Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 02, 2012

OTP December 2012 - Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Ends Giving In

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Bitter Mouse Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:15 PM | 6172 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 46 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 >  Last ›
   4501. Lassus Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:40 AM (#4330853)
NY Post: GUN NUT

NY Daily News: CRAZIEST MAN ON EARTH
   4502. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4330859)
both due the the nature of the second amendment being a right that you'd essentially have to pay to exercise


You do not have a constitutional right to own an AR-15 with extended capacity clips.
   4503. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4330860)
No, I would want the person who does something to be responsible for the things they and they alone do.


And I'd like a pony. Sometimes the world intervenes.
   4504. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4330861)
Or, the tact of the people against voter ID laws, who demand the same, plus not the slightest whiff of inconvenience.


Cancer exists. Gun murders exist. Voter fraud does not exist. See the difference there?
   4505. BDC Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4330863)
Wow, when the Post describes you as undertaking a bizarre rant, that's harsh. That's like Richard Simmons telling you you're embarrassing yourself.
   4506. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4330864)
As established here after Obamacare Supreme Court case, there is a right to bear arms. By definition.


As established by every legal reading of 2nd and implementation of law concerning weaponry, there is no "right to bear arms" in the universal sense. You can not go buy a rocket launcher. You can't buy a Predator drone. Your "right to bear arms" is as limited by sense and practicality as is your right to shout "fire" in a theater.

Get a piece of paper. Draw a line across from left to right. On the left, write "a big rock in my hand." On the right, write "nukes."

The only question at hand is where we draw the vertical line on that horizontal line, saying "the public doesn't get these." At the current moment, that line is drawn to the right of semi-automatics with replaceable clips and extended ammo magazines, but to the left of fully automatics, sawed off shotguns or silencers.

Please, Dan, tell me. How does moving that line two clicks left to put extended or detachable clips on the side of the line with silencers create a constitutional crisis?
   4507. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4330865)
Perhaps the Post is far more amenable to taking its marching orders from Murdoch than FNC is.
   4508. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:40 AM (#4330870)
Perhaps the Post is far more amenable to taking its marching orders from Murdoch than FNC is.


It's just sort of ironic that the worst damage done to the NRA in decades is a self-inflicted wound.
   4509. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4330880)
Get a piece of paper. Draw a line across from left to right. On the left, write "a big rock in my hand." On the right, write "nukes."


Who decided that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is actually limited to the right to keep and bear firearms? Switchblades and certain other knives are regulated or banned in many states, but nobody seems to get their panties in a twist about that.
   4510. spike Posted: December 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4330884)
   4511. BDC Posted: December 22, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4330906)
Switchblades and certain other knives are regulated or banned in many states

In Texas, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes, and satire are all heavily regulated.
   4512. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4330908)
But are they well-regulated?
   4513. Swoboda is freedom Posted: December 22, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4330937)
In Texas, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes, and satire are all heavily regulated.
   
But are they well-regulated?


No regulation could be zealous enough for puns.
   4514. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4331007)
Rare is doing all the heavy lifting here, and it's wrong. While it's true that most minors having abortions aren't in danger, they're already telling their parent(s) without being legally compelled to. The only effect of mandatory parental concent is that you end up dragging the 14 year olds who's pregnancy was the result of being raped by her father into court so a dozen or more people can listen while she's forced to recount how her father raped her and told her she's a dirty whore who deserved it (which she probably believes, given it's how she's being raised, and which the judge may well believe, given the composition of judges and how many old people favor this kind of thing). More likely, she'll end up choosing between a coathanger or waiting for her father to induce a miscarriage with a beating that's a bit more vigorous than usual.

Since when are 14-year-old rape victims forced to testify in open court (or otherwise in front of a "dozen or more people")?

No matter how liberals slice it, it's patently absurd that an 11-year-old can't be given an aspirin by the school nurse without parental consent or get her ears pierced without parental consent, but that same 11-year-old can be driven by the school nurse to an abortion clinic without parental consent and then sent home as if it was just another school day.

If some 14-year-old is being raped by her father, then responsible adults need to intervene, pronto. Allowing said 14-year-old to get abortions without any adult notification or counsel does nothing but guarantee the cycle of abuse will continue at home. (And that aside, unless the U.S. has a huge epidemic of fathers raping daughters that hasn't made it into the papers, it's unwise to base policy on the most extreme outliers.)
   4515. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: December 22, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4331011)
The only effect of mandatory parental concent is that you end up dragging the 14 year olds who's pregnancy was the result of being raped by her father into court so a dozen or more people can listen while she's forced to recount how her father raped her and told her she's a dirty whore who deserved it (which she probably believes, given it's how she's being raised, and which the judge may well believe, given the composition of judges and how many old people favor this kind of thing). More likely, she'll end up choosing between a coathanger or waiting for her father to induce a miscarriage with a beating that's a bit more vigorous than usual.


Which probably happens less often than the a gang of 15 international assassins invade the house of a gun owner, who heroically defends his home and rescue his pregnant wife, an injured nun, and a half-dozen terminally ill orphans.

And people call *voter fraud* rare. Why not throw in a saucy tale about her brother who is also her father? Or the corrupt Southern sheriff who uses slave labor to dig up D.B. Cooper's gold that's hidden in an abandoned copper mine by the work camp? BrianBrianson knows all about the South, after all. He once passed by a Stuckey's! Not that he went in or anything - he didn't want to end up like Ned Beatty!

As fun as this all is, I really don't want anything to do with a bigot like BrianBrianson, so off the ignore list you go!
   4516. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4331016)
And people call *voter fraud* rare.


I'm pretty sure sexual abuse by family members is notably more frequent than voter fraud, actually.
   4517. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4331017)
Dan, could you tell me why a 14 year old girl who is pregnant but does not want to carry that pregnancy to term should be required to ask her parents for permission to terminate the pregnancy?
   4518. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4331018)
I'm pretty sure sexual abuse by family members is notably more frequent than voter fraud, actually.

Sexual abuse that results in a father raping the 14-year-old, the judge ignoring it because he favors rape, and then choosing between a coathanger or her father inducing miscarriage?

You shouldn't be so nice. You're from the South. Bigoted BrianBrianson probably wouldn't invite you to his town, out of fear that your hillbilly rape genes might take over.
   4519. spike Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:03 PM (#4331019)
Which probably happens less often than the a gang of 15 international assassins invade the house of a gun owner

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says there are 10000 - 15000 cases of abortions from rape and incest. You'd have to think a non-trivial amount of those were father/daughter

link
   4520. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4331020)
Dan, could you tell me why a 14 year old girl who is pregnant but does not want to carry that pregnancy to term should be required to ask her parents for permission to terminate the pregnancy?

She shouldn't. That's why we should we should have laws for actual, rare, emergency situations such as this. Other than that, it's a simple medical procedure.

   4521. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4331023)
It's hard to believe it, but one of the better takes on the gun issue lately was by Charles Krauthammer.

The Roots Of Mass Murder

If we’re serious about curtailing future Columbines and Newtowns, everything — guns, commitment, culture — must be on the table. It’s not hard for President Obama to call out the NRA. But will he call out the ACLU? And will he call out his Hollywood friends?

The irony is that over the last 30 years, the U.S. homicide rate has declined by 50 percent. Gun murders as well. We’re living not through an epidemic of gun violence but through a historic decline.

Except for these unfathomable mass murders. But these are infinitely more difficult to prevent. While law deters the rational, it has far less effect on the psychotic. The best we can do is to try to detain them, disarm them and discourage “entertainment” that can intensify already murderous impulses.

But there’s a cost. Gun control impinges upon the Second Amendment; involuntary commitment impinges upon the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment; curbing “entertainment” violence impinges upon First Amendment free speech.

That’s a lot of impingement, a lot of amendments. But there’s no free lunch. Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties.

We made that trade after 9/11. We make it every time the Transportation Security Administration invades your body at an airport. How much are we prepared to trade away after Newtown?


His column is not even close to being the last word on the subject, but it presents a lot of uncomfortable truths, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because of the identity of the author, however tempting that might be.
   4522. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4331024)
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says there are 10000 - 15000 cases of abortions from rape and incest. You'd have to think a non-trivial amount of those were father/daughter


Now, how many of those were father/daughter involving minors? And how many of these involved corrupt judges who were in favor of rape? And in which the minor had no other way to go? There are probably more Howard the Duck pinball machines in operation.

Liberals complain about voter fraud being rare, but when it's something *they* want, they conjure up scenarios in which each step gets progressively more rare, to the point of satire.

Let's see some evidence, not moving from "cases of abortion due to rape and incest" to scenarios more rare than plot of an average Lifetime Movie without any kind of evidence.
   4523. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4331025)
No matter how liberals slice it, it's patently absurd that an 11-year-old can't be given an aspirin by the school nurse without parental consent or get her ears pierced without parental consent, but that same 11-year-old can be driven by the school nurse to an abortion clinic without parental consent and then sent home as if it was just another school day.
Nice broad generalization you've got there. I agree that parental notification is vital in such cases. The way I see it, though, is that since the complete abolition of abortion is the declared ultimate goal of the right, it's tough for the left to make compromise on the issue. The fear is that if you give this ground, then the wingers have a beachhead, not an unreasonable belief.
   4524. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4331027)
The way I see it, though, is that since the complete abolition of abortion is the declared ultimate goal of the right, it's tough for the left to make compromise on the issue.

And I completely agree. I explicitly said that the left can't trust the right on this issue, for good reason.

It's exactly like guns. Since the complete abolition of guns is the declared ultimate goal of the left, it's tough for the right to make compromise on the issue.

But I learned some new things in this discussion, so at least it's been mildly productive. For one, we found out that BrianBrianson is an unmitigated bigot and I feel a little dirty having interacted with it.
   4525. Greg K Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4331030)
The way I see it, though, is that since the complete abolition of abortion is the declared ultimate goal of the right, it's tough for the left to make compromise on the issue. The fear is that if you give this ground, then the wingers have a beachhead, not an unreasonable belief.

This seems to be a common sentiment about numerous issues on both sides. (Ray's stance on gun restrictions or taxation for example). I'm sure it's a genuine concern built out of years of political warfare, so I'm not sure what the solution is, but it doesn't seem like a sane way to make policy decisions.
   4526. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4331034)
And I completely agree. I explicitly said that the left can't trust the right on this issue, for good reason.
Yes.
It's exactly like guns. Since the complete abolition of guns is the declared ultimate goal of the left, it's tough for the right to make compromise on the issue.
Uh, no. You have JoeK disease (or you're reading too much NRA propaganda), painting the entire left side of the spectrum with the most extreme position you can find. In the same way that we restrict 1st Amendment rights can be limited for public safety (fire in a crowded theater, etc.), we can do so with the 2nd Amendment.

This seems to be a common sentiment about numerous issues on both sides. (Ray's stance on gun restrictions or taxation for example). I'm sure it's a genuine concern built out of years of political warfare, so I'm not sure what the solution is, but it doesn't seem like a sane way to make policy decisions.
I was just going to add this to my post. We now live in a world where compromise is for pussies. Bad for us.
   4527. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4331037)
It's exactly like guns.

Well, very similar, but not exactly. There's no shortage of liberals — including right in this thread — who confidently declare that there's no such thing as the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms, and that the whole thing has been a big, multiple-century misunderstanding. (Another, more honest group of liberals concede the Second Amendment's existence but call for it to be repealed.)

But when it comes to abortion, there are far fewer conservatives who want abortion banned outright, even in the case of rape, incest, or life of mother.
   4528. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4331039)
His column is not even close to being the last word on the subject, but it presents a lot of uncomfortable truths, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because of the identity of the author, however tempting that might be.


I'm not seeing it as being even the first word on the subject. Many forms of gun control that reduce gun violence do not meaningfully "impinge on the second amendment", and serious writers on, say, the way campaign spending limits affect free speech refer to shouts of fire in a crowded theater as mere asides, not as one of the hinges of their argument. There are no studies that link entertainment to homicide gun deaths, and its been pointed out upthread that most video games aren't first person shooters, which seem to be the kind of entertainment that would draw Krauthammer's ire. He's so vague, thought, that we can only guess at what he thinks he's talking about.

Krauthammer's no deep thinker, and most of the excerpt is a hoot. He isn't proposing anything except that what he isn't proposing will severely affect liberty. It's actually quite a remarkable exercise in confusion on his part.

   4529. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4331044)
It's exactly like guns


Except it's nothing at all like guns. Liberals distrust the right on reproductive rights because the right has repeatedly stated as their goal and attempted to legislate the elimination a woman's choices in reproductive rights.

The right distrusts liberals on gun regulation because they're a bunch of paranoid lunatics.

Read the proposed regulations from the liberals on this board. These are the things liberals want to do. It's not a stealth campaign to come for "all guns."
   4530. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4331047)
here are no studies that link entertainment to homicide gun deaths, and its been pointed out upthread that most video games aren't first person shooters,


That's the big problem with that Krauthammer ramble. He tries to sneak the "culture of violence" argument in there while everyone's stunned that he's acknowledged the gun problem. There's less a "culture of violence" problem from "Hollywood" or "video games" than there is from the friggin' NFL.
   4531. McCoy Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4331048)
double barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles, and .22 caliber revolvers should be the limit to what a citizen can own.
   4532. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4331050)
Liberals complain about voter fraud being rare,...


Google [bush commission on voter fraud]. Republicans under Bush complained about it being rare, too.

If you ever have the slightest desire to be take seriously in adult company, stop claiming ghosts for sure exist. What's puzzling is that there are a ton of things you could mention that wouldn't make you sound as hopelessly ignorant and partisan as you sound when you bring up vote fraud at the polls. We can only assume your subconscious is jumping up and down, trying to warn off those who might take you seriously.

edit: For anyone else susceptible to sweet reason, the Brennan Center for Justice does good work:

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/allegations_of_voter_fraud

"The "voter fraud" cry has been increasingly used to justify policies that suppress legitimate voters. But the cry is baseless; allegations of voter fraud—especially polling place impersonation fraud—almost always prove to be inflated or inaccurate. The Brennan Center carefully examines allegations of fraud to get at the truth behind the claims. The truth of the matter is that voter fraud—votes knowingly cast by ineligible individuals—is exceedingly rare; one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud. Our work debunking the voter fraud myth is available at Truth About Fraud."
   4533. Lassus Posted: December 22, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4331053)
It's exactly like guns. Since the complete abolition of guns is the declared ultimate goal of the left, it's tough for the right to make compromise on the issue.

Dan, this is plain false. To start, who on this board has declared that their ultimate goal?
   4534. Srul Itza Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4331055)
the complete abolition of guns is the declared ultimate goal of the left


Liar.
   4535. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4331056)
Liar.
Don't be like Ray. You're better than that.
   4536. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4331057)
Dan, this is plain false. To start, who on this board has declared that their ultimate goal?

Within the past two pages, one or more liberals here have flatly declared that there's no Second Amendment right for citizens to own firearms.
   4537. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4331058)
the complete abolition of guns is the declared ultimate goal of the left


Dan's not Joe. Dan, please explain to me why you believe this to be the case.
   4538. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4331059)
(And that aside, unless the U.S. has a huge epidemic of fathers raping daughters that hasn't made it into the papers, it's unwise to base policy on the most extreme outliers.)


And yet, we see the left do this so often, sadly.
   4539. Lassus Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4331062)
EDIT: Question retracted, misunderstood it was a general point.
   4540. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4331063)
Wait, now the lefties are pretending that there's no interest on the left in banning private firearm possession? Are they unaware that the liberal president of the United States, one Barack Obama, supported the D.C. and Chicago gun bans? Are they unaware that liberal big-city mayors like Rahm Emanuel and Tony Villar Antonio Villaraigosa are gun-grabbers?

This is funny. It's like Ray asked liberals a couple pages ago: "Do you really not know yourselves, or is your self-unawareness simply the obvious act it plays as?"
   4541. Lassus Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4331067)
Wait, now the lefties are pretending that there's no interest on the left in banning private firearm possession?

God almighty, Joe. "declared ultimate goal of the left" is not the same as "interest on the left". I know you don't care about words, but some of us do.
   4542. tshipman Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4331069)
Wait, now the lefties are pretending that there's no interest on the left in banning private firearm possession? Are they unaware that the liberal president of the United States, one Barack Obama, supported the D.C. and Chicago gun bans? Are they unaware that liberal big-city mayors like Rahm Emanuel and Tony Villar Antonio Villaraigosa are gun-grabbers?


Handguns =/ All Guns.

There's a continuum of gun control. You have the pretty centrist position of banning high capacity magazines only and requiring background checks for all sales. Then you have the more liberal position of banning "assault weapon" style rifles and carbines as well, or anything that can be set to fire a 3 shot burst. Then you have banning handguns. Then you have banning all semi-automatics. Then, you have a ban of everything except specific low-caliber hunting guns. Finally, you have a full ban of all weapons.

Mixed in-between there are ideas about licensing.

No mainstream politician (unless maybe Bernie Sanders) has proposed a total ban of all guns. Handgun bans are not the same thing as banning all guns.
   4543. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4331072)
God almighty, Joe. "declared ultimate goal of the left" is not the same as "interest on the left". I know you don't care about words, but some of us do.

So when D.C. and Chicago fought Heller and McDonald all the way to the Supreme Court, with wide support on the left (including Obama), we're supposed to believe that no other cities or states would have passed gun bans if those two cases went the other way? Give me a break.

***
No mainstream politician (unless maybe Bernie Sanders) has proposed a total ban of all guns. Handgun bans are not the same thing as banning all guns.

Are you talking pre- or post-Heller? You're aware that two of America's biggest cities had flat gun bans for decades, right?
   4544. BrianBrianson Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4331076)
And that aside, unless the U.S. has a huge epidemic of fathers raping daughters that hasn't made it into the papers, it's unwise to base policy on the most extreme outliers.


Teenage girls having abortions without informing their parents are already the outliers. When you're designing a policy to only cover outliers, it's wise to consider the outliers.

That said, I'm not sure why thinking that pregnant teenage girls who've been screwed over shouldn't be screwed over again makes me a bigot. But, uhm, okay.
   4545. Srul Itza Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4331079)
Don't be like Ray. You're better than that.


I thought about this before I posted. Dan's posts have been going further and further over the line. It is not that he is unaware, uneducated or uninformed. With this latest assertion, I just got tired of pussyfooting around the issue.

NOW, if Dan had said there were some on the left who do want to get rid of guns, he would have a post. But to baldly assert that " the complete abolition of guns is the declared ultimate goal of the left" is an outright lie.

The only other option is that he has become completely delusional. Given that he works for ESPN, that is entirely possible, but unlikely.
   4546. Lassus Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4331083)
So when D.C. and Chicago fought Heller and McDonald all the way to the Supreme Court, with wide support on the left (including Obama), we're supposed to believe that no other cities or states would have passed gun bans if those two cases went the other way? Give me a break.

The Chicago gun ban was instituted in 1984. How many cities were leaping over themselves to follow suit since that time, exactly? Give me a break.
   4547. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4331088)
I don't see how Dan's comment was inaccurate or dishonest. While it's true that some liberals have a non-liberal position on guns, the true leftist position on guns is that Second Amendment gun rights are a myth or a misunderstanding. The decades-long gun bans in liberal D.C. and liberal Chicago and de facto bans in places like NYC didn't just happen by accident. They were advanced, implemented, and defended by some of the nation's most powerful liberal politicians and liberal organizations, and often upheld by liberal judges. And had Kerry beat Bush in 2004 and then appointed the replacements for Rehnquist and O'Connor, the Second Amendment quite possibly would have been declared null and void in Heller.
   4548. spike Posted: December 22, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4331091)
Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"

"You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."


link



You get NOTHING. You LOSE. GOOD DAY, Sir!
   4549. tshipman Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:12 PM (#4331101)
Are you talking pre- or post-Heller? You're aware that two of America's biggest cities had flat gun bans for decades, right?


Chicago had a ban on handguns in 1982. There was also a ban on concealed carry and limitations on open carry and in 1992, there was a ban on assault rifles.

There was no ban on rifles [edit:] or shotguns.

Handguns =/= all guns.

From Wikipedia's summary of McDonald V. Chicago:

An experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns, but believed them too unwieldy in the event of a robbery, and wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense. Due to Chicago's requirement that all firearms in the city be registered, yet refusing all handgun registrations after 1982 when a citywide handgun ban was passed, he was unable to legally own a handgun.


Once again, you do not know what you are talking about.
   4550. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4331111)
Within the past two pages, one or more liberals here have flatly declared that there's no Second Amendment right for citizens to own firearms.


There is a difference between thinking that something is not a constitutional right and wanting to completely ban that something. There is no constitutional right for citizens to own automobiles, but no one is proposing a blanket car ban. There is no constitutional right to internet access, but no one is proposing outlawing the internet.
   4551. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:23 PM (#4331113)
Handguns =/ All Guns.


And defending the right of a local municipality to pass local laws that are more stringent than federal laws isn't exactly the secret sound of black helicopters in the night. (I swear I remember sometime in the 90s someone telling me that allowing different localities to toy around with laws in their own distinct ways, as a "laboratory of democracy" was a conservative idea.)

Once again, you do not know what you are talking about.


Joe? Not know what he's talking about? Shocking.
   4552. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:23 PM (#4331114)
Within the past two pages, one or more liberals here have flatly declared that there's no Second Amendment right for citizens to own firearms.


There is no constitutional right to own firearms. Go try to buy an M-16, Joey.
   4553. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:24 PM (#4331115)
Once again, you do not know what you are talking about.

Yes, your pedantic correction rendered my entire point invalid. LOL.

***
There is no constitutional right to own firearms. Go try to buy an M-16, Joey.

Actually, there is a constitutional right to own firearms — just not every type of firearm. (It was a nice try, though. Better than your usual (and goofy) "suitcase nukes" example.)
   4554. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4331119)
there is a constitutional right to own firearms — just not every type of firearm


And yet banning certain types of firearms really seems to rile you up.
   4555. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4331120)
There is a difference between thinking that something is not a constitutional right and wanting to completely ban that something.

If something isn't a right, then it can be banned. That's essentially been the entire point here.

And yet banning certain types of firearms really seems to rile you up.

Yes, attempts to ban the most vital type of firearm — handguns — does rile me up. Guilty as charged.
   4556. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:36 PM (#4331125)
there is a constitutional right to own firearms — just not every type of firearm


No. there is a constitutional right to bear arms. Not firearms. Arms. Currently the state has accepted the dividing line between "arms you can bear" and "arms you cannot bear" to be the line between semi-automatic rifles and handguns and automatic versions of the same. There is absolutely no constitutional reason that the state couldn't move that line back behind semi-automatic firearms to "single load firearms," or for that matter back behind "firearms" entirely and state that the right to bear arms is only applicable to ceremonial swords.

For political and historical reasons, that's not going to happen, but from a strict reading of the actual text of the Constitution? There's no constitutional right to bear firearms.
   4557. steagles Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4331126)
has anyone suggested a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment? if the supreme court believes than any ban on any gun is unconstitutional, the simplest way around that would seem to be to change the constitution itself.

i am pretty sure that, for better or worse, a constitutional amendment cannot be ruled to be unconstitutional.
   4558. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4331127)
No. there is a constitutional right to bear arms. Not firearms. Arms. Currently the state has accepted the dividing line between "arms you can bear" and "arms you cannot bear" to be the line between semi-automatic rifles and handguns and automatic versions of the same. There is absolutely no constitutional reason that the state couldn't move that line back behind semi-automatic firearms to "single load firearms," or for that matter back behind "firearms" entirely and state that the right to bear arms is only applicable to ceremonial swords.

For political and historical reasons, that's not going to happen, but from a strict reading of the actual text of the Constitution? There's no constitutional right to bear firearms.

I'm sure this mix of philosobabble and linguistic flimflammery fools some of the dimmer bulbs at your local coffeehouse, but it's unpersuasive as a matter of common sense, let alone constitutional law.
   4559. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4331134)
has anyone suggested a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment?


Not to my knowledge, no.
   4560. Swoboda is freedom Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4331146)
Currently the state has accepted the dividing line between "arms you can bear" and "arms you cannot bear"

Just as a thought experiment, could the Supreme Court ban a person owning more than a certain number of guns, as he could bear 5 guns at the same time. It would be tough to carry 8 guns, never mind using them. (Matrix excepted)
   4561. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4331147)
Just as a thought experiment, could the Supreme Court ban a person owning more than a certain number of guns, as he could bear 5 guns at the same time. It would be tough to carry 8 guns, never mind using them. (Matrix excepted)


Probably could if there was political will, yes. There's no distinction about the number of arms a person has the right to bear.
   4562. tshipman Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:11 PM (#4331148)
Yes, your pedantic correction rendered my entire point invalid. LOL.


Joe, 20 posts ago:

You're aware that two of America's biggest cities had flat gun bans for decades, right?


Yes. Given that your point was the secret goals of liberals, the fact that only handguns were banned does render your whole point invalid.

Ahem.

LOL.
   4563. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:16 PM (#4331150)
the most vital type of firearm — handguns


Who says they're the most vital? Most vital to whom and for what? I'm pretty sure this was not an commonly held belief among the framers. Where does the Constitution enumerate a right to bear specific types of arms?
   4564. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:16 PM (#4331151)
Yes. Given that your point was the secret goals of liberals, the fact that only handguns were banned does render your whole point invalid.

Ahem.

LOL.

D.C. had a flat ban of all guns, Chicago had a flat ban of handguns and all sorts of limits on other guns, and other cities, such as NYC, have de facto bans of handguns. It's unclear why you're pretending that liberals haven't made major efforts to ban guns.
   4565. Steve Treder Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:17 PM (#4331152)
has anyone suggested a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment?


Not to my knowledge, no.

I haven't noticed it in this thread, but, yes, I have heard and read that suggestion elsewhere. It's a political fantasy, of course.
   4566. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4331153)
NOW, if Dan had said there were some on the left who do want to get rid of guns, he would have a post. But to baldly assert that " the complete abolition of guns is the declared ultimate goal of the left" is an outright lie.


We had an admitted leftist give what an leftist gun policy would amount to.


Just so there's no confusion as to what a lefty response is, I'll offer up my position:

1. There is no right to bear arms. The second amendment is incomprehensible BS that means little to nothing for private citizens.
2. As there is no right to bear arms for private citizens, laws concerning guns should be considered as all other laws - by a balancing of the merits.
3. Thus, all guns should be illegal.
4. Yes, even guns primarily used for hunting should be illegal. If you want to kill a defenseless animal, use a crossbow. It should be hard to kill living things.
5. The federal government should immediately act to confiscate all privately owned guns.


One lefty here, Bob Dernier Cri has stated he disagrees with this.

We talked about it, but no other lefties stated any disagreement with that premise.

So, lefties, do you disagree with that position? If so, I will cheerfully retract my claim.

Losing my mind? I'm not the one that responded to "medical procedures, with the exceptions of emergencies, should not be given with the consent of the parent or guardian" with a rejected script to a Lifetime movie, while the people that agreed with me quietly shook their heads quietly while trying to decide whether some or all Southern judges were pro child-rape.
   4567. tshipman Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4331156)
D.C. had a flat ban of all guns, Chicago had a flat ban of handguns and all sorts of limits on other guns, and other cities, such as NYC, have de facto bans of handguns. It's unclear why you're pretending that liberals haven't made major efforts to ban guns.


Once again, DC had a ban of HANDGUNS. Other weapons were required to be stored unloaded or with trigger locks in place. The Sullivan Act in New York is a "may issue" rather than "Shall issue" act.

You have no idea what the laws you are complaining about actually did. Isn't that disqualifying for your argument?

admitted leftist


Hilarious.

I'm fine with guns for hunting. Shotguns and rifles should be legal, with licenses granted that need yearly renewal. Very few handgun licenses could also be granted, but those would require a proficiency/safety test and yearly renewal. Collectible guns should be allowed freely with modifications to prevent their use as a weapon.

Voluntary buy-backs are better policy than confiscation. Plus, flat out confiscation would require recompense.
   4568. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4331159)
Once again, DC had a ban of HANDGUNS. Other weapons were required to be stored unloaded or with trigger locks in place. The Sullivan Act in New York is a "may issue" rather than "Shall issue" act.

You have no idea what the laws you are complaining about actually did. Isn't that disqualifying for your argument?

I can't tell if you're wrong or deliberately being dishonest.

In D.C., it was illegal to possess any functional firearm within the home, and there was no self-defense provision whatsoever.

In NYC, it takes upwards of six months to get a residential handgun permit, and a resident has a better chance of being hit by lightning than of being approved for a CCW license.
   4569. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4331160)
So, lefties, do you disagree with that position? If so, I will cheerfully retract my claim.


Do you not read the posts of others? I took the post you just quoted as a purely hypothetical "what a radical leftist would think" sort of thing. The idea that the rest of us, liberal or whatnot, have to disavow it to give you morning wood...

Whatever, man. Okay. Here goes.

I strongly support a ban on high capacity clips, magazines and ammunition "drums." There is absolutely no need for that in the private sphere.

I believe that semi-automatic fire weapons are fine, but that there's no need for detachable clips at all. I support regulations which would limit the private market to rifles and shotguns with non-detachable clips or magazines (prevents rapid reload) with rounds limited to 5-10.

I believe that every possible aspect of "self defense" needed by a private citizens can be acquired with a simple, revolver chamber hand gun with six rounds. There is no need for a clip based load system in hand guns for the private market.

I believe that banning detachable clips and large capacity magazines for both rifles, shotguns and hand guns would significantly reduce the kill rate of mass shootings such as Columbine, Aurora or Newtown.

Happy, Dan?
   4570. Jay Z Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4331165)
Probably could if there was political will, yes. There's no distinction about the number of arms a person has the right to bear.


The amendment says "the people", not individual persons. It's possible to read the amendment as the federal government allowing the states and other governments guards and militias, nothing more. Everyone else could be restricted from bearing arms. Obviously many read the amendment differently.
   4571. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4331169)
The amendment says "the people", not individual persons. It's possible to read the amendment as the federal government allowing the states and other governments guards and militias, nothing more. Everyone else could be restricted from bearing arms. Obviously many read the amendment differently.

To believe such a thing, one must believe the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights — which otherwise detailed the rights of individuals and the limitations of government — was a mistake.
   4572. tshipman Posted: December 22, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4331172)
In D.C., it was illegal to possess any functional firearm within the home, and there was no self-defense provision whatsoever.


I think there's just a reading comprehension issue here.

From the Wiki on Firearms Control Regulations act of 1975:
The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, or high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device"


A trigger lock does not mean the firearm was not functional.
   4573. tshipman Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4331173)
To believe such a thing, one must believe the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights — which otherwise detailed the rights of individuals and the limitations of government — was a mistake.


See, this is really interesting. The Bill of Rights did not detail the rights of individuals. That is a post-Civil War framing. Projecting that backwards is an anachronism. The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent the Federal Government from imposing laws on states.

The idea of the Bill of Rights protecting individuals would make no sense, because states can and did enact laws prohibited to the feds. For example, free Blacks were prohibited from owning guns in most of the South.

   4574. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4331175)
I think there's just a reading comprehension issue here.

Yes, by one of us who isn't me.

From the Wiki on Firearms Control Regulations act of 1975:
The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, or high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device"

A trigger lock does not mean the firearm was not functional.

You should forward this to the Supreme Court and various appeals courts, who assuredly will be interested to learn there wasn't a gun ban in D.C. after all. I'm sure they'll all be rightly embarrassed for their mistake.

(But just to continue the fun, please show me where in the D.C. Code a person was allowed to assemble their gun(s) and/or remove the "trigger lock or similar device." Thanks in advance.)
   4575. Steve Treder Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4331177)
So, lefties, do you disagree with that position?

No.

EDIT: D'oh! I mean, yes, I do DISagree with that position.
   4576. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:07 PM (#4331178)
See, this is really interesting. The Bill of Rights did not detail the rights of individuals. That is a post-Civil War framing. Projecting that backwards is an anachronism. The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent the Federal Government from imposing laws on states.


This. The 2nd is literally the only amendment where the right wings demand individual rights rather than "states' rights." Post-Civil War amendments, with the clear and obvious re-reading of the document as a defense of individual liberty rather than states rights against the federal government, the 2nd should be interpreted as the other amendments. Individually. But that said, the 2nd is an anachronism of the highest order. There are no militia in need of well-regulation. The Federalist arguments won. We have a standing army and standing state guards. The entire purpose of the 2nd *as originally written* is moot.

But still it remains. It's like the appendix of the Constitution.
   4577. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4331181)
See, this is really interesting. The Bill of Rights did not detail the rights of individuals. That is a post-Civil War framing. Projecting that backwards is an anachronism. The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent the Federal Government from imposing laws on states.

The idea of the Bill of Rights protecting individuals would make no sense, because states can and did enact laws prohibited to the feds. For example, free Blacks were prohibited from owning guns in most of the South.

Wow, and people were just claiming Dan is delusional?

Putting aside the Second Amendment that lefties find so troublesome, are you seriously claiming there are no individual rights, liberties, and/or protections in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendments?
   4578. tshipman Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4331184)
Putting aside the Second Amendment that lefties find so troublesome, are you seriously claiming there are no individual rights, liberties, and/or protections in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendments?


Correct. States were free to enact any laws that they chose on their citizens. Like, there was a Civil War about it and everything. Read the 14th Amendment.

I suppose this explains your poor reading comprehension of the DC handgun ban.

   4579. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4331186)
Just so there's no confusion as to what a lefty response is, I'll offer up my position:

1. There is no right to bear arms. The second amendment is incomprehensible BS that means little to nothing for private citizens.
2. As there is no right to bear arms for private citizens, laws concerning guns should be considered as all other laws - by a balancing of the merits.
3. Thus, all guns should be illegal.
4. Yes, even guns primarily used for hunting should be illegal. If you want to kill a defenseless animal, use a crossbow. It should be hard to kill living things.
5. The federal government should immediately act to confiscate all privately owned guns.


One lefty here, Bob Dernier Cri has stated he disagrees with this.
We talked about it, but no other lefties stated any disagreement with that premise.
So, lefties, do you disagree with that position? If so, I will cheerfully retract my claim.

Not having read everything, I didn't see the original. I do believe there's a right to bear arms. It says so in the Constitution. However, the modern winger spin on the 2nd Amendment tends to completely neglect the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment, and that muddies up the argument terribly since, as Sam points out, there are no community militias in need of well-regulation.

For me, it comes down to this: You have the right to bear arms, and as with all other rights defined within the Constitution, that right actually can be infringed upon. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and you can't plant land mines under your front lawn. I'm comfortable with someone owning a thousand guns if they want, but not missiles, not bombs, and not assault weaponry that allows them to unleash a hundred bullets in a few seconds.
   4580. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:34 PM (#4331188)
Correct. States were free to enact any laws that they chose on their citizens. Like, there was a Civil War about it and everything. Read the 14th Amendment.

Comical.

I suppose this explains your poor reading comprehension of the DC handgun ban.

D.C. had a gun ban, not a "handgun ban." Also, still waiting for you to cite the sections of the D.C. Code that allowed owners of firearms to assemble their guns and/or remove the "trigger lock or similar device." Or are you claiming that D.C. residents were allowed to own firearms so long as they remained in a non-functional state and were never used, even in self-defense, and that this was consistent with the Second Amendment?
   4581. GregD Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4331191)
Joe,
The idea that the Bill of Rights at its inception only limited the national, not state, governments is not something radical or avant-garde. It is the definition of black-letter law. States could impose official religions or limit speech or restrict guns. Not all did take those actions of course. Some had Bills of Rights of their own, some models for the Bill of Rights, some based on the Bill of Rights. But the 14th Amendment was interpreted to make the states liable to the federal bill of rights.

If you look at constitutional law in the early 19th century, it is striking how weak it was. Not just no suits against states for violating federal constitutional rights but almost no suits against the federal government for doing so.
   4582. tshipman Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4331193)
Still waiting for you to cite the sections of the D.C. Code that allowed owners of firearms to assemble their guns and/or remove the "trigger lock or similar device." Or are you claiming that D.C. residents were allowed to own firearms — so long as they never, ever used them, even in self-defense — and that this was consistent with the Second Amendment?


Here's the relevant section of the act:
Each registrant shall keep any firearms in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.


It was not illegal to use, own or keep loaded at one's place of work. It was not illegal to use in self-defense. You just had to assemble and load it before using it. You could assemble a device and take it to go to a shooting range. You could keep it at your place of work.

By comparison, the text referring to handguns stated that there was a "comprehensive ban" on owning a handgun. Can you really not understand how these things are different?
   4583. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4331194)
Greg: In how many places in 1789 America was private possession of firearms banned or otherwise disputed?
   4584. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4331197)
Greg: In how many places in 1789 America was private possession of firearms banned or otherwise disputed?
The answer, of course, is nowhere, because militias were the norm and private weaponry was necessary for it. Times have changed.

Actually, there is a constitutional right to own firearms — just not every type of firearm.
What should be the bar?
   4585. Srul Itza Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4331199)
You are growing more disingenuous with age.


"an admitted leftist give what an leftist gun policy would amount to" =/= "the complete abolition of guns is the declared ultimate goal of the left"

To suggest otherwise is to damage what little credibility you have left.

EDIT: And for the record, although I don't know if I count as the unified voice of the left, but I am not in favor of the universal abolition of private gun ownership.

I am in favor of regulations requiring anyone who want to own a gun to take a gun safety course, anyone who wants to keep a gun in a house with children under the age of (10? 12? the exact age is negotiable) to keep the gun secured either in a lock box or with a trigger guard, and of the universal registration of all guns, including ballistic characteristics. I am also in favor of the usual litany of barring ownership of automatic weapons and large clips, and I am against concealed carry laws in dense urban areas.

I am also against giving unfettered discretion to the police in the issuance of gun permits. If somebody has taken a gun safety course and registered the gun, the permit should issue.
   4586. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4331200)
It was not illegal to use, own or keep loaded at one's place of work. It was not illegal to use in self-defense. You just had to assemble and load it before using it. You could assemble a device and take it to go to a shooting range. You could keep it at your place of work.

By comparison, the text referring to handguns stated that there was a "comprehensive ban" on owning a handgun. Can you really not understand how these things are different?

I can't believe you're doubling and tripling down on this dishonesty. Before Heller, it was illegal, in all cases, for residents of D.C. to possess functional firearms in the home and to use a functional firearm in self-defense. The best the D.C. government could do is argue there was an "implicit" self-defense right, which was essentially laughed out of court:

Parker Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 57. "He simply contends that he is entitled to the possession of a 'functional' firearm to be employed in case of a threat to life or limb. The District responds that, notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

As for "going to a shooting range," there are (and were) no shooting ranges in D.C. that are open to the public.
   4587. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 22, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4331201)
The answer, of course, is nowhere, because militias were the norm and private weaponry was necessary for it. Times have changed.


The reification of 18th century frontier America is absurd.
   4588. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4331203)
The answer, of course, is nowhere, because militias were the norm and private weaponry was necessary for it. Times have changed.

It doesn't matter if times have changed. The Second Amendment of the Constitution has not.
   4589. greenback calls it soccer Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4331206)
It doesn't matter if times have changed. The Constitution has not.

Obvious retort: So the 2nd amendment guarantees people are allowed to own muskets?

Again, the history of the 14th amendment is kinda worth the read.
   4590. Srul Itza Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4331207)
The Bill of Rights did not detail the rights of individuals.


Yes it did. But as against the Federal Government.
   4591. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4331210)
Again, the history of the 14th amendment is kinda worth the read.

This is a distinction that makes no difference in the discussion of gun rights. There were zero places in 1789 America in which the private possession of firearms was banned or otherwise in dispute. (And we're not talking about a theoretical gun ban in 1795 Pennsylvania, but theoretical gun bans in the 2012 U.S.)
   4592. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4331211)
It doesn't matter if times have changed. The Second Amendment of the Constitution has not.
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

~ T. Jefferson
   4593. Lassus Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4331212)
Dan, please, not the "you didn't deny it" method of proof.
   4594. tshipman Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:29 PM (#4331215)
Before Heller, it was illegal, in all cases, for residents of D.C. to possess functional firearms in the home and to use a functional firearm in self-defense.


I mean, that's just plainly not true. It was illegal to store your guns fully assembled and without a trigger lock. Are you claiming that a disassembled or trigger-locked gun is not functional? I think you're stretching the language if that's your claim. A trigger lock takes all of 5 seconds to unlock. Does a safety being engaged make a gun non-functional?

BTW, I want to take a look back to your original claim:

You're aware that two of America's biggest cities had flat gun bans for decades, right?


I think everyone can see that your original claim was simply not accurate.
   4595. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:33 PM (#4331218)
Joe: In how many places in 1789 America were ALL persons not to "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?
   4596. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4331220)
4592 — That quote would seem to invite a gun debate and then possible repeal of the Second Amendment (and/or a further amendment to the Constitution). But I don't hear anyone on the left talking about doing either of those things. Liberals seem to prefer the shortcuts of legislative end runs and judicial activism, typically under the cover of appeals to emotion.
   4597. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:41 PM (#4331225)
I mean, that's just plainly not true. It was illegal to store your guns fully assembled and without a trigger lock. Are you claiming that a disassembled or trigger-locked gun is not functional? I think you're stretching the language if that's your claim. A trigger lock takes all of 5 seconds to unlock. Does a safety being engaged make a gun non-functional?

It was always illegal to store guns that were loaded, and it was additionally illegal to store guns that weren't either disassembled or disabled by a trigger lock.

If someone breaks into your house, having a gun that's unloaded and either disassembled or disabled isn't going to do you much good. That you continue to dispute this is silly.

I think everyone can see that your original claim was simply not accurate.

I think everyone can see that you're using a pedantic correction in a dishonest attempt to discredit a claim that was otherwise valid.

***

Note to GregD: My #4583 might have seemed unduly terse, but it wasn't intended that way. I understand the point you were making in #4581, but I believe it would be hard to name many rights that were seen as more fundamental at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted than that of private firearm possession.
   4598. tshipman Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:49 PM (#4331232)
If someone breaks into your house, having a gun that's unloaded and either disassembled or disabled isn't going to do you much good.


The point isn't whether it is useful (statistically speaking, you're better off without the gun entirely), but whether or not it was banned. You claimed that DC/Chicago banned all guns ("two of America's biggest cities had flat gun bans for decades"). That wasn't true. Handguns were banned. Other guns had storage requirements designed to prevent suicides.

Your claim was not valid, your arguments were bullshit, and your ignorance on the law remains breathtaking.
   4599. GregD Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4331236)
Joe: I don't know about 1793. Adam Winkler writes, according to Jill LePore, that "laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859)." In challenges to more narrow racially restrictive laws North Carolina's Supreme Court tossed out a claim that the 2nd Amendment had any impact on a state law limiting free black people from carrying weapons in 1843 on the grounds that the Bill of Rights had no impact on state laws, only federal, though apparently a Georgia court said the Bill of Rights did apply but only to laws regulating citizens not to persons.

I honestly don't think the idea that 19th century local governments could regulate of guns is surprising to anyone who's ever seen a movie about Dodge City or Tombstone.

In terms of the Bill of Rights affecting state laws on establishment of religion, several states still had formally established religions in the 1780s though many of them let it lapse. Massachusetts required everyone to join and be taxed by a church though did not regulate which church they joined. That law was overturned in the 1830s democratically but no one at the time thought that it was unconstitutional. State laws banning atheists from holding offices were not overturned by the Supreme Court until the 1960s.


   4600. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 22, 2012 at 11:57 PM (#4331237)
4592 — That quote would seem to invite a gun debate and then possible repeal of the Second Amendment (and/or a further amendment to the Constitution).
Why would that be? Federal and state governments have found all sorts of ways to limit other amendments legislatively without repealing amendments.

I'm still hoping you'll answer this question: "Actually, there is a constitutional right to own firearms — just not every type of firearm." Where should the line be drawn?
Page 46 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(8 - 11:05pm, Nov 21)
Last: boteman

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(1 - 11:02pm, Nov 21)
Last: boteman

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(113 - 10:45pm, Nov 21)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4101 - 10:31pm, Nov 21)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogMLB Transaction Trees «
(23 - 10:27pm, Nov 21)
Last: Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy

NewsblogJosh Lueke and the Ways of Anger
(6 - 10:20pm, Nov 21)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(921 - 10:19pm, Nov 21)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(55 - 10:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with Wife!)

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(3 - 10:08pm, Nov 21)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogPablo Sandoval’s Brother: Red Sox Showed ‘First Class’ Attentiveness | Boston Red Sox | NESN.com
(15 - 9:45pm, Nov 21)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogRunning list of 2014 40-man roster additions | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball
(37 - 9:29pm, Nov 21)
Last: The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(43 - 9:27pm, Nov 21)
Last: Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(367 - 8:17pm, Nov 21)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogReds at least considering trading big names, reducing payroll | FOX Sports
(8 - 6:41pm, Nov 21)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogMLB to tweak replay system, but managers’ challenges will stay | New York Post
(18 - 6:30pm, Nov 21)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

Page rendered in 1.1088 seconds
52 querie(s) executed