Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[frigidweirdo]

the best chance of making change

real change for the better

is creating your own opportunity

it gives one lots of self worth



-

Probably, but doesn't help here when you're talking about kids from broken families, in areas with poor education and opportunities.

 

[danielpalos]

My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.

...

The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.

The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.

...
Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS

Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs

No, what I said was,
My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Here is the simpler version for the Right, if not the South:

My current plan is to end the Prohibition (of our current regime) of our War on Drugs.

 

[The Rabbi]

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"! I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance! Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.

There is no gun control measure that has proven effective. Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.

 

[danielpalos]

My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.

...

The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.

The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.

...
Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS

Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs

I think you'll find he's a troll and it doesn't matter what he says as long as he can get you to go around in circles.

Only the Right doesn't appreciate, rhyme or reason.

 

[The Rabbi]

It doesn't have the highest crime rate either.....more than a few countries with extreme gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and in particular gun crime. We are the country with the highest gun ownership rate but rank only 90 or lower for violent crime.

And all the other countries are third world.

Among first world countries the US has a murder rate of more than double, and more than 5 times higher than most first world countries.

If you cut out murders committed in inner cities by young black men our crime rate looks like every other country.

 

[danielpalos]

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"! I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance! Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.

There is no gun control measure that has proven effective. Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.

I believe we merely need a class of Arms meant specifically for gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"! I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance! Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.

There is no gun control measure that has proven effective. Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.

I believe we merely need a class of Arms meant specifically for gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

Your argument runs counter to the Summa Theologicum and therefore invalid.

 

[2aguy]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

It's a choice really.

Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.

What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.

You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.

It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.


You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.

36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.

You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.

London has diversity.

Compare this to New York.
36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic, 11% Asian.

There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.

You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.

London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.

Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.

You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?

Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?

So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal? Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply

I agree that hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics

I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself. However I'm not thinking of removing children, so I don't know where you got that idea from, so I'll ignore it.

As for how to accomplish this, I've suggested this sort of stuff before. It's complex, but the main point is that it requires politicians to actually give a damn, instead of pretending that everyone can make it with hard work sort of thing that completely avoids the issues.

But the US seems to have reached the point where people are all in it for themselves and are tearing the country apart for self interest.

No, democrats have gained control of inner cities....they destroy education, business and increase the crime rate....stop voting in democrats and all of those concerns will improve.

 

[2aguy]

It doesn't have the highest crime rate either.....more than a few countries with extreme gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and in particular gun crime. We are the country with the highest gun ownership rate but rank only 90 or lower for violent crime.

And all the other countries are third world.

Among first world countries the US has a murder rate of more than double, and more than 5 times higher than most first world countries.

That just doesn't work. These 3rd world countries have extreme gun control laws....more laws and less access to guns by regular people...and you guys say that this will make them less violent and reduce their gun murder rate...and it just doesn't.

And again, European culture has a different history than the United States, we were not exposed to the class system of feudalism, or the devestation of the two World Wars.....and we didn't send 12 million innocent men, women and children to death camps. They store up their killing and let it all out at once. And as has been pointed out, if you take out democrat inner cities our crime rate is the same or lower than Europe....and don't get to happy, they are importing violent people from muslim countries...their crime rates are going up.....

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"! I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance! Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.

There is no gun control measure that has proven effective. Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.

I believe we merely need a class of Arms meant specifically for gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

Your argument runs counter to the Summa Theologicum and therefore invalid.

I believe it covers the clueless and the Causeless.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"! I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance! Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.

There is no gun control measure that has proven effective. Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.

Under your expansion of the rights under the Second, parolees,offenders off of probation, radicalized Muslims who exercise free speech, persons detained as a danger to themselves and others, those arrested and convicted for making criminal threats, battery, sexually battery and stalking all would be free to buy, own, possess and have in their custody and control a firearm, including automatic weapons with 30 round magazines.

Is that what you believe Rabbi(t)?

 

[kaz]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

It's a choice really.

Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.

What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.

You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.

It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.


You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.

36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.

You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.

London has diversity.

Compare this to New York.
36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic, 11% Asian.

There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.

You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.

London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.

Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.

You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?

Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?

So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal? Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply

I agree that hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics

I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself. However I'm not thinking of removing children, so I don't know where you got that idea from, so I'll ignore it.

As for how to accomplish this, I've suggested this sort of stuff before. It's complex, but the main point is that it requires politicians to actually give a damn, instead of pretending that everyone can make it with hard work sort of thing that completely avoids the issues.

But the US seems to have reached the point where people are all in it for themselves and are tearing the country apart for self interest.

So you have zero idea how you'd do it, you just expect politicians to figure it out and people to not be responsible for themselves. Yes, that is typically a recipe for success

 

[The Rabbi]

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"! I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance! Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.

There is no gun control measure that has proven effective. Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.

Under your expansion of the rights under the Second, parolees,offenders off of probation, radicalized Muslims who exercise free speech, persons detained as a danger to themselves and others, those arrested and convicted for making criminal threats, battery, sexually battery and stalking all would be free to buy, own, possess and have in their custody and control a firearm, including automatic weapons with 30 round magazines.

Is that what you believe Rabbi(t)?

Have any of these been proven effective? Recall that a number of mass shootings were committed by people who were prohibited from owning guns to begin with.

 

[kaz]

My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.

...

The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.

The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.

...
Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS

Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs

No, what I said was,
My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Here is the simpler version for the Right, if not the South:

My current plan is to end the Prohibition (of our current regime) of our War on Drugs.

Canadian is a very strange language. In English you keep repeating you are in favor of the war on drugs

 

[kaz]

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"! I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance! Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.

There is no gun control measure that has proven effective. Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.

Under your expansion of the rights under the Second, parolees,offenders off of probation, radicalized Muslims who exercise free speech, persons detained as a danger to themselves and others, those arrested and convicted for making criminal threats, battery, sexually battery and stalking all would be free to buy, own, possess and have in their custody and control a firearm, including automatic weapons with 30 round magazines.

Is that what you believe Rabbi(t)?

Answers my question, no you still don't understand what life, liberty and property can only be restricted with ... due process of law ... means. What about that is so complicated to you? I don't get it, it seems pretty simple

 

[kaz]

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"! I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance! Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.

There is no gun control measure that has proven effective. Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.

Under your expansion of the rights under the Second, parolees,offenders off of probation, radicalized Muslims who exercise free speech, persons detained as a danger to themselves and others, those arrested and convicted for making criminal threats, battery, sexually battery and stalking all would be free to buy, own, possess and have in their custody and control a firearm, including automatic weapons with 30 round magazines.

Is that what you believe Rabbi(t)?

Have any of these been proven effective? Recall that a number of mass shootings were committed by people who were prohibited from owning guns to begin with.

And happened in gun free zones

 

[kaz]

So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?


Sent from my tree hut on my day off.

Again, crime dropped with incarceration rates rising, so your point is?

Also, why did most mass shootings happen in gun free zones? Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, even the Washington Navy yard, a military property where guns were prohibited by Slick Willy.

Then there's the ridiculous assumption that a complicated problem boils down to only those two variables, neither of which contradicts my statement.

You aren't doing well. You may want to stay in the treehouse

 

[danielpalos]

My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.

...

The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.

The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.

...
Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS

Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs

No, what I said was,
My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Here is the simpler version for the Right, if not the South:

My current plan is to end the Prohibition (of our current regime) of our War on Drugs.

Canadian is a very strange language. In English you keep repeating you are in favor of the war on drugs

No Thing but diversion as that form of fallacy and error in reasoning, Person on the clueless and Causeless, Right?

 

[danielpalos]

So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?


Sent from my tree hut on my day off.

Again, crime dropped with incarceration rates rising, so your point is?

Also, why did most mass shootings happen in gun free zones? Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, even the Washington Navy yard, a military property where guns were prohibited by Slick Willy.

Then there's the ridiculous assumption that a complicated problem boils down to only those two variables, neither of which contradicts my statement.

You aren't doing well. You may want to stay in the treehouse

That doesn't explain the whole story:

Do crime reduction efforts — like building more prisons — really pay?

A new national study says that states with the biggest jumps in incarceration levels have not shown corresponding drops in crime, compared to states with smaller increases in their population behind bars... Source: Incarceration Rate Crime Drop Link Disputed - ABC News

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, democrats have gained control of inner cities....they destroy education, business and increase the crime rate....stop voting in democrats and all of those concerns will improve.

A) I don't vote Democrat, B) I don't believe you. Republicans are the same as Democrats. Republicans haven't improved education the same as the Democrats haven't improved education.

Blame Democrats where it's deserved, but don't ignore blaming Republicans just because you've decided they're "your team" and you'll support them no matter what.

Education is a mess in the US, and it benefits the rich who send their kids to private education.

Republicans are pushing this stupid education voucher scheme which is just a "if you send your kids to private school, we'll give you money for it", which clearly only benefits rich people.