CDZ Comparing Guns and Motor Vehicles in the US

[jillian]

you can google Heller as well as I can. It's public record.

I'm not an attorney..........are you gonna pay me by the minute for googling it?

no. but i am. are you going to pay *me* by the minute for googling it, idiota?

i told you what to look for. you can learn something or not.

Is this what is called a teaching moment?

only if you choose to learn. if not, then it's just another moment.

but if you're going to insist on what your "rights" are, you should know what they actually are. now be a good boy and read Heller. because even scalia, the windiest of the wingers doesn't think you're entitled to unregulated guns. he only said a total ban is unconstitutional.

Rights, like privileges, are not unconditional (for example, ex-felons can't legally own firearms). Common sense just dictates that.
Privileges just come with alot, a helluva lot more legal strings attached than rights do. And for that reason, looney-left liberals would just love to make gun-ownership a privilege instead of a right!

See, I just figured that out on my own without reading Heller............just common sense!

again, read the case. then speak with some level of knowledge.

 

[B. Kidd]

I'm not an attorney..........are you gonna pay me by the minute for googling it?

no. but i am. are you going to pay *me* by the minute for googling it, idiota?

i told you what to look for. you can learn something or not.

Is this what is called a teaching moment?

only if you choose to learn. if not, then it's just another moment.

but if you're going to insist on what your "rights" are, you should know what they actually are. now be a good boy and read Heller. because even scalia, the windiest of the wingers doesn't think you're entitled to unregulated guns. he only said a total ban is unconstitutional.

Rights, like privileges, are not unconditional (for example, ex-felons can't legally own firearms). Common sense just dictates that.
Privileges just come with alot, a helluva lot more legal strings attached than rights do. And for that reason, looney-left liberals would just love to make gun-ownership a privilege instead of a right!

See, I just figured that out on my own without reading Heller............just common sense!

again, read the case. then speak with some level of knowledge.

Common sense trumps liberal laywer legalese.........everytime.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm not an attorney..........are you gonna pay me by the minute for googling it?

no. but i am. are you going to pay *me* by the minute for googling it, idiota?

i told you what to look for. you can learn something or not.

Is this what is called a teaching moment?

only if you choose to learn. if not, then it's just another moment.

but if you're going to insist on what your "rights" are, you should know what they actually are. now be a good boy and read Heller. because even scalia, the windiest of the wingers doesn't think you're entitled to unregulated guns. he only said a total ban is unconstitutional.

Rights, like privileges, are not unconditional (for example, ex-felons can't legally own firearms). Common sense just dictates that.
Privileges just come with alot, a helluva lot more legal strings attached than rights do. And for that reason, looney-left liberals would just love to make gun-ownership a privilege instead of a right!

See, I just figured that out on my own without reading Heller............just common sense!

again, read the case. then speak with some level of knowledge.

??? Are you two really quibbling over whether one of you should provide a link to Heller and whether the other of you should endeavor to look it up? For Christ's sake! Are you both mature adults?

I shocked at the (presumably a mature adult) person who asked for the link did so for the case is one of the things a person engaging in a gun control/rights discussion should be at least aware of to the extent that they'd know to Google it if they needed to refer to it for some reason. I am equally shocked, however, that upon being asked for a link to a published document the other (presumably a mature adult) one of you refused to provide it, particularly after having referred to it.

• Here is an objective summary of Heller: SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER .
• Here is the Court's actual Heller decision/opinion along with the dissenting opinions of two other SC justices who heard the case: District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
• Here is one writer's thinking (interpretation and argument) on Heller, that is a well thought out and well presented discussion: Yale Law Journal - Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment . ("Well thought out and well presented" does not mean right or wrong, it means well researched, the information gathered well analyzed, the writer's thoughts well organized.) That document was easily found using the following Google search: "scholarly analysis of supreme court heller decision".

It is important to remember that in discussing any SC decision, that there is merit to both the prevailing and dissenting opinions.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

there is no "right" to UNREGULATED gun ownership. you might want to go back and re-read Heller.

Yes, there is. Read the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It is absolutely clear about this right that belongs to the people,and in forbidding government from infringing this right.

I give little credence to the opinions of corrupt public servants trying to claim a power to themselves that the Constitution explicitly denies them.

 

[jillian]

there is no "right" to UNREGULATED gun ownership. you might want to go back and re-read Heller.

Yes, there is. Read the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It is absolutely clear about this right that belongs to the people,and in forbidding government from infringing this right.

I give little credence to the opinions of corrupt public servants trying to claim a power to themselves that the Constitution explicitly denies them.

the second amendment, dear, said you have the right to a gun for a well-regulated militia. no one believed, for hundreds of years, that there was a private right of gun ownership there.

then scalia wrote heller. but even heller says reasonable regulation is permissible and appropriate.

you do understand that our constitution is defined by our caselaw because we're a common law country, right?

 

[jillian]

no. but i am. are you going to pay *me* by the minute for googling it, idiota?

i told you what to look for. you can learn something or not.

Is this what is called a teaching moment?

only if you choose to learn. if not, then it's just another moment.

but if you're going to insist on what your "rights" are, you should know what they actually are. now be a good boy and read Heller. because even scalia, the windiest of the wingers doesn't think you're entitled to unregulated guns. he only said a total ban is unconstitutional.

Rights, like privileges, are not unconditional (for example, ex-felons can't legally own firearms). Common sense just dictates that.
Privileges just come with alot, a helluva lot more legal strings attached than rights do. And for that reason, looney-left liberals would just love to make gun-ownership a privilege instead of a right!

See, I just figured that out on my own without reading Heller............just common sense!

again, read the case. then speak with some level of knowledge.

??? Are you two really quibbling over whether one of you should provide a link to Heller and whether the other of you should endeavor to look it up? For Christ's sake! Are you both mature adults?

I shocked at the (presumably a mature adult) person who asked for the link did so for the case is one of the things a person engaging in a gun control/rights discussion should be at least aware of to the extent that they'd know to Google it if they needed to refer to it for some reason. I am equally shocked, however, that upon being asked for a link to a published document the other (presumably a mature adult) one of you refused to provide it, particularly after having referred to it.

• Here is an objective summary of Heller: SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER .
• Here is the Court's actual Heller decision/opinion along with the dissenting opinions of two other SC justices who heard the case: District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
• Here is one writer's thinking (interpretation and argument) on Heller, that is a well thought out and well presented discussion: Yale Law Journal - Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment . ("Well thought out and well presented" does not mean right or wrong, it means well researched, the information gathered well analyzed, the writer's thoughts well organized.) That document was easily found using the following Google search: "scholarly analysis of supreme court heller decision".

It is important to remember that in discussing any SC decision, that there is merit to both the prevailing and dissenting opinions.

it is not my job to provide him with the basic information he should have to discuss this subject.... particularly when he is making demands to be paid for educating himself. right? of course right.

that said, in saying there is merit to both the majority opinion and the dissent, well, there are arguments. but really, the dissent is irrelevant (even though the dissent in Heller is far better an opinion than the majority opinion and far more consistent with precedent) because, ultimately, the dissent has no bearing on how laws should be read. that is why, i always start with scale's own holding which was that only a total ban is unconstitutional... and there is no problem with reasonable regulation.

but the person you directed your post to, can't even get to that very limited place and whined that no regulation is permissible. that isn't consistent even with heller's extreme holding.

 

[2aguy]

there is no "right" to UNREGULATED gun ownership. you might want to go back and re-read Heller.

Yes, there is. Read the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It is absolutely clear about this right that belongs to the people,and in forbidding government from infringing this right.

I give little credence to the opinions of corrupt public servants trying to claim a power to themselves that the Constitution explicitly denies them.

the second amendment, dear, said you have the right to a gun for a well-regulated militia. no one believed, for hundreds of years, that there was a private right of gun ownership there.

then scalia wrote heller. but even heller says reasonable regulation is permissible and appropriate.

you do understand that our constitution is defined by our caselaw because we're a common law country, right?

Wrong...everyone knew you had an individual right to own a gun till the left decided they wanted to keep people from owning guns.....then all of a sudden that actual understanding had to be taken to court......so the Justices could tell the left that they were wrong.....

 

[2aguy]

Is this what is called a teaching moment?

only if you choose to learn. if not, then it's just another moment.

but if you're going to insist on what your "rights" are, you should know what they actually are. now be a good boy and read Heller. because even scalia, the windiest of the wingers doesn't think you're entitled to unregulated guns. he only said a total ban is unconstitutional.

Rights, like privileges, are not unconditional (for example, ex-felons can't legally own firearms). Common sense just dictates that.
Privileges just come with alot, a helluva lot more legal strings attached than rights do. And for that reason, looney-left liberals would just love to make gun-ownership a privilege instead of a right!

See, I just figured that out on my own without reading Heller............just common sense!

again, read the case. then speak with some level of knowledge.

??? Are you two really quibbling over whether one of you should provide a link to Heller and whether the other of you should endeavor to look it up? For Christ's sake! Are you both mature adults?

I shocked at the (presumably a mature adult) person who asked for the link did so for the case is one of the things a person engaging in a gun control/rights discussion should be at least aware of to the extent that they'd know to Google it if they needed to refer to it for some reason. I am equally shocked, however, that upon being asked for a link to a published document the other (presumably a mature adult) one of you refused to provide it, particularly after having referred to it.

• Here is an objective summary of Heller: SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER .
• Here is the Court's actual Heller decision/opinion along with the dissenting opinions of two other SC justices who heard the case: District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
• Here is one writer's thinking (interpretation and argument) on Heller, that is a well thought out and well presented discussion: Yale Law Journal - Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment . ("Well thought out and well presented" does not mean right or wrong, it means well researched, the information gathered well analyzed, the writer's thoughts well organized.) That document was easily found using the following Google search: "scholarly analysis of supreme court heller decision".

It is important to remember that in discussing any SC decision, that there is merit to both the prevailing and dissenting opinions.

it is not my job to provide him with the basic information he should have to discuss this subject.... particularly when he is making demands to be paid for educating himself. right? of course right.

that said, in saying there is merit to both the majority opinion and the dissent, well, there are arguments. but really, the dissent is irrelevant (even though the dissent in Heller is far better an opinion than the majority opinion and far more consistent with precedent) because, ultimately, the dissent has no bearing on how laws should be read. that is why, i always start with scale's own holding which was that only a total ban is unconstitutional... and there is no problem with reasonable regulation.

but the person you directed your post to, can't even get to that very limited place and whined that no regulation is permissible. that isn't consistent even with heller's extreme holding.

As Abatis pointed out, the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms exists outside of the Constitution....it is not created by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.....

 

[2aguy]

Pffft.

Do you really think you are the first one to say the things you say about guns....? Everything you have said has been used by people who want to disarm the general public throughout history.....over and over again.....So we know where your ideas go...and we want no part of them.

you have no ideas.... mass shooting after mass shooting... no prob. a couple of people die because of a muslim terrorist and you have mental breakdowns.

Yeah...mass shootings are not the problem...it is the everyday gun violence of career criminals in our inner cities murdering other career criminals that is the problem.........last year there were only 9 deaths due to mass public shootings...out of 8,124 gun murders......

 

[Bob Blaylock]

the second amendment, dear, said you have the right to a gun for a well-regulated militia.

That is not what it says, as is obvious to anyone who reads it, having a basic grasp of the English language. It clearly affirms a right to keep and bear arms, it states that this right belongs to the people, and it forbids this right from being infringed. It couldn't be any more clear than it is. The American people have a right to keep and bear arms, and government is to keep its filthy hands off of this right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

you do understand that our constitution is defined by our caselaw because we're a common law country, right?

The Constitution is most certainly not defined by case law. It is defined by what is clearly written therein.

It is only through blatant corruption that public servants have been allowed to twist it away from its clear meaning. Perverting and twisting the Constitution does not define it.

 

[rightwinger]

you do understand that our constitution is defined by our caselaw because we're a common law country, right?

The Constitution is most certainly not defined by case law. It is defined by what is clearly written therein.

It is only through blatant corruption that public servants have been allowed to twist it away from its clear meaning. Perverting and twisting the Constitution does not define it.

Doesn't seem to be too clearly written does it?

That is why we have courts

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Doesn't seem to be too clearly written does it?

That is why we have courts

Only those who do not agree with it, and do not want it to be obeyed, claim that there is any lack of clarity in what is written, and that there is any need for courts to “interpret” it away from what it clearly says.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you do understand that our constitution is defined by our caselaw because we're a common law country, right?

The Constitution is most certainly not defined by case law. It is defined by what is clearly written therein.

It is only through blatant corruption that public servants have been allowed to twist it away from its clear meaning. Perverting and twisting the Constitution does not define it.

Nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; the interpretive authority of the courts is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

Indeed, the notion of the Constitution being “defined by what is clearly written therein” is itself interpretation, nothing more than subjective opinion absent consensus by jurists through the process of judicial review, consistent with that settled, accepted case law.

 

[320 Years of History]

only if you choose to learn. if not, then it's just another moment.

but if you're going to insist on what your "rights" are, you should know what they actually are. now be a good boy and read Heller. because even scalia, the windiest of the wingers doesn't think you're entitled to unregulated guns. he only said a total ban is unconstitutional.

Rights, like privileges, are not unconditional (for example, ex-felons can't legally own firearms). Common sense just dictates that.
Privileges just come with alot, a helluva lot more legal strings attached than rights do. And for that reason, looney-left liberals would just love to make gun-ownership a privilege instead of a right!

See, I just figured that out on my own without reading Heller............just common sense!

again, read the case. then speak with some level of knowledge.

??? Are you two really quibbling over whether one of you should provide a link to Heller and whether the other of you should endeavor to look it up? For Christ's sake! Are you both mature adults?

I shocked at the (presumably a mature adult) person who asked for the link did so for the case is one of the things a person engaging in a gun control/rights discussion should be at least aware of to the extent that they'd know to Google it if they needed to refer to it for some reason. I am equally shocked, however, that upon being asked for a link to a published document the other (presumably a mature adult) one of you refused to provide it, particularly after having referred to it.

• Here is an objective summary of Heller: SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER .
• Here is the Court's actual Heller decision/opinion along with the dissenting opinions of two other SC justices who heard the case: District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
• Here is one writer's thinking (interpretation and argument) on Heller, that is a well thought out and well presented discussion: Yale Law Journal - Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment . ("Well thought out and well presented" does not mean right or wrong, it means well researched, the information gathered well analyzed, the writer's thoughts well organized.) That document was easily found using the following Google search: "scholarly analysis of supreme court heller decision".

It is important to remember that in discussing any SC decision, that there is merit to both the prevailing and dissenting opinions.

it is not my job to provide him with the basic information he should have to discuss this subject.... particularly when he is making demands to be paid for educating himself. right? of course right.

that said, in saying there is merit to both the majority opinion and the dissent, well, there are arguments. but really, the dissent is irrelevant (even though the dissent in Heller is far better an opinion than the majority opinion and far more consistent with precedent) because, ultimately, the dissent has no bearing on how laws should be read. that is why, i always start with scale's own holding which was that only a total ban is unconstitutional... and there is no problem with reasonable regulation.

but the person you directed your post to, can't even get to that very limited place and whined that no regulation is permissible. that isn't consistent even with heller's extreme holding.

As Abatis pointed out, the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms exists outside of the Constitution....it is not created by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.....

• http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr
• http://www.law.columbia.edu/hamburg...=942328&rtcontentdisposition=filename=natural
  
• http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2012&context=fss_papers

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Doesn't seem to be too clearly written does it?

That is why we have courts

Only those who do not agree with it, and do not want it to be obeyed, claim that there is any lack of clarity in what is written, and that there is any need for courts to “interpret” it away from what it clearly says.

What is clear is that it was the original intent and understanding of the Framing Generation that the courts would continue to subject laws to judicial review as had been the case for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era:

“The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.

After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution.”

Why We Have Judicial Review

What the Constitution clearly says is that government is authorized to enact measures reflecting the will of the American people through their elected representatives, where the courts are a check on government authority, as the courts are the means by which the people seek relief when they believe government has acted beyond its scope, and has overreached beyond that authority.

The courts in turn review measures subject to challenge in the context of relevant case law, and if a measure is not consistent with that case law, it is invalidated by the court; this is why the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

Again, even the most bare-bones, literalist, strict-constructionist, just as the Constitution is 'clearly written' perception of the Constitution is itself interpretation, no more valid or appropriate that any other perception of the Founding Document.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the second amendment, dear, said you have the right to a gun for a well-regulated militia.

That is not what it says, as is obvious to anyone who reads it, having a basic grasp of the English language. It clearly affirms a right to keep and bear arms, it states that this right belongs to the people, and it forbids this right from being infringed. It couldn't be any more clear than it is. The American people have a right to keep and bear arms, and government is to keep its filthy hands off of this right.

The Second Amendment says nothing about an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right to self-defense; but as we know the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment, and with regard to the Amendment that case law is Heller/McDonald.

The Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, interpreted the Second Amendment to recognize an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense, as expressed in the Heller ruling.

The Heller Court didn't need the actual words 'individual' and 'self-defense' in the Amendment to come to its conclusion, it did so using an 'original understanding' argument supported by pre-Foundation Era case law, state constitutions at the time of the Founding of the Republic, and post-Amendment jurisprudence.

This, then, is the nature of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts, where as the Heller ruling clearly illustrates, the meaning of the Constitution is often not 'clearly written' in its text.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Motor vehicles need to be registered, and their drivers need to be licensed and insured. Are you recommending all of those for guns and gun owners?

Drivin' is a privilege..........gun ownership a right.........please look up the fine details between the two before commenting any furthur. Thanx!

there is no "right" to UNREGULATED gun ownership. you might want to go back and re-read Heller.

Correct.

To paraphrase Heller: the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government – it is not a right to possess any weapon so desired for any purpose so desired any place so desired.

The issue is not whether government is authorized to regulate firearms – as clearly it is – rather, the issue is what regulatory measures are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, and what measures are not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Second Amendment says nothing about an individual right to possess a firearm…

It clearly identifies tbe right as belonging to the people This was long before Marxist principles were devised which used the term “the people” to refer to a statist collective, rather than to the actual individual people.

Everywhere that the term “the people” appears in the Constitution—or in any other contemporary document—it means the same thing, and refers to individual people. The right affirmed in the Second Amendment is no less a right of every individual free American than the rights affirmed elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. Certainly, there is no rational argument to be made that there is any intent anywhere in the Bill of Rights to affirm a “right” of government in opposition to the rights of individual people.

The Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, interpreted the Second Amendment to recognize an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense, as expressed in the Heller ruling.

Circular logic. The courts illegally seized a power that the Constitution clearly did not intend them to have, to place themselves above both the Constitution and the will of their rightful masters, tbe people of tbe United States. You are using this illegitimate usurpation as an argument in defense of itself and of the corrupt fruits which it has brought forth..

The Constitution clearly forbids this right from being infringed. That the courts have ruled in favor of this right being infringed only proves how corrupt tbese courts have become.

 

[jillian]

the second amendment, dear, said you have the right to a gun for a well-regulated militia.

That is not what it says, as is obvious to anyone who reads it, having a basic grasp of the English language. It clearly affirms a right to keep and bear arms, it states that this right belongs to the people, and it forbids this right from being infringed. It couldn't be any more clear than it is. The American people have a right to keep and bear arms, and government is to keep its filthy hands off of this right.

it is what it says, and it's so "obvious" that for the hundreds of years before scalia got his little paws on it, no one believed the 2nd gave a private right of gun ownership.

and even wacky scalia said regulation is okay.