Sheik
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 12,067
I’m curious how many of the counties we’re being compared to ever had more guns than citizens with a right to own them?
The Outrage Thread
- Thread starter skidadl
- Start date
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
There are lots of sensible solutions.
One of the biggest ones that would get bipartisan support and absolutely would have an impact would be investment in armed security at schools and public places.
The left screams "do something!!!" They won't try that something, though, because it's success would undermine their ultimate agenda.
They should at least be honest. They don't want to "do something." They only want to do one thing.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
Because any firearm is capable of mass shootings and banning ARs doesn't increase the safety of the community as a whole in any measurable way.
Last edited:
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
I'm interested to know how unlawful searches and seizures, which are prohibited by the Constitution, "fuck up the whole legal process," but unlawful gun bans, which are also prohibited by the Constitution, "don't hurt anyone but the people who want to own them."
This oughta be good.
Wanna be lawyer alert.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
I can't believe the idiot just said banning guns doesn't hurt anyone.
Someone has literally no idea about the facts.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
It's not just naive, it's flat out ignorant.
The dude has no idea what he's talking about.
Guns save lives every year from criminals, who are either armed, or often not armed, themselves.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
And guess what? Even if "the criminals" don't still have guns (which they will still have them), a 6'2 225 lb man doesn't need a gun to murder a 5'5 125 pound woman, or to rape her, or whatever.
Guns allow law abiding folk to defend themselves from criminals and it happens every day.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
Armed guards at the schools and shopping malls.
bbgun
every dur is a stab in the heart
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 29,746
They hate that because it implies that guns are here to stay. They'd rather cling to the fantasy of total eradication.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
Yeah, let's start rebuilding schools with one way in and one way out and controlled access to the point of ingress.
~crickets~
It will make the students feel like its a jail! It will disrupt the learning environment!
Well, do you want to "do something" or don't you?
(Here's a hint: they don't)
bbgun
every dur is a stab in the heart
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 29,746
I took the LSAT. Twice. Long story short, I am not a lawyer.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
DOOOOOOO SOMETHING
as long as it's just the thing I want, gun confiscation
When the left puts as much effort into school security as gun bans, then come tell me it's not happening.
Until then, GTFO with these lies. You didn't try it, that's why it's not happening.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
Zero.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
While I'm not sure I agree with all the conclusions in this article, here is one that @boozeman might enjoy:
We Clerked for Justices Scalia and Stevens. America Is Getting Heller Wrong.
May 31, 2022
By Kate Shaw and John Bash
Ms. Shaw is a professor of law at Cardozo Law School. Mr. Bash is an attorney in private practice in Austin, Texas
In the summer of 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to gun ownership. We were law clerks to Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the lead dissent.
Justices Scalia and Stevens clashed over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion held that the amendment protected an individual right to keep a usable handgun at home, which meant the District of Columbia law prohibiting such possession was unconstitutional. Justice Stevens argued that those protections extended only to firearm ownership in conjunction with service in a “well-regulated militia,” in the words of the Second Amendment.
We each assisted a boss we revered in drafting his opinion, and we’re able to acknowledge that work without breaching any confidences. Justice Scalia had a practice of signing one opinion for a clerk each term, which permitted the clerk to disclose having worked on that case, and for John, that was Heller; Justice Stevens noted in his 2019 autobiography, “The Making of a Justice,” that Kate was the Heller clerk in his chambers.
We continue to hold very different views about both gun regulation and how the Constitution should be interpreted. Kate believes in a robust set of gun safety measures to reduce the unconscionable number of shootings in this country. John is skeptical of laws that would make criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens who believe that firearm ownership is essential to protecting their families, and he is not convinced that new measures like bans on widely owned firearms would stop people who are willing to commit murder from obtaining guns.
Kate believes that Justice Stevens’s dissent in Heller provided a better account of both the text and history of the Second Amendment and that in any event, the method of historical inquiry the majority prescribes should lead to the court upholding most gun safety measures, including the New York law pending before the Supreme Court. John believes that Heller correctly construed the original meaning of the Second Amendment and is one of the most important decisions in U.S. history. We disagree about whether Heller should be extended to protect citizens who wish to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense and, if so, how states may regulate that activity — issues that the Supreme Court is set to decide in the New York case in the next month or so.
But despite our fundamental disagreements, we are both concerned that Heller has been misused in important policy debates about our nation’s gun laws. In the 14 years since the Heller decision, Congress has not enacted significant new laws regulating firearms, despite progressives’ calls for such measures in the wake of mass shootings. Many politicians cite Heller as the reason. But they are wrong.
Heller does not totally disable government from passing laws that seek to prevent the kind of atrocities we saw in Uvalde, Texas. And we believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle have (intentionally or not) misconstrued Heller. Some progressives, for example, have blamed the Second Amendment, Heller or the Supreme Court for mass shootings. And some conservatives have justified contested policy positions merely by pointing to Heller, as if the opinion resolved the issues.
Neither is fair. Rather, we think it’s clear that every member of the court on which we clerked joined an opinion, either majority or dissent, that agreed that the Constitution leaves elected officials an array of policy options when it comes to gun regulation.
Justice Scalia — the foremost proponent of originalism, who throughout his tenure stressed the limited role of courts in difficult policy debates — could not have been clearer in the closing passage of Heller that “the problem of handgun violence in this country” is serious and that the Constitution leaves the government with “a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” Heller merely established the constitutional baseline that the government may not disarm citizens in their homes. The opinion expressly recognized “presumptively lawful” regulations such as “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” as well as bans on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” like schools, and it noted with approval the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Heller also recognized the immense public interest in “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”
Nothing in Heller casts doubt on the permissibility of background check laws or requires the so-called Charleston loophole, which allows individuals to purchase firearms even without completed background checks. Nor does Heller prohibit giving law enforcement officers more effective tools and greater resources to disarm people who have proved themselves to be violent or mentally ill, as long as due process is observed. Heller also gives the government at least some leeway to restrict the kinds of firearms that can be purchased — few would claim a constitutional right to own a grenade launcher, for example — although where that line could be constitutionally drawn is a matter of disagreement, including between us. Indeed, President Donald Trump banned bump stocks in the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas.
Most of the obstacles to gun regulations are political and policy based, not legal; it’s laws that never get enacted, rather than ones that are struck down, because of an unduly expansive reading of Heller. We are aware of no evidence that any perpetrator of a mass shooting was able to obtain a firearm because of a law struck down under Heller. But Heller looms over most debates about gun regulation, and it often serves as a useful foil for those who would like to deflect responsibility — either for their policy choice to oppose a particular gun regulation proposal or for their failure to convince their fellow legislators and citizens that the proposal should be enacted.
The closest we’ve come to major new federal gun regulation in recent years came in the post-Sandy Hook effort to create expanded background checks. The most common reason offered by opponents of that legislation? That it would violate the Second Amendment. But that’s just not supported by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment in Heller. If opponents of background checks for firearm sales believe that such requirements are unlikely to reduce violence while imposing unwarranted burdens on lawful gun owners, they should make that case openly, not rest on a mistaken view of Heller.
Justices don’t control the way their writings are interpreted by later courts and other institutions; certainly law clerks don’t. So we’re not asserting that our views on Heller are in any way authoritative. But we know the opinions in the case inside and out.
As the nation enters yet another agonizing conversation about gun regulation in the wake of the Uvalde tragedy, all sides should focus on the value judgments and empirical assumptions at the heart of the policy debate, and they should take moral ownership of their positions. The genius of our Constitution is that it leaves many of the hardest questions to the democratic process.
We Clerked for Justices Scalia and Stevens. America Is Getting Heller Wrong.
May 31, 2022
By Kate Shaw and John Bash
Ms. Shaw is a professor of law at Cardozo Law School. Mr. Bash is an attorney in private practice in Austin, Texas
In the summer of 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to gun ownership. We were law clerks to Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the lead dissent.
Justices Scalia and Stevens clashed over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion held that the amendment protected an individual right to keep a usable handgun at home, which meant the District of Columbia law prohibiting such possession was unconstitutional. Justice Stevens argued that those protections extended only to firearm ownership in conjunction with service in a “well-regulated militia,” in the words of the Second Amendment.
We each assisted a boss we revered in drafting his opinion, and we’re able to acknowledge that work without breaching any confidences. Justice Scalia had a practice of signing one opinion for a clerk each term, which permitted the clerk to disclose having worked on that case, and for John, that was Heller; Justice Stevens noted in his 2019 autobiography, “The Making of a Justice,” that Kate was the Heller clerk in his chambers.
We continue to hold very different views about both gun regulation and how the Constitution should be interpreted. Kate believes in a robust set of gun safety measures to reduce the unconscionable number of shootings in this country. John is skeptical of laws that would make criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens who believe that firearm ownership is essential to protecting their families, and he is not convinced that new measures like bans on widely owned firearms would stop people who are willing to commit murder from obtaining guns.
Kate believes that Justice Stevens’s dissent in Heller provided a better account of both the text and history of the Second Amendment and that in any event, the method of historical inquiry the majority prescribes should lead to the court upholding most gun safety measures, including the New York law pending before the Supreme Court. John believes that Heller correctly construed the original meaning of the Second Amendment and is one of the most important decisions in U.S. history. We disagree about whether Heller should be extended to protect citizens who wish to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense and, if so, how states may regulate that activity — issues that the Supreme Court is set to decide in the New York case in the next month or so.
But despite our fundamental disagreements, we are both concerned that Heller has been misused in important policy debates about our nation’s gun laws. In the 14 years since the Heller decision, Congress has not enacted significant new laws regulating firearms, despite progressives’ calls for such measures in the wake of mass shootings. Many politicians cite Heller as the reason. But they are wrong.
Heller does not totally disable government from passing laws that seek to prevent the kind of atrocities we saw in Uvalde, Texas. And we believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle have (intentionally or not) misconstrued Heller. Some progressives, for example, have blamed the Second Amendment, Heller or the Supreme Court for mass shootings. And some conservatives have justified contested policy positions merely by pointing to Heller, as if the opinion resolved the issues.
Neither is fair. Rather, we think it’s clear that every member of the court on which we clerked joined an opinion, either majority or dissent, that agreed that the Constitution leaves elected officials an array of policy options when it comes to gun regulation.
Justice Scalia — the foremost proponent of originalism, who throughout his tenure stressed the limited role of courts in difficult policy debates — could not have been clearer in the closing passage of Heller that “the problem of handgun violence in this country” is serious and that the Constitution leaves the government with “a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” Heller merely established the constitutional baseline that the government may not disarm citizens in their homes. The opinion expressly recognized “presumptively lawful” regulations such as “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” as well as bans on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” like schools, and it noted with approval the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Heller also recognized the immense public interest in “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”
Nothing in Heller casts doubt on the permissibility of background check laws or requires the so-called Charleston loophole, which allows individuals to purchase firearms even without completed background checks. Nor does Heller prohibit giving law enforcement officers more effective tools and greater resources to disarm people who have proved themselves to be violent or mentally ill, as long as due process is observed. Heller also gives the government at least some leeway to restrict the kinds of firearms that can be purchased — few would claim a constitutional right to own a grenade launcher, for example — although where that line could be constitutionally drawn is a matter of disagreement, including between us. Indeed, President Donald Trump banned bump stocks in the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas.
Most of the obstacles to gun regulations are political and policy based, not legal; it’s laws that never get enacted, rather than ones that are struck down, because of an unduly expansive reading of Heller. We are aware of no evidence that any perpetrator of a mass shooting was able to obtain a firearm because of a law struck down under Heller. But Heller looms over most debates about gun regulation, and it often serves as a useful foil for those who would like to deflect responsibility — either for their policy choice to oppose a particular gun regulation proposal or for their failure to convince their fellow legislators and citizens that the proposal should be enacted.
The closest we’ve come to major new federal gun regulation in recent years came in the post-Sandy Hook effort to create expanded background checks. The most common reason offered by opponents of that legislation? That it would violate the Second Amendment. But that’s just not supported by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment in Heller. If opponents of background checks for firearm sales believe that such requirements are unlikely to reduce violence while imposing unwarranted burdens on lawful gun owners, they should make that case openly, not rest on a mistaken view of Heller.
Justices don’t control the way their writings are interpreted by later courts and other institutions; certainly law clerks don’t. So we’re not asserting that our views on Heller are in any way authoritative. But we know the opinions in the case inside and out.
As the nation enters yet another agonizing conversation about gun regulation in the wake of the Uvalde tragedy, all sides should focus on the value judgments and empirical assumptions at the heart of the policy debate, and they should take moral ownership of their positions. The genius of our Constitution is that it leaves many of the hardest questions to the democratic process.
Sheik
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 12,067
“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.”
That says it all. And the people who cry out for gun confiscation are asking for just that.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
Heller also strongly implies that any gun in common use for lawful purposes may not be banned.
But as the article points out, there are other things that perhaps can be done.
Prodigal_Son
Resurrected
- Joined
- May 10, 2022
- Messages
- 464
I would think it starts with a turn in program first (ridiculous to some, but works to a certain degree) followed by a coordinated effort with local, state and federal (if needed) law enforcement to collect what's left. If they are truly serious about this kind of reform, then the government will take it seriously to remove them. You'll have some yahoos who threaten anyone who comes on their property (Cotton) and they would eventually be overpowered by force if needed. My guess after a handful of those situations ending poorly for the gun owner, most people will be compliant.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,854
Prodigal_Son
Resurrected
- Joined
- May 10, 2022
- Messages
- 464
So the fact that we let this situation escalate to the point it has is the reason to not do anything about it? Makes sense.