Page 40 of 48 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 800 of 946

Thread: Gun policy analysis thread.

  1. #781
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    She cited The Brennan Center for Justice which includes,


    “A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.”

    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...cond-amendment

    Richardson always cites her sources.

  2. #782
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    From same source,
    “From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States.”

  3. #783
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    As Paul Harvey and Candy say, “and now you know the rest of the story”.

    That said, even a young child who can read would understand the intent of the Second Amendment.

  4. #784
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,001
    Thanks
    2,403
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    @kazoolaw - I suppose that's a plausible hypothesis, but I'm more inclined to assume she relies on the ignorance of her readers. Otherwise they would quickly catch on to the ignorance she demonstrates.

    Now I'm not entirely sure what she means by "legal article". Perhaps she means some professional circular for lawyers and jurists; but I would offer that State Constitutions are "legal article(s)".

    Scalia, after noting the history of the right to bear arms for self defense in English common law - the precursor and tradition the founders (like Adams, a lawyer) would have been familiar with - notes this example in Heller.

    A Compleat Collection of State-Tryals 185 (1719) (“Hath not every Subject power to keep Arms, as well as Servants in his House for defence of his Person?”); T. Wood, A New Institute of the Imperial or Civil Law 282 (1730)
    He then goes on to cite a litany of State constitutional texts also asserting the right to bear arms for "defence of themselves".

    Pa. Declaration of Rights §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3083 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state. . . ”);
    Vt. Declaration of Rights §XV, in 6 id., at 3741 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State. . .”);
    Ky. Const., Art. XII, cl. 23 (1792), in 3 id., at 1264, 1275 (“That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”);
    Ohio Const., Art. VIII, §20 (1802), in 5 id., at 2901, 2911 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . ”);
    Ind. Const., Art. I, §20 (1816), in 2 id., at 1057, 1059 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State. . . ”);
    Miss. Const., Art. I, §23 (1817), in 4 id., at 2032, 2034 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State”);
    Conn. Const., Art. I, §17 (1818), in 1 id., at 536, 538 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state”);
    Ala. Const., Art. I, §23 (1819), in 1 id., at 96, 98 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State”);
    Mo. Const., Art. XIII, §3 (1820), in 4 id., at 2150, 2163 (“[T]hat their right to bear arms in defence of them- selves and of the State cannot be questioned”).
    I would think that a historian would know that the last two States admitted to the union were Alaska and Hawaii - and the year they were each admitted was coincidentally 1959. Maybe she meant "since" instead of "before", and mispoke with "predate".

    At any rate, I've seen so many glaring historical inaccuracies from HCR that she's long been disregarded from any credible authorship; making her essentially a waste of time. I suppose, to return to my assumption, that she does rely on her readers' ignorance of history.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    kazoolaw (December 16th, 2022)

  6. #785
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    “The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

    “Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.”

  7. #786
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    “As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

  8. #787
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    “Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

    “.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.”

  9. #788
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    “In the end, it was neither the NRA nor the Bush administration that pressed the Supreme Court to reverse its centuries-old approach, but a small group of libertarian lawyers who believed other gun advocates were too timid. They targeted a gun law passed by the local government in Washington, D.C., in 1976—perhaps the nation’s strictest—that barred individuals from keeping a loaded handgun at home without a trigger lock. They recruited an appealing plaintiff: Dick Heller, a security guard at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, who wanted to bring his work revolver home to his high-crime neighborhood. The NRA worried it lacked the five votes necessary to win. The organization tried to sideswipe the effort, filing what Heller’s lawyers called “sham litigation” to give courts an excuse to avoid a constitutional ruling. But the momentum that the NRA itself had set in motion proved unstoppable, and the big case made its way to the Supreme Court.”

  10. #789
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Update on guns and child mortality in America:

    Kaiser Family Foundation: Child and Teen Firearm Mortality in the U.S. and Peer Countries.

    Children die of firearms more often than auto accidents and cancer:

    https://www.kff.org/global-health-po...eer-countries/

  11. #790
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,001
    Thanks
    2,403
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Update on guns and child mortality in America:

    Kaiser Family Foundation: Child and Teen Firearm Mortality in the U.S. and Peer Countries.

    Children die of firearms more often than auto accidents and cancer:

    https://www.kff.org/global-health-po...eer-countries/
    When "children" aged 15-19 are included, yes. Now about that gang violence...
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  12. #791
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,001
    Thanks
    2,403
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    We are sick for guns, indeed.
    I hope your fever and illness passes, allowing you to return soon to reasoned discussion.
    Hey, don't blame the doctor for the disease.
    More symptoms of Forumscheißen manifesting, coincidentally in post #4:

    Screenshot 2022-12-18 at 2.35.13 PM.png
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  13. #792
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Update on guns and child mortality in America:

    Kaiser Family Foundation: Child and Teen Firearm Mortality in the U.S. and Peer Countries.

    Children die of firearms more often than auto accidents and cancer:

    https://www.kff.org/global-health-po...eer-countries/
    When "children" aged 15-19 are included, yes. Now about that gang violence...
    Gang violence is certainly an issue, but it doesn't keep the US government from passing common sense gun restrictions, requiring training, and providing a reasonable waiting period. Just because some speed, don't carry liability insurance, and drive cars underage doesn't negate the need to have common sense restrictions.
    “He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

  14. #793
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,001
    Thanks
    2,403
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Why aren’t Democrats concerned with children dying from gun violence when the majority of it is in Democrat run cities?

    More children in Chicago have been shot than died from covid
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  15. #794
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Why aren’t Democrats concerned with children dying from gun violence when the majority of it is in Democrat run cities?

    More children in Chicago have been shot than died from covid
    I'd say the majority Americans are concerned about children dying from guns, preventable disease, sexual abuse, poverty, illiteracy, and other injustices. Why are you only concerned about children in Chicago?

    Most Americans are also tired of the NRA and its political involvement. The NRA should go back to it's roots and be vocal about the proper use and maintenance of firearms.
    “He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

  16. #795
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Interesting ideas piece in The Atlantic on poverty and violence, mostly centered in New Haven, CT. I don't know if this is behind a paywall:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...olence/672504/

  17. #796
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Interesting ideas piece in The Atlantic on poverty and violence, mostly centered in New Haven, CT. I don't know if this is behind a paywall:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...olence/672504/
    I think we have been discussing about the effects of institutional/systematic racism also...
    "Thinking back across his career, Kurzyk said that the failure to fully acknowledge the relationship between murder and generational Black poverty, and the history of discrimination that has contributed to it, was like “analyzing black lung disease in America without really noticing miners.”

    "A study he conducted for internal state use in 2018 of people arrested for serious crimes as juveniles found that 30 percent suffered from fetal drug or alcohol syndrome, and another 30 percent had been removed from their families because of abuse or neglect. Kuzyk was surprised only by the high percentages of his unhappy discoveries. He well knew that such traumatic childhood experiences, along with exposure to violence, indicated an increased likelihood of being a victim or a perpetrator of gun violence. “What I came to appreciate,” he told me, “dealing with a lot of people who committed murder, was that they weren’t sociopaths. They had empathy. But for them, it was kill or be killed.”
    Last edited by Chuck Naill; December 28th, 2022 at 07:09 AM.
    “He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

  18. #797
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Below is a photo of what someone carried inside a Publix in Atlanta.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/u...smid=share-url
    “He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

  19. #798
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Here's a step in the right direction in Washington state: a bill passes out of committee making individuals in the firearm industry potentially responsible for not doing more to prevent the products that they make from being used in crimes.

    The bill, "Prohibits firearm industry members from knowingly creating, maintaining, or contributing to a public nuisance; and from designing, selling, and marketing firearm industry products that promote conversion of legal products into illegal products, or which target minors or individuals prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms."

    It also, "Establishes that violations constitute a public nuisance and are per se actionable under the Consumer Protection Act," and "Authorizes the Attorney General to investigate suspected violations and bring enforcement actions against firearm industry members."

    ...

    "A person may file a public nuisance claim to seek damages, or they may seek a remedy under the consumer protection act," said Barbara Serrano Senior Policy Advisor, Public Safety, Governor’s Office.

    https://www.q13fox.com/news/bill-to-...t-of-committee

    The objection stated in the article is this:
    "The firearms industry provides thousands of jobs in this state," said Cline. "5078 will financially decimate these lawful business and any of those who may be able to afford to stick around will face exponential and perhaps unattainable increases in their liability insurance."
    Sounds to me like they are already conceding the responsibility question: they know that they are vulnerable on that charge.

  20. #799
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Here's a cop blaming school laxity for rampant gun violence:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ings-rcna78686

  21. #800
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Gotta protect the kiddies from drag queens.

    Guns?

    No problemo.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •