Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Commerce clause is a positive grant that doesn't supercede Bill of Rights. I mean, 2nd A was passed after Commerce Clause...It's a limit on that positive power. Pretty clear. So Congress can regulate guns provideo said regulation don't run afoul the 2nd A.

[iam416]

I'm also completely fine with restricting the rights of felons, including 2nd A. I'd be fine with something less than criminal conviction provided there was a fair, transparent process that necessarily includes an established burden of proof.

[Mike]

So how is a ban on full autos fine but a ban on semi-auto rifles with 30+ round mags is depriving people of their 2nd amendment rights? We already have gun control in that I can't buy a military issue M-240B or an F16. I don't ever hear people arguing that fully automatic belt fed machine guns should be legal for John Q. Public. All that's up for debate is how militant our citizenry should be. I'm always frustrated with how the battle lines are drawn in this debate.

[Wild Hoss]

Absolutely absurd. The police sure do like to show up looking like they just conquered Berlin tho, don't they? Seems like everytime there is an event like this you see them walking around in EOD suits, driving tanks, all decked out in tactical gear with their ARs. Meanwhile the perp has been dead for 3 hours but the local police is ready to retake Falluja. I'd much prefer they do actual police work instead of playing with their fucking toys.

Painting with the broad brush of a broad topic, I believe there's been a shift in LE ethos nationwide. Its changed from "Serve and Protect" to the paranoia of "I am going home tonight". The public at large is looked on by LE as a potential threat instead of a responsibility...call it The "Cops" Effect.

I think its made LE flighty; overly cautious in some scenarios, too quick to shoot in others. I wonder if its pushing policing towards a model where its primarily about equipment and tactics instead of the abiity of officers to solve problems. We seem to have a generation of officers who are lacking in the ability to handle policing problems, starting with the primary one; the ability of one officer to restrain one citizen.

I also wonder if the increased militarization of LE is drawing a more gung-ho type of officer, in general. Young men less interested in protecting their community than "kicking ass".

Whatever the cause, events in Orlando should give us all pause when wondering if those entrusted to protect us are willing to do what is required in the more extreme circumstances.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Iam, excellent explanation of the commerce clause.

My point is that the no fly list as conceived deprived persons of their right to travel without due process of law. It is better if it didn't exist but, if it's going to invade rights, might as well add one more.

[Ghengis Jon]

Why not require a court order for inclusion on the no-fly list? Not a secret, rubber stamp FISA style court either. Courts can issue sealed orders (like for wire-taps), so why not for the no fly list? Provide a public appeal process as well. Then I don't see a problem with no fly no buy.

FTR, the Senate was unable to get cloture today on a bill to increase surveillance rights of the FBI. They only had 59 votes.

I'm surprised the Senate contains only 59 shit-for-brains-lets-have-a-police-state members. We've already inflicted upon ourselves FISA and the Patriot Act. That isn't enough fascism? These hand wringing, neo-nazi cowards desperately need to be voted out of office.

[iam416]

So how is a ban on full autos fine but a ban on semi-auto rifles with 30+ round mags is depriving people of their 2nd amendment rights? We already have gun control in that I can't buy a military issue M-240B or an F16. I don't ever hear people arguing that fully automatic belt fed machine guns should be legal for John Q. Public. All that's up for debate is how militant our citizenry should be. I'm always frustrated with how the battle lines are drawn in this debate.

What does or doesn't run afoul of the Constitution is mostly up to the folks in robes. I can write a similar paragraph on the First Amendment. I think the way the Courts look at the 1st A is the way they ought to look at the 2nd A. There is a core, fundamental principle that is sacrosanct. In the case of the 1st A, it's political speech. Then there are "lesser" areas of speech, e.g., commercial speech (advertisements) and then even lesser, e.g., obscenity and words that incite violence. 1st A protections vary as you progress down this line.

After literally 2 minutes of thought on this, I think the 2nd A could go the same way. I think perhaps the core principle is the right to bear the standard firearm of the time. In 1790 it was a musket; today it's a handgun. Both serve the fundamental principle of self-protection. Then the further you move away from a handgun the less stringent the 2nd A protection. In 1st A terms, maybe semi-automatic weapons=commercial speech and automatic weapons=words that incite violence.

I would like to see a case where the Court strongly affirms Heller -- that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- but establishes limits on that right for, say, high round weapons.

[iam416]

I'm surprised the Senate contains only 59 shit-for-brains-lets-have-a-police-state members. We've already inflicted upon ourselves FISA and the Patriot Act. That isn't enough fascism? These hand wringing, neo-nazi cowards desperately need to be voted out of office.

Supposedly it's a "gap-filler" bill. I don't know enough/anything about it, so I can't really comment. As I said, my visceral reaction was negative. That said the Senate Rs and the Obama Administration are for it. If they can peel off one more Senate D then they'll get cloture and it'll be on its way.

[Jeff Buchanan]

.........the further you move away from a handgun the less stringent the 2nd A protection. In 1st A terms, maybe semi-automatic weapons=commercial speech and automatic weapons=words that incite violence..........I would like to see a case where the Court strongly affirms Heller -- that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- but establishes limits on that right for, say, high round weapons.

Appreciate your rational approach. I just read an interesting piece on the National Firearms Act of 1939. Lawmakers at the time outlawed unrestricted ownership of Short barreled shot guns, machine guns and silencers arguing that, among other things, these needed to be registered with the ATF because they could be used to injure many people as opposed to provide self protection. Sensible, constitutional. The point here is that the NRA has never challenged the NFA yet they couple any further legislation involving gun control to be an infringement on 2ndA rights.

Makes no sense at all. Even though the NFA includes only 4m weapons, it represents a vehicle by which the weapons we are concerned about in this time could be considered. That approach sort of invalidates the NRA's chief objection to expanding the application of gun laws. Decoupling the dialogue on gun control from that involving constitutional rights seems to me to be a smart idea.

[Jeff Buchanan]

On Hoss's description of the Cop effect ........ I believe that is probably due to increasingly armed and violent citizenry. I don't like it either but I understand it. It's an arms race. It's another reason why getting the weapons we're talking about out of the hands of the people the cops should be protecting is kinda a big deal.

My daughter lives in Switzerland. She is engaged to an Italian. They are both visiting this week and we have had a few interesting discussions on gun violence and gun control. In Europe, something Drok has brought up about Canada, gun violence doesn't exist to the extent that it does in the US. Not talking about the Paris attacks. Different animal altogether. The difference is that guns are treated much differently. For example, in Switzerland, and to a certain extent in Italy, families are brought up with guns principally to be used for hunting. Europeans in general don't think about using a gun to commit a violent crime. Not in the DNA.

The Swiss have mandatory military service. Once conscripted, you are issued a gun. Minus ammunition and auto-features, it's yours to keep when you leave service. The gun is registered to you, your picture and fingerprints are in a national registry and if you buy ammunition for it that can only be bought in small quantities; step off your property with it, you'll get arrested.

The point is that in the US, there is an entirely different mentality about the purpose of a gun. talent points out that where you'll find gun crimes, you'll find drugs. True. So, besides legislative action, as a nation we should be talking about changing the gun culture in this country. Takes a long time but it's the time now to start.

[entropy]

I find it really interesting that liberals who were against the no fly lists because they felt it violated civil rights are now the same people who want to leverage that same civil rights violation to prevent the purchase of guns. It's amazing how consistently inconsistent our politicians have become..

[entropy]

jeff.. it's cultural in the US. Think of Hollywood movies. How many hero's use a gun for revenge or to solve a problem.... a gun is a great way to right a wrong or kill a bad guy. We've hero worshiped these characters and what they do for generations.

[Wild Hoss]

jeff.. it's cultural in the US. Think of Hollywood movies. How many hero's use a gun for revenge or to solve a problem.... a gun is a great way to right a wrong or kill a bad guy. We've hero worshiped these characters and what they do for generations.

[entropy]

can't see anything but an X

[lineygoblue]

I find it really interesting that liberals who were against the no fly lists because they felt it violated civil rights are now the same people who want to leverage that same civil rights violation to prevent the purchase of guns. It's amazing how consistently inconsistent our politicians have become..

Its all about whatever gets them re-elected.