A School Shooting in Maryland

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Altima of the Gates

Again, stricter regulation seems to be the way to go, and the idea that it'll end up "neutering" civilians from protecting themselves is short sighted at best, downright dumb at worst.

Actually strict regulation is not the way to go since it has no effect on homicide.
The FBI's Uniform Crime Data has been compiled and made into an interesting chart of homicide per 100,000 in the US from 1900 to 2010.



The first spike can be attributed to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1910s (at the state level) and then Federally in 1920. When prohibition ended in the 1930s, the homicide rate dropped because organized crime (gangs) had lost a major source of income (illegal alcohol).
When the drug prohibition was started in the 1960s (again at the state level, and then Federally with Nixon's "War on Drugs" in the early 1970s) the homicide rate spiked along with it.
As legalization of some drugs has started to happen, and the "War on Drugs" is essentially lost, the homicide rate has been on a steady decline. If the "War on Drugs" was ended, the homicide rate would likely drop even further due to the fact that gangs/organized crime would lose a major source of their income and thus the power that goes along with it that they are willing to commit homicide to keep.
Gun laws and gun control have ZERO effect on homicide in the US. We know this because we've had gun laws in place since the 1930s. The NFA of 1934 forced people to register machine guns, and pay a tax on them. In 1968 the GCA was passed that made selling guns through the mail illegal, and created the Federal Firearms Dealer system, along with making assault rifles class III weapons. In 1986 the sale of new machine guns, submachine guns, and assault rifles were all banned. In 1989 the import ban on paramilitary rifles was passed. In 1994 the "Assault Weapon ban and magazine ban were passed. We can see by the chart above that NONE of those laws did ANYTHING to curb, let alone reduce, homicide in the US.
In fact, homicide actually increased during the Assault Weapon ban of 1994, and actually was in decline after the ban ended in 2004.
Gun control in the US is a complete and total failure, and has been since 1934.

It is why both California and Texas (the states with the largest populations in the US) have the exact same homicide rate (4.8 per 100,000 as of 2016), yet have vastly different gun laws.

So no, we don't need anymore stupid bans, or idiotic disarmament schemes. The facts do not support any need for such laws and since in the US it is a RIGHT to keep and bear paramilitary arms (US vs Miller, 1939), there is no justification for the type of laws these highly emotional individuals are calling for. Emotion makes for bad policy decisions.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The FBI's Uniform Crime Data has been compiled and made into an interesting chart of homicide per 100,000 in the US from 1900 to 2010.

Color me not surprised that you are olympically ignoring other developed countries "let's compare the USA with the USA" which has had the right to bear arms since 1791 so the USA has never been a weapon free country by any metric.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

As well as doing their part exercising their right protected under the Constitution.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The facts do not support any need for such laws and since in the US it is a RIGHT to keep and bear paramilitary arms (US vs Miller, 1939), there is no justification for the type of laws these highly emotional individuals are calling for. Emotion makes for bad policy decisions.

You go ahead and tell the families of a homicide victim that they shouldn't overreact that their relative was killed with an easily purchasable and widely available tool. Complete lack of empathy makes for bad policy decisions.

Furthermore the second amendment is not a blanket protection. In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in Columbia vs Heller the right of every American to own guns. This however comes with several caveats:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

This is a very far cry from the common argument that the 2nd amendment gives you protection from any and all regulation and that legislation shouldn't even be discussed to begin with.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

The second amendment is not a blanket protection. In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in Columbia vs Heller the right of every American to own guns. This however comes with several caveats:



This is a very far cry from the common argument that the 2nd amendment gives you protection from any and all regulation and that legislation shouldn't even be discussed to begin with.

It's a shame the Founders in their stupidity, didnt specify muskets only as they were surely not capable of understanding that weapons would advance in the future... Oh wait. They were smart enough to create the most successful form of Government in history. I think they knew exactly what they were doing when the 2nd Amendment was created as it is also the ONLY Amendment with "Shall not be Infringed" writtn specifically in there.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

[Eisdrache]

You do understand that this is the Supreme Court's ruling, leaving open the possibility of regulations?

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

You do understand that this is the Supreme Court's ruling, leaving open the possibility of regulations?

You do realize that the Supreme Court CAN and has been wrong before, right?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Color me not surprised that you are olympically ignoring other developed countries "let's compare the USA with the USA" which has had the right to bear arms since 1791 so the USA has never been a weapon free country by any metric.

The "developed countries" argument has been thoroughly debunked with regard to comparing the US (which is comprised of 50-Federated states/countries) with any one--cherry picked--country to push a narrative.

https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

If we are going to compare countries, it is far better to compare countries of similar size, criminal demographics (gang-population), and population density.
The US is closer to Mexico and Brazil.
Mexico has a population of 127.5 million, and a population density of 164 per square mile, and about 150,000 active gang members.
Brazil has a population of 207.7 million, and a population density of 62 per square mile, and approximately 140,000 active gang members.
The US has 330-million people, a population density of 98 per square mile, and 1.8-million gang members.
Mexico's homicide rate is currently around 21 per 100,000.
Brazil's homicide rate is 27 per 100,000 (as of 2016).
While the US homicide rate is 4.3 per 100,000.
Mexico has a near total ban on ownership of firearms, as does Brazil, while the US has comparatively low restrictions.
So the argument that the US is or not like country A, B, or C is a foolish argument unless one is willing to compare countries of similar size, population, density, and criminal demographic.
Russia would also be a good comparison due to its level of organized crime, population, and density.
One could even look at Europe as a whole (including Russia) and find that their combined population is 742.7-million, density is 143 per square mile, and total gang member is about 50,000 (high estimate). The combine homicide rate is approximately 7.6 per 100,000 (about double the US).
As I have stated numerous times on this issue, gangs are the main cause of most violent crime in the United States and most countries in general. If you wish to lessen the homicide rate, then you need to do something about organized crime.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

You go ahead and tell the families of a homicide victim that they shouldn't overreact that their relative was killed with an easily purchasable and widely available tool. Complete lack of empathy makes for bad policy decisions.

I will happily tell them that millions have died to protect the rights they are trying to take away, and that their loss--while tragic--is not greater than the sacrifice to protect those rights.
I would also tell them that if the police had done their job, their loved one would still be alive today and Parkland would have ended like the shooting in Maryland where only one person and the shooter died.
As I said, emotions make for terrible policy decisions since rights are non-negotiable. A person's "feels" are trumped by inalienable rights, and that includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Furthermore the second amendment is not a blanket protection. In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in Columbia vs Heller the right of every American to own guns. This however comes with several caveats......

Why don't you actually go and read the DC vs Heller decision.
Scalia defered to both Presser vs Illinois and US vs Miller for whom comprises the militia the 2nd amendment speaks of and what weapons are protected.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Scalia specifically states that only dangerous weapons (like a sawed off shotgun in US vs Miller) or unusual weapons (like zip-guns, and palm-pistols that are intended for concealment) are not protected.
Scalia specifically states that the weapons protected are those in US vs Miller.
US vs Miller states this:

"…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less that 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 is use could contribute to the common defense…”


In other words, weapons of a militia nature (i.e. paramilitary arms) are what are protected for citizens of these United States to own and that includes magazines that are of a capacity that is in common use for our day.

Who is the militia?
Scalia in Heller defers to Presser vs Illinois for that definition (it is also the definition used in both US vs Miller and the Militia Act of 1903):

“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”

The SCOTUS has defined the militia quite clearly as being every abled-bodied male ages 17 to 45. Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code is quite clear on this:

10 U.S.C. § 311
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.

So any attempt to use the Heller decision (and I know activist judges have) against the arms best suited to the reserve/unorganized militia is an attack on the 2nd amendment and a corruption of its meaning.

This is a very far cry from the common argument that the 2nd amendment gives you protection from any and all regulation and that legislation shouldn't even be discussed to begin with.

No it is not a "far cry." What Scalia thought (according to his commentary on his decision) was that he had finally laid to rest the "collective rights" argument that has been used by anti-constitutionalists for decades. That argument tried to redefine the 2nd amendment to mean that only the militia had the right and that said militia was the National Guard. Every SCOTUS decision since 1903 has ruled against that twisting of the amendment's wording.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The "developed countries" argument has been thoroughly debunked with regard to comparing the US (which is comprised of 50-Federated states/countries) with any one--cherry picked--country to push a narrative.

https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

If we are going to compare countries, it is far better to compare countries of similar size, criminal demographics (gang-population), and population density.
The US is closer to Mexico and Brazil.

For an instant let's forget that you again are quoting your right wing sites to support your points (obviously google did not gave you ten links to spam the thread like you usually do). He is blatantly going with "no, no, no, comparing the USA with other developed countries is plain wrong, we should compare ourselves with Mexico and Brasil". That is like an overweight person saying "No, I am not fat, you should compare me with people with similar weight and you will see I am normal".

Since when being bigger means you have more gun violence? China or Australia would be off the charts then, even if you only talk about homicides, they are at 1.1 per 100,000. Gang population is irrelevant unless they have access to guns and assault weapons, I know because my city was very peaceful until the influx of illegal assault weapons from the USA changed my community for the worse. Again, population density is irrelevant, otherwise japan, china, india and most european countries would be sky high in homicides.

If there was some kind of serious (reads as scientific) study to support this idea I would give it a pass, but it is nothing but red herring (and not of the highest quality I might add).

The simple truth is that well developed countries have well developed institutions (like rule of the law and law enforcement) and that is the reason comparing the USA with any county in latinamerica in gun violence is comparing apples and oranges, compare yourselves with Canada if you want a dosage of good old truth.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

You do realize that the Supreme Court CAN and has been wrong before, right?

Regardless of what your interpretation of 'wrong' is, the current ruling states that under certain circumstances regulations are sensible.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Why don't you actually go and read the DC vs Heller decision.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Everything I quoted from Scalia is from the very same site you linked. So much for the reading part.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Scalia specifically states that only dangerous weapons (like a sawed off shotgun in US vs Miller) or unusual weapons (like zip-guns, and palm-pistols that are intended for concealment) are not protected.
Scalia specifically states that the weapons protected are those in US vs Miller.

What Scalia states is this:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

What Scalia does not offer are many guide lines on how to define what a dangerous weapon is. Whether or not an assault weapon falls into the category of being a dangerous weapon depends very much on who you're talking to. A weapon able to fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time very much falls into that category, at least in my opinion. A civilian does not require such a weapon to defend themselves or any other reason. Yes you called me a fanatic for that before and I disagree. We can save going over it again.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No it is not a "far cry" what Scalia thought (according to his commentary on his decision) was that he had finally laid to rest the "collective rights" argument that has been used by anti-constitutionalists for decades. That argument tried to redefine the 2nd amendment to mean that only the militia had the right and that said militia was the National Guard. Every SCOTUS decision since 1903 has ruled against that twisting of the amendment's wording.

In 2015 SCOTUS refused to hear a case in Illinois. In 2016 it has left assault weapon bans in place in New York and Connecticut. In 2017 it declined to review Maryland's ban as well as declining to hear a challenge in California.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

For an instant let's forget that you again are quoting your right wing sites to support your points (obviously google did not gave you ten links to spam the thread like you usually do). He is blatantly going with "no, no, no, comparing the USA with other developed countries is plain wrong, we should compare ourselves with Mexico and Brasil". That is like an overweight person saying "No, I am not fat, you should compare me with people with similar weight and you will see I am normal".

Looks like that article hit the mark judging by that post.
The "right-wing" site is quite correct in its assessment and the fact that it is not a left-wing site is what gives it credibility since their bias tends to be closer to the truth unlike the liars coming out of the left on this particular issue (the right lies on other issues).
A recent addition to the list of countries gun-prohibitionists try to use to push their agenda is Norway. It is as silly as using Australia, Canada or any of the countries that are the size of US states and lack the criminal element of the US.

https://tipolitics.com/you-cant-comp...y-80b3a0f9a3de

Since when being bigger means you have more gun violence? China or Australia would be off the charts then, even if you only talk about homicides, they are at 1.1 per 100,000. Gang population is irrelevant unless they have access to guns and assault weapons, I know because my city was very peaceful until the influx of illegal assault weapons from the USA changed my community for the worse. Again, population density is irrelevant, otherwise japan, china, india and most european countries would be sky high in homicides.

Gun violence?
I will consider that as you conceding the point that it is dubious at best to compare countries that are vastly different in terms of population, population density, and organized crime.
Moving the goal posts by trying to focus only on homicides done with firearms will not help your position.
Homicide in general is what is being discussed here.
As for China.
That was a nice try.
However, China is a totalitarian state, so even though it does have the level of organized crime that the United States has (1.5 million gang members), the homicide rate is lower due to fear of the government and the power said government has over its population.
While crime in totality is much less in China than in the United States.
China is more "peaceful" in terms of crime, but not free by any measure in terms of inalienable rights.
The government is the primary murderer there and maintains control with an iron fist.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-1...ystery/8435260

So if you want to compare China to the US I will embrace it since what you are suggesting is that the US adopt China's communist policies and convert to a totalitarian system. That is the only way the US will get the murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 that China has (that is only what the Chinese state reports), and it would mean scrapping the US constitution and enslaving its population.

As for Australia.
It has a population of only 26,000,000 people, a density of 7 per square mile, and less than 3000 gang members nationwide.
Australia is closer to just the state of Texas in terms of population, but density is not comparable since Texas has nearly 98 per 100,000, and it has vastly more gang members than does Australia.

India? They don't have quite the gang problem the United States has, but they are close to the US in terms of homicide. India's homicide rate is 2.8 per 100,000 (2015), US is 4.3 (2016). India has approximately 400,000 gang members, so a little over 1/4th that of the US.
Japan and nearly any European country do not compare, even those with higher homicide rates than the US.
It cuts both ways.
You cannot compare Venezuela (31.6 million people, density 94 per square mile) with the US as a whole. You could not legitimately compare it to Texas, because Texas does not have a comparable political system, nor are economic or social conditions the same. Unlike say Mexico and the US, Venezuela is totalitarian. It's homicide rate is 58 per 100,000 as of 2016.
You cannot just cherry-pick one criteria of the three I gave.
For some measure of equivalency, the country has to be close to the US in terms of all three.
China was certainly a good try, but the type of government and level of control by government over the population is vastly different so that is a key factor just as Venezuela's economic and political system would omit it from being compared to any US state.

If there was some kind of serious (reads as scientific) study to support this idea I would give it a pass, but it is nothing but red herring (and not of the highest quality I might add).

Some serious study?
Nice cop-out to not have to deal with the truth of this.
I've read all the relevant "serious" studies on this issue from the late 1980s up until now and they are all seriously flawed and biased towards one side or the other (with very few exceptions). None of them reflect the fact that despite all these false comparisons with other countries, the US violent crime rate, homicide rate, and school shooting rate are all declining as gun ownership has risen, as has concealed carry.

Homicide is down.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...me-in-the-u-s/

School shootings are on the decline.
http://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02...searcher-says/

The simple truth is that well developed countries have well developed institutions (like rule of the law and law enforcement) and that is the reason comparing the USA with any county in latinamerica in gun violence is comparing apples and oranges, compare yourselves with Canada if you want a dosage of good old truth.

No the simple truth is that you can compare countries of like population size, density and organized crime. The "rule of law and law enforcement" fallacy is simply an excuse to attempt to deflect from the fact that if you want to compare a country like Canada to the US, you'd have to use a state that is comparable and ONLY a state, not the whole country.
California is the closest to Canada in terms of population, but not in either density, or organized crime/gangs.
However, it is as close as you can get and not be comparing apples and oranges since the population of the US is nearly 10-times that of Canada, with 10-times the density, and 257-times more gang members.
It is not an honest comparison to say the least.
Whereas, California and Canada could be (it is still a stretch) for sake of argument.
Canada has approximately 36.39 million, and California has 39.54 million.
Canada's population density is 9.6 per square mile, whereas California 251 per square mile.
As of 2014, Canada had about 7000 gang members in 434 street gangs nationwide.
California has 450 gangs, with 45,000 gang members.
That is why Canada has a homicide rate of 1.68 per 100,000 (2017 data), and California has a homicide rater of 4.8 per 100,000.

Now to my original point.
It is disingenuous to compare the United States with countries that are smaller, more sparsely populated, and lack the criminal element that this country has.
It would be like comparing a Kitten to a Lion and asking which one is more dangerous.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Everything I quoted from Scalia is from the very same site you linked. So much for the reading part.

You took it out of context then?
And you admit it?
That's good to know.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache
What Scalia states is this:


We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
What Scalia does not offer are many guide lines on how to define what a dangerous weapon is. Whether or not an assault weapon falls into the category of being a dangerous weapon depends very much on who you're talking to. A weapon able to fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time very much falls into that category, at least in my opinion. A civilian does not require such a weapon to defend themselves or any other reason. Yes you called me a fanatic for that before and I disagree. We can save going over it again.

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon".
That is a political term made up by anti-constitutionalists.
You are again attempting to twist Scalia's words.

I will post from the body of his decision instead of just the summary since you seem intent on trying to take his meaning out of context.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.


So yes, Scalia did mean that those scary paramilitary weapons are what the 2nd amendment protects.

In 2015 SCOTUS refused to hear a case in Illinois. In 2016 it has left assault weapon bans in place in New York and Connecticut. In 2017 it declined to review Maryland's ban as well as declining to hear a challenge in California.

Refusal to hear is not a court decision and is not relevant. It has no weight and is not case law. Just because the court may chose to not hear a challenge does not mean they have ruled on any particular issue. Don't let the corporate media fool you on this. Abortion cases were rejected for decades before Roe vs Wade.

[shadow1296]

wow these really do devolve into a gun control debate, does anyone willing to share actual info for this case like the two kids who were shot by the shooter are still alive or what did the investigation say about the case, anything besides a gun control debate

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by shadow1296

wow these really do devolve into a gun control debate, does anyone willing to share actual info for this case like the two kids who were shot by the shooter are still alive or what did the investigation say about the case, anything besides a gun control debate

Emotions are high right now.
It will subside.
As for the subject matter of this thread.

One of the victims has died from her wounds.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/us/ma...ley/index.html

[Ithekro]

It will take a long time to get the American voting public to the point where they will consider taking any serious step against gun ownership itself via ammending the Constitution in any effort to change the 2nd Ammendment. A generation or two of voters, and the eventual death of the Baby Boomers, since it is that generation that remains the largest for keeping the 2nd Ammendment intact. Generation X is slightly less on that.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It will take a long time to get the American voting public to the point where they will consider taking any serious step against gun ownership itself via ammending the Constitution in any effort to change the 2nd Ammendment. A generation or two of voters, and the eventual death of the Baby Boomers, since it is that generation that remains the largest for keeping the 2nd Ammendment intact. Generation X is slightly less on that.

Nothing like a civil war to move a country forward, am I right?

Or maybe we can just break the country into two and get it over with. Because both ideologies are incompatible with each other at this point. All i know, is myself and many others are not going to give up our firearms. Period. And there will be blood on the streets.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

And there will be blood on the streets.

There already is. And in the schools. But you don't care.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by GDB

There already is. And in the schools. But you don't care.

I do care, but I also care about the rights of every American not being taken away because of a few. Difficult for you to grasp, I get that.

It's troubling to me, that people go after tools that millions own with no problem and have a right to own, instead of going after Government and Law Enforcement who didnt do anything about this kid before he went on his murdering rampage.

[Key Board]

Well, you need more background checks and regulations to prevent guns from ending up with people with mental illness / hooked on antidepressants / is a radical religious terrorist / ect
but guess who is opposing that too?

Also

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...man-said-70-8/

If even NRA members want more regulations, than who is NRA speaking for? Its constituents or the gun industry?
maybe you NRA members should take a note from the protesting school kids, and vote out your corrupt NRA management or establish a separate organization

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Key Board

Well, you need more background checks and regulations to prevent guns from ending up with people with mental illness / hooked on antidepressants / is a radical religious terrorist / ect
but guess who is opposing that too?

Also

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...man-said-70-8/

If even NRA members want more regulations, than who is NRA speaking for? Its constituents or the gun industry?
maybe you NRA members should take a note from the protesting school kids, and vote out your corrupt NRA management or establish a separate organization

There are already background checks to purchase guns. Have you ever bought one? Ever?

The NRA is flawed, but they are the only real organization that is standing up for Americans' rights to own Firearms.

One thing that does need to be brought back, is mental wards. Something that Ronald Reagan essentially eliminated, much to the detriment of American Society.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

instead of going after Government and Law Enforcement who didnt do anything about this kid before he went on his murdering rampage.

Are you advocating the prevention of one to obtain a gun due to their mental state, the things they say/post, and what others say they've said? Or advocating the arrest of someone who has not actually committed a crime?

Because otherwise I'm not sure how you're suggesting the government and law enforcement should have "done anything" about the shooter. FYI, the first thing is what people actually want, yet somehow the NRA and GOP are construing as wanting to invade houses and steal your guns.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by GDB

Are you advocating the prevention of one to obtain a gun due to their mental state, the things they say/post, and what others say they've said? Or advocating the arrest of someone who has not actually committed a crime?

Because otherwise I'm not sure how you're suggesting the government and law enforcement should have "done anything" about the shooter. FYI, the first thing is what people actually want, yet somehow the NRA and GOP are construing as wanting to invade houses and steal your guns.

I'm for putting people in mental wards if they are a danger to themselves and to society. I do NOT want them out on the street.

Law Enforcement visited him at least 38 times. Think about that for a moment. They visited him more times, than years you've been alive. He was barred from stepping on school grounds with any kind of bag that could hide dangerous items/weapons. The School Board changed how troublesome kids were dealt with to make it seem like the schools in that county had more innocent little babies attending than they really did.

Banning guns, limiting magazine capacities etc, is not the answer and punishes the millions and millions of Americans who havent done anything wrong.. And you will not get compliance from the vast majority of Gun Owners in America. As you shouldn't.

My old man is happy he won't be around to see this country split apart.