Maybe it is about taking away guns

guest1163268 · Dec 22, 2020

12 minutes ago, chare said:

You make a “statement of fact” and expect the reader to verify its veracity? Really? That’s not the way it works.

What exactly are you referring to here? You've raised so many points, not all of which seen to connect, that it's difficult to follow this.

First, don’t presume that you have any idea what I am capable of understanding. And please note that I haven’t questioned any of the posters questioning either this incident in particular, or whether the 2nd Amendment provides for unfettered ownership of firearms without any limitation as to type of weapon or where they can or cannot be carried.

Are you suggesting that owning firearms should not be allowed under any circumstances? If so, this suggests that the OP might be correct in her or his assumption, and there really isn’t any need to discuss this issue any further.

I'm suggesting that everyone should use their common sense as to where guns belong. I avoid places where there's a likelihood that I could be shot, in the same sort of vein as avoiding churches where there might be a possibility of rattle snakes or venues where people don't wear masks or if I see a group of people who appear not to be exhibiting appropriate behaviors like carrying weapons etc etc. I like to change my tires when they are worn or my brakes when they squeak, that sort of thing.

It's a funny trait of mine that I like to avoid people, places and things that may possibly cause me trouble. AND generally I attribute those traits of mine to COMMON SENSE.

chare · Dec 23, 2020

13 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:

I'm suggesting that everyone should use their common sense as to where guns belong. ...

I think most people would agree with this. But, in my opinion, some of your statements are inflammatory at best, and make it appear that you are unwilling to discuss reasonable gun control.

Best wishes.

akulahawkRN, ADN, RN, EMT-P · Dec 23, 2020

19 hours ago, MunoRN said:

The Constitution not only establishes that government can regulate firearms and their possession, but that it's an expectation, so I'm not sure where you're getting that it prohibits firearm regulation.

Where in the Constitution is this explicitly stated? Here's a hint: it isn't. What is in there is that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This thought process basically affirmed that people are basically free and may only be restricted in doing certain things, like committing robbery, rape, murder, etc. This is opposed to the idea that a person must ask for permission to do a thing (like travel) otherwise essentially everything is illegal because permission hasn't been given. You can own property or the State does and you get to use some of it with State approval.

19 hours ago, MunoRN said:

the biggest threat to gun rights isn't people trying to place responsible rules on firearms, it's those who insist no such rules can exist.

Actually the biggest threat to "gun rights" is both those that insist that no rules can exist and those that insist that the State can dictate what rules (including complete ban absent extreme need) can exist as far as private firearm possession goes.

guest1163268 · Dec 23, 2020

4 hours ago, chare said:

I think most people would agree with this. But, in my opinion, some of your statements are inflammatory at best, and make it appear that you are unwilling to discuss reasonable gun control.

Best wishes.

I like context before I arrive at decisions. This is the history I remember learning when the laws were written.

Independence given to America with the aid of tremendous help from France financially, militarily and tactically because of mutual interest. Remember, at the time Americans paid no taxes whatsoever, so when the English decided to levy taxes for protection from the French, the Spanish and the Dutch, various insurrections like the Boston tea debacle occurred prompting the war for independence. The articles were being addressed in Philadelphia while the English still mostly controlled New York and remained a threat because they were able to later retake Washington and burn significant areas. America had no money because no one paid taxes causing Americans to default on their debts eventually. No army because of no money. 50% of the people were still Royalists or Tories and the English being the most powerful country in the world at the time and the controller of all trade within America because of their naval power, despite independence.

How was America to defend itself? 13 colonies, all independent of each other really. All soldiers had to go home to tend to their farms or businesses to survive. States were actually the enemy of the people because their Govt persecuted the businessmen who owned the businesses, because they were loyalists because their trade were mainly with the English. So like the Swiss later, gun laws, so the people could defend themselves from the State govt. who were persecuting them for taxes and to create a standing army if required which obviously didn't work as the English when they decided to teach America a lesson, did just that with literally no trouble to themselves.

I'm actually reasonably good with any kind of history being that my mother teaches it to faculty who teaches it to students, and I have had to listen under the conditions of punishments. Contextually those were the circumstances when those laws were enacted broadly speaking.

Ask yourself, Do those conditions exist today?

allnurses Guide · Dec 23, 2020

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

... [from page 2] "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions … possessions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing condition and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

MunoRN, RN · Dec 26, 2020

On 12/22/2020 at 5:08 PM, akulahawkRN said:

Where in the Constitution is this explicitly stated? Here's a hint: it isn't. What is in there is that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This thought process basically affirmed that people are basically free and may only be restricted in doing certain things, like committing robbery, rape, murder, etc. This is opposed to the idea that a person must ask for permission to do a thing (like travel) otherwise essentially everything is illegal because permission hasn't been given. You can own property or the State does and you get to use some of it with State approval.

Actually the biggest threat to "gun rights" is both those that insist that no rules can exist and those that insist that the State can dictate what rules (including complete ban absent extreme need) can exist as far as private firearm possession goes.

The fact that firearms can be regulated by government is clearly stated in the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are different ways of interpreting what a "well regulated militia" is, one is that it refers to organized militias overseen by state or local governments, with "well regulated" referring to being well practiced, a modern example would be the National Guard. That interpretation of course doesn't provide much in the way of individual freedoms so instead we take the interpretation friendlier to individual freedoms which is that 'well regulated' refers to laws.

The Constitution does not limit the role of government to just prohibiting things like rape and murder. The Constitution specifically provides for government to make laws that place restriction on it's citizens whenever there is a compelling interest to do so in addition to regulating commerce.

chare · Dec 27, 2020

1 hour ago, MunoRN said:

[...]

There are different ways of interpreting what a "well regulated militia" is, one is that it refers to organized militias overseen by state or local governments, with "well regulated" referring to being well practiced, a modern example would be the National Guard. That interpretation of course doesn't provide much in the way of individual freedoms so instead we take the interpretation friendlier to individual freedoms which is that 'well regulated' refers to laws.

[...]

Do you have a source or precedent for this? Or is this your opinion?

guest1163268 · Dec 27, 2020

Need anyone say more?

chare · Dec 27, 2020

3 hours ago, Curious1997 said:

Need anyone say more?

Source?

guest1163268 · Dec 27, 2020

2 hours ago, chare said:

Source?

Reality!

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Dec 27, 2020

Graph from wiki article, stats from 2010

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png

Grinshteyn, Erin; Hemenway, David (March 2016). "Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries, 2010". The American Journal of Medicine. 129 (3): 266–273.

MunoRN, RN · Dec 28, 2020

22 hours ago, chare said:

Do you have a source or precedent for this? Or is this your opinion?

It's the opinion of the Supreme Court Justice most likely to ever rule against government regulation of firearms (a pro-gun textualist - Scalia), in the most recent SC ruling that directly dealt with interpreting the 2nd Amdendement.

Despite twisting himself in knots with his now infamous prefectory vs operative clause argument, which in the end he effectively abandons, he starts by conceding that the government has the ability to regulate who can own firearms, the type of firearms that can be owned, and where firearms can be carried.

Scalia starts by broadly debunking the idea that the 2nd amendment offers unrestricted freedom to keep and bear arms by pointing out that there is no dispute over every previous court ruling which found "that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

He also offers examples, which he clarifies are not intended to be an exhaustive list, which includes an example pertinent to this thread: "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center