I said "a blanket ban on a type of firearm universally accepted as usable for self defense isn't legal." Which is what the ruling said. And yes, Heller ruled it was an individual right, because it was the first time it had ever been challenged as an individual right. And going into any local gun laws pre-1934 is a useless argument, because up until that point we have no federal legislation to base anything on.
:edit: and that personal ownership had generally been accepted as legal, which it had.
Re italics again, not correct. No Supreme Court cases, and state after state of gun bans and heavy regulations. Including handgun bans more strict than anything DC had. And no, that is not the first time it had been challenged as an individual right. Just because some places didn't regulate doesn't mean they didn't have the authority, and federal legislation has nothing to do with what the 2nd amendment covers.
Again, this is Miller:
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
It is not related to the militia, it is not covered by the 2nd amendment. End of story.
...handguns have military/militia value. Miller explicitly supports Heller on the handgun ban portion. Heller is the first time personal ownership was brought to the supreme court. Like literally every other supreme court ruling in history, what states have ruled ceases to matter once the supreme court overrides them. It's... the whole point of having a supreme court. All 50 states could've individually said handguns were illegal, if the supreme court says they're accepted as useful for legal self defense and thus are legal, they have to comply. Aside from race-based state laws that banned gun possession unless approved by a sheriff/some kind of authority in order to ensure only white people had guns, all of which predate the 1934 NFA, I'm not aware of any states that have ever banned handguns, including DC as it's not a state, and the Chicago ban was limited to Chicago, not the state of Illinois. Federal legislation has everything to do with what the 2nd amendment covers, because it's quite literally the law of the land.
Read the edits. Aside from that, federal law does not affect state law unless it specifically says so. The existence or lack thereof of a federal law covering guns does not affect what states or cities may do under the 2nd amendment.
Miller does not support Heller, at all. I don't know how many times or in how many ways I have to say this. Heller is literally the first SC 2nd amendment case IN HISTORY to strike down a gun control law. There is a reason for that, and it's *not* the Heller was just upholding established precedent.
A school campus cop heard the gunfire, rushed to the building but never went inside — instead waiting outside for another four agonizing minutes as Cruz continued the slaughter.
Two years ago, according to a newly released timeline of interactions with Cruz’s family, a deputy investigated a report that Cruz “planned to shoot up the school” — intelligence that was forwarded to the school’s resource officer, with no apparent result.
The school’s resource officer, Scot Peterson, 54, was suspended without pay then immediately resigned and retired. Two other deputies have been placed on restricted duty while Internal Affairs investigates how they handled the two shooter warnings.
Peterson — named school resource officer of the year for Parkland in 2014 — was in another building, dealing with a student issue when the shots sounded. Armed with his sidearm, Peterson ran to the west side of Building 12 and set up in a defensive position, then did nothing for four minutes until the gunfire stopped, the sheriff said.
Since the Columbine school shooting that left 12 dead in 1999, cops have been trained not to wait for heavily armed SWAT officers but to enter buildings to find and kill the threat.
Yeah...if this is the current quality of personnel, bloating the roster is not going to help.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Reciprocity on gun control seems like a strange concept to me.
It’s a hard sell that someone actually cares at all about reducing gun deaths, if they demand something in return for doing so.
It strikes me as especially laughable from the party that is most prone to screaming 'STATES RIGHTS!' and now is proposing something that shits all over that very concept.
Yes, I am aware, lawl IOKYR lawl hypocrisy etc etc lawl.
That doesn't change how flagrant the bullshit is. At least put some fucking effort into it.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I said "a blanket ban on a type of firearm universally accepted as usable for self defense isn't legal." Which is what the ruling said. And yes, Heller ruled it was an individual right, because it was the first time it had ever been challenged as an individual right. And going into any local gun laws pre-1934 is a useless argument, because up until that point we have no federal legislation to base anything on.
:edit: and that personal ownership had generally been accepted as legal, which it had.
Re italics again, not correct. No Supreme Court cases, and state after state of gun bans and heavy regulations. Including handgun bans more strict than anything DC had. And no, that is not the first time it had been challenged as an individual right. Just because some places didn't regulate doesn't mean they didn't have the authority, and federal legislation has nothing to do with what the 2nd amendment covers.
Again, this is Miller:
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
It is not related to the militia, it is not covered by the 2nd amendment. End of story.
...handguns have military/militia value. Miller explicitly supports Heller on the handgun ban portion. Heller is the first time personal ownership was brought to the supreme court. Like literally every other supreme court ruling in history, what states have ruled ceases to matter once the supreme court overrides them. It's... the whole point of having a supreme court. All 50 states could've individually said handguns were illegal, if the supreme court says they're accepted as useful for legal self defense and thus are legal, they have to comply. Aside from race-based state laws that banned gun possession unless approved by a sheriff/some kind of authority in order to ensure only white people had guns, all of which predate the 1934 NFA, I'm not aware of any states that have ever banned handguns, including DC as it's not a state, and the Chicago ban was limited to Chicago, not the state of Illinois. Federal legislation has everything to do with what the 2nd amendment covers, because it's quite literally the law of the land.
Read the edits. Aside from that, federal law does not affect state law unless it specifically says so. The existence or lack thereof of a federal law covering guns does not affect what states or cities may do under the 2nd amendment.
Miller does not support Heller, at all. I don't know how many times or in how many ways I have to say this. Heller is literally the first SC 2nd amendment case IN HISTORY to strike down a gun control law. There is a reason for that, and it's *not* the Heller was just upholding established precedent.
It's the first to codify ownership as a personal right, because it was the first supreme court case where that was brought. Miller's reasoning for the ban on a short barrel shotgun was entirely predicated on it not being of military/militia use, as in that court's view the only guns protected by the 2nd are guns that have military/militia value, which handguns do. So unless the 2008 supreme court had decided that a weapon the military uses, and has used, for well over a hundred years had no military value, Miller supports Heller's finding that handgun ownership is protected by the 2nd amendment.
That's a Georgia SC ruling, dude. Miller's reasoning is that the 2nd is about protecting militia use. And given that Heller has to throw out the entire first half of the text..
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I don't get how this is always new information every time there's a new shooting. Mainstream sites have been writing about how the combination of high velocity and tendency for spalling makes the 5.56 round the AR-15 uses significantly more deadly than many other rounds. This is from 2016:
A bullet with more energy can do more damage. Its total kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass of the bullet times its velocity squared. The bullet from a handgun is—as absurd as it may sound—slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.
The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange.
It's why the fucking military uses it! It's really lethal!
And there's any number of Y'All Qaeda on YouTube shooting up ballistic gelatin and practically coming over the damage their "toy" can do. I don't fucking get the mental gymnastics these people do.
+2
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
As we near the end of the thread, I'd like to share something that I wasn't aware of until this most recent discussion which should put one argument to rest, and is something you can use and disseminate to others: the myth of the "good guy with a gun."
Chris Kyle is someone you may not recognize by name, but probably recognize by reputation. He was the real-world person who was the focus of the movie/book American Sniper. He was a highly decorated Navy Seal, and had 150 confirmed kills in the Iraq War. He was, if nothing else, very experienced with firearms. On February 2nd, 2013, he and a friend took a Marine veteran to a shooting range to attempt to help him with PTSD. On the way to the range, he realized the marine was dangerous, and texted a friend as such. Kyle and his friend were shot and killed by this marine while they were at the range. Both of them were armed, but did not have time to unholster their weapons. This is as close to an ideal situation as one could be in a shooting situation: he knew the man was armed (he was the one who provided the weapon). He himself was armed, highly trained - moreso than literally ANYONE in a civilian life could be - and was aware the man could be dangerous. And he was shot, point blank, and died. The killer got into his car and drove away.
"A good guy with a gun" doesn't prevent killings, unless the good guy is willing to be a murderer first, because in this world, until the point the "bad guy" has pulled the trigger, he's a law-abiding citizen.
This is idiotic. Of course they didn't have time to unholster their weapons, they were both shot in the back without warning by someone they had no reason to believe was going to shoot them.
Please just reread what you said.
And apply that to literally any situation where a person intending to kill someone is in a place and about to start firing.
That's the point.
I mean, if we're going anecdotal bullshit route, I have about six thousand of them. Here's just two.
Amazing, you cling to the notion that the exception is the rule.
This is why people don't think gun owners are arguing in good faith y'know.
No. Anecdotal evidence is shit. Full stop. It does nothing but jerk the side off presenting it. It proves nothing and supports nothing because there's just as much of it on each side.
Statistical evidence doesn't do any favors for gun owners here either.
The problem is you can make statistics say whatever you want to.
Yes, more guns means more people being killed by guns. The same way more cars means more people getting into car accidents, and more blenders means more people losing fingers. It's not revelatory at all. "If we reduce the _____ then _____" is a blanket statement that can be applied to anything.
People talk about mandating gun safes, having homes checked one or multiple times a year. How? Literally how? That's eighty million law abiding citizens, at least, who'd need their 4th amendment right wrinkled up just a little bit at least once a year. And the ATF has about 2600 active agents, to search the homes of 80 million people at least once a year. That's more than 30,000 searches per agent. Every agent would have to perform a hundred searches per day, just to do it once. You could increase the agency tenfold and it still wouldn't be doable. And everyone knows what we need more of is government agencies...
You want to reduce accidental gun deaths? Enhance consequences. You don't pass a constitutionally questionable and logistically impossible mandatory safe law, you pass a law that says if you have an unsecured firearm in a house and someone gets killed with it, the owner is charged with negligent homicide. You pass a law that say an owner who doesn't report a firearm lost or stolen that's subsequently used in a crime gets charged as an accessory to that crime.
You want to reduce gun crime? Figure out why people commit crime. Look at every single high point on that graph and realize they all have pretty much the same things in common, poverty and widespread substance addiction. And realize that the nightmarislhy regressive social policies of the last 40 years in this country are directly driving the severity and intensity of what we're seeing today.
You want to ban guns? Fuck. There's not a country left after that. Not the same one at least. Even if you do manage to somehow black magic up a ban that isn't a complete and utter joke like the 1994 AWB was, it gets hit with so many lawsuits before the ink is dry by the time it's sorted out we're all sentient balls of energy. And you've just flipped the switch on the nightmare scenario a non-insignificant portion of gun owners have purchased guns for. Think the "they tried to take our guns" rhetoric that helped W get elected, multiplied by a thousand. Actually repeal the second amendment? Then what? Buyback? 330 million guns. Even at just $100 apiece that's $33 billion dollars. Considering only the literally cheapest piece of shit gun, a HiPoint, is $100, people aren't going to turn in collections worth tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars just to walk away with a couple hundred. Just paying the average 9mm pistol and cheap AR-15 price of around $500, you're at a hundred and sixty billion dollars. That doesn't include what you'd have to pay the people operating the buy back, transportation, storage, disposal, destruction. Or the literally billions of rounds of ammunition, full of gunpowder and toxic lead that would need to be disposed of cleanly. Forced turn in? If you got a 99% gun turn in rate, that still leaves you with 800,000 people who own guns. The 800,000 that are openly refusing to turn them in under threat of prison or worse. Who goes and gets those? For comparison, there are about 600,000 police officers nationwide, and the combined combat duty portion of the US military is around 200,000. Do you just... go to war with 800,000 US citizens? And that's at 99% turn in rate. What if you only got 80%? Or 50%?
Yo @matt has a problem your graph is evidence that gun control works. Most those red dots that are outside the international average are impoverished Southern states with lax gun control and their neighbors.
That's a Georgia SC ruling, dude. Miller's reasoning is that the 2nd is about protecting militia use. And given that Heller has to throw out the entire first half of the text..
Then it doesn't matter either way. Miller supports the militia interpretation which would leave them legal, and the 2008 court interpretation of personal ownership supports it as banning would violate the right to self defense.
Posts
Read the edits. Aside from that, federal law does not affect state law unless it specifically says so. The existence or lack thereof of a federal law covering guns does not affect what states or cities may do under the 2nd amendment.
Miller does not support Heller, at all. I don't know how many times or in how many ways I have to say this. Heller is literally the first SC 2nd amendment case IN HISTORY to strike down a gun control law. There is a reason for that, and it's *not* the Heller was just upholding established precedent.
It’s a hard sell that someone actually cares at all about reducing gun deaths, if they demand something in return for doing so.
Yeah...if this is the current quality of personnel, bloating the roster is not going to help.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
It strikes me as especially laughable from the party that is most prone to screaming 'STATES RIGHTS!' and now is proposing something that shits all over that very concept.
Yes, I am aware, lawl IOKYR lawl hypocrisy etc etc lawl.
That doesn't change how flagrant the bullshit is. At least put some fucking effort into it.
It's the first to codify ownership as a personal right, because it was the first supreme court case where that was brought. Miller's reasoning for the ban on a short barrel shotgun was entirely predicated on it not being of military/militia use, as in that court's view the only guns protected by the 2nd are guns that have military/militia value, which handguns do. So unless the 2008 supreme court had decided that a weapon the military uses, and has used, for well over a hundred years had no military value, Miller supports Heller's finding that handgun ownership is protected by the 2nd amendment.
I don't get how this is always new information every time there's a new shooting. Mainstream sites have been writing about how the combination of high velocity and tendency for spalling makes the 5.56 round the AR-15 uses significantly more deadly than many other rounds. This is from 2016:
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/
It's why the fucking military uses it! It's really lethal!
And there's any number of Y'All Qaeda on YouTube shooting up ballistic gelatin and practically coming over the damage their "toy" can do. I don't fucking get the mental gymnastics these people do.
Yo @matt has a problem your graph is evidence that gun control works. Most those red dots that are outside the international average are impoverished Southern states with lax gun control and their neighbors.
Then it doesn't matter either way. Miller supports the militia interpretation which would leave them legal, and the 2008 court interpretation of personal ownership supports it as banning would violate the right to self defense.
Geth, close the thread.