have taken it one step further? Some rational explanations are in order from you. Hopefully more than banally dismissing things without substance.



I don't know what point you're trying to make re: Pete Shields. The guy is long gone and any attempt to use a comment that he made more than three decades ago to strengthen the "slippery slope" argument is as weak as it gets.

As far as your other "sources" go, they're basioally opinion pieces from gun supporters. I checked the link that you posted and decided to do a search of my own. I was unable to find the original quote attributed to William Clay, however, I did find several more internet sites that had gun advocates referring to this quote. I'm not claiming that he never said it, but the fact that the only evidence I can find is that supplied by the NRA and/or it's supporters makes me question it almost as much as I do the Pete Shields quote.

Regarding the handgun bans in the three cities:

I was debating the issue of any type of gun control eventually leading to a ban on handguns with another poster. I referred to the fact that such a ban has already been declared uncostitutional by the Supreme Court.

You respond with an example of three cities that had bans in place before the Supreme Court decision, but despite the fact that you are well aware of the SCOTUS decision, you don't see your argument as disingenuos?
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#85 sakage.shinga

sakage.shinga

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 10

Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:39 PM

Makes sense. Americans don't have an "unlimited" right to freedom of speech, then nor should they have an unlimited right to bear arms. Regulation & moderation being key, I don't see why there shouldn't be legistlations that ban the sale of automatic rifles & requirement for background checks at gun shows.
  • 0
Posted Image

#86 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:42 PM

Makes sense. Americans don't have an "unlimited" right to freedom of speech, then nor should they have an unlimited right to bear arms. Regulation & moderation being key, I don't see why there shouldn't be legistlations that ban the sale of automatic rifles & requirement for background checks at gun shows.


Moderation...and regulation...here in the US...lol...good luck with that.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#87 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,925 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 01:18 PM

Moderation...and regulation...here in the US...lol...good luck with that.


You see Scott, that is the problem right there.

If something is going to change in the US, it has to start with people's attitudes. I refuse to believe that there aren't reasonable gun advocates out there who realize that there is no need for semi-automatic weapons or ammo clips that hold 30 shots.

These people need to make themselves heard. The need to stand up to the fear mongers in the gun lobby and refute the "slippery slope" argument. They need to let their fellow gun owners know that the handgun battle has already been waged in the Supreme Court. They aren't going back.

The reasonable gun owners need to stand up and be the voice of reason in the face of those who claim that the government is out to strip you of all your rights and impose the New World Order in Obamaland.

The reasonable gun owners need to try and change the attitudes of their less reasonable fellows.

Because until attitudes towards gun ownership begin to change, nothing else will.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#88 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 01 February 2013 - 01:22 PM

new problem... would the same law be carried over to automobiles? Same logic... if you can't keep your car safe and out of the hands of those that would do harm with them, then you should get blame?


Makes sense to me .. if someone steals your car and kills someone with it, you have insurance to cover any liability you may have .. it is the law .. now how many people have numerous vehicles laying around all loaded with gas, running for someone to steal?? .. other than Mitt the Minkey, I am thinking very few ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#89 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 01:34 PM

If anyone wants their guns, go and take them, just don't be a hypocrite and demand that other people with guns do the job for you.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#90 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 01:35 PM

Makes sense. Americans don't have an "unlimited" right to freedom of speech, then nor should they have an unlimited right to bear arms. Regulation & moderation being key, I don't see why there shouldn't be legistlations that ban the sale of automatic rifles & requirement for background checks at gun shows.

That was the second major point on the dissent in Heller by Justice Breyer:


The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.


The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.