The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5861 - 5880 of total 6666 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 31, 2014 - 04:02pm PT
But as firepower of civilian arms continues to increase, sadly for the victims, such regulation is inevitable, the people will demand it.

It might indeed happen, but it certainly is not inevitable. If anything, for awhile the trend has been going the other way. From a Pew Research poll comparing 2012 to 2014....

"Do you think that gun ownership in this country does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime, or does more to put people's safety at risk?"

Year: 2014 | 2012
Protect people: 57% | 48%
Put safety at risk: 38% | 37%
Unsure/Refused: 5% | 16%

The "unsure" are becoming more sure, and they are not siding with the "inevitable" direction you suggest. This is made even more clear in the following question....

"Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?"

Year: 2014 | 2013 | 2008
Support: 50% | 54% | 54%
Oppose: 47% | 41% | 40%
Unsure: 3% | 5% | 5%

This year saw a significant change in support of stricter gun control regulations, after a lengthy stasis of opinion. Support dropped, while, more tellingly, opposition significantly increased. The "unsure" stayed within the margin of error the same during the four-year period, so the transition came from people who had once supported stricter regulation and now oppose it.

There are many more polls like this one, and all show the same trend. It is not going the way the gun control folks would hope, and it does not denote anything approaching the "inevitability" of stricter laws.

I'll note in this context that the liberals who were touting on all sorts of threads on the taco that it was "inevitable" that the country was going to go more and more to the democrats are now strangely silent after the trouncing the republicans just handed the democrats. I am neither and think that both parties are an abomination. My point is only that the prognostications of how the country is going to go are INEVITABLY wrong.

America is a gun country, it's the only one that has guns written into its constitution, and that basic perspective is a hurdle that liberals take more lightly than they should as they prognosticate how America is going to sweepingly come to their side.

Americans may be "stupid," as Gruber states, but they are starting to tumble to the fact that mass shootings (three or more victims) inevitably take place in gun-free zones. So the sensationalization of "gun violence" by the media is beginning to have the opposite effect on public opinion than the liberals would hope.
Flip Flop

Trad climber
Truckee, CA
Dec 31, 2014 - 04:09pm PT
If you define gunFree zones as countries with real gun regulation then your talking point sounds like a bit of fox propaganda talking point designed to lull believers to do nothing.

But that's probably not you, because you're a smart person who thinks for themselves. Hell, you've been talking about gun free zones since way back.

Or, ...... You don't really get this stuff, do you?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 31, 2014 - 04:29pm PT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 31, 2014 - 04:54pm PT
If you define gunFree zones as countries with real gun regulation....

Or, ...... You don't really get this stuff, do you?

This is not confusing. The phrase is well-defined and is never employed to talk about "countries."

Malls, theaters, schools, etc. Mass shootings always take place where citizen-owned guns are prohibited. Do you get that?
zBrown

Ice climber
BrujÚ de la Playa
Dec 31, 2014 - 05:08pm PT
Should be turned on it's head to GunAllowed zones. This would be a reasonably small portion of the geography of the United States.

The Constitution did not address the issue of just where "the right to keep and bear arms" could be exercised as I recall, but I haven't read it lately.

Perhaps some of the scholars here can enlighten us all.






madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 31, 2014 - 06:23pm PT
The Constitution did not address the issue of just where "the right to keep and bear arms" could be exercised as I recall, but I haven't read it lately.

Two things are of note to me.

1) The phrase, "... the right to..." presupposes an existing right. The 2nd amendment does not itself grant that right; the right is presumed by the amendment, and the purpose of the amendment is to clarify a limitation on the feds. To whit....

2) "Shall not be infringed" is what the feds are constrained by. So, in answer to your question of "where," the answer is "everywhere" are the feds constrained from "infringing" on the right that is presumed by the 2nd amendment.

People get hung up on what a "militia" is, and so forth. But not only is that clarified by many founders' documents, but the question is a genuine red herring. Regardless of whatever happens to the 2nd amendment or how it ultimately gets interpreted by this or that court, the right itself does not depend upon the 2nd amendment. So, even if the 2nd went away entirely, the enumerated powers clause and the 10th would also have to go away to truly and legally empower the feds to do much in the way of gun control.

Of course, the interstate commerce clause perpetually gets interpreted to mean basically anything, thereby granting the feds the exact sort of sweeping powers that the founders clearly never intended it to have. So, really, all bets are off as we head perpetually deeper into a benevolent tyranny.
zBrown

Ice climber
BrujÚ de la Playa
Dec 31, 2014 - 06:43pm PT
^

The phrase, "... the right to..." presupposes an existing right.

No it doesn't.

As to the rest, not really. Saying "where" is not an infringement of the right whether it was pre-existing or not. The right still exists. It is not taken away.

Compare in your leisure, "the right to privacy" and how that has been modifeid over the years. For example "search and seizure".








madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 31, 2014 - 06:45pm PT
BTW... as the new year is almost upon us, I want to say in sincerity that the ST community is wonderful, and I appreciate being a part of you. Even our most heated debates are worth having, and I'd rather have them with fellow climbers than any other people.

You are the best, and I'm honored to participate!

HAPPY 2015!!!
zBrown

Ice climber
BrujÚ de la Playa
Dec 31, 2014 - 06:46pm PT
A good new year to you also, mb1.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 31, 2014 - 06:47pm PT
Saying "where" is not an infringement of the right whether it was pre-existing or not. The right still exists. It is not taken away.

Please look up what the word "infringed" means.

If the feds say, "You can keep and bear your gun in the confines of your smallest closet between the hours of 1 and 2 in the afternoon on Monday," no rational person is going to respond: "Cool! The right has not been infringed."
zBrown

Ice climber
BrujÚ de la Playa
Dec 31, 2014 - 06:50pm PT
zBrown

Ice climber
BrujÚ de la Playa
Dec 31, 2014 - 06:56pm PT
"You can keep and bear your gun in the confines of your smallest closet between the hours of 1 and 2 in the afternoon on Monday,"

Did somebody say that?

Use your leisure time and check out "right to privacy" as I mentioned.

I believe you'll find that the courts have decided repeatedly that there are no absolute rights.

If you're fixated on gunz, then look at how many restrictions already exist, supported by even "die-hard" [good one zB] gunzrighters on the courts.




.

Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Dec 31, 2014 - 07:02pm PT
The Constitution doesn't say anything about guns.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 31, 2014 - 07:04pm PT
The problem with your argument is that it argues from violations to justify yet further violations. It's like arguing this way:

I step on your toes, and you don't say anything. So....

I stomp on your foot, and you only say, "Yikes!" So....

I hit you in the gut, and you only say, "Please stop!" So....

You clearly have no absolute right against assault.

I'm not arguing for an "absolute right" in the sense you are suggesting. Criminals, for example, have agreed by force of law to have certain rights infringed. But the constitution was indeed intended to recognize absolute negative rights among law-abiding citizens.

The United States was never designed to be "safe" in the sense that people now want to see it. It was designed to be free in a sense that the world had never before seen. People now are falling all over themselves to throw away rights in favor of "safety," which is both sad and pathetic. Safety is a chimera, while rights are real and substantial.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 1, 2015 - 10:08am PT
and the toddler that killed his mother at the Walmart.......

If only there had been a good, armed citizen that could have shot the child before he'd had a chance to get a shot off...
WBraun

climber
Jan 1, 2015 - 10:22am PT
Nice ^^^ be the usual real azhole you always are
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jan 1, 2015 - 11:59am PT
Word, Werner.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jan 1, 2015 - 12:02pm PT
Will the 2 year old be tried as an adult and does a dirty diaper come under the stand your ground law...?
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Jan 1, 2015 - 12:03pm PT
Georgia police chief told 911 he accidentally shot wife, investigators say

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/01/justice/georgia-police-chief-wife/

The initial reports that we got from a 911 call were that the chief had shot his wife, accidentally, twice.

It will be entertaining to hear his explanation for the second shot.

Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jan 1, 2015 - 02:50pm PT
Regarding the sad incident with the 2 year old. I've been watching/reading news reports on this looking for the answer to one question and seen nothing.

The average trigger pull for a double action pistol, a revolver or the first shot of a semi-auto is a lot for a two year old to muster up. Ideal trigger weight is about 5-8 lbs. My Beretta is heavier. In any case a light enough pull for a two year old's finger will not work the action. But... If the gun is cocked it will fire easily. So...

Was mom carrying a cocked pistol with a round in the chamber in her purse? If so she caused the accident which killed her. I hope the child is not completely shattered by the event.
Messages 5861 - 5880 of total 6666 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews