Gun Violence Tracker (3 Viewers)

[Old State]

How about Scalia writing for the majority in Heller, the most unabashedly pro-Second Amendment decision in the history of the Court?



Which was accompanied by a footnote emphasizing that there are more valid regulations of firearms where that came from in case you were wondering:

See my edited response above. Scalia didn't contradict that the right to bear arms as a natural right.

Also, he doesn't qualify as a historical primary source....but let's discuss him anyway

Scalia wasn't necessarily "pro-second Amendment" but rather pro original intent. His opinion on this is one of the best and historically fact based opinions ever. Note, every justice agreed that the right is an individual right. The dissenting 4 just thought that the 2nd Amendment should be reinterpreted to allow heavy regulation and even a ban, which DC had done. So yes, the antigun crowd wants to ban guns as they did in Chicago and DC...hence the two cases.

I am not aware of a SCOTUS case where there was more historical evidence available supporting one side. This decision should have been unaimous if it wasn't for justices who believe the law is flexible and up for reinterpretation at any time.

 

[Old State]

Steven Pinker explains copycat violence in How the Mind Works. If the media would just report without sensationalism, the number of incidents would go down.

100% this ^^^^^

 

[jbutler]

See my edited response above

100% historically and legally incorrect on the first part. To your comment earlier, I'll put the burden on you to find a single primary source to support that. Not an opinion piece from Slate, et al, but something from the people who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment. This is a creation of 20th century "progressives"

On the second part, the Federal Government is themselves heavily restricted from unlilateral regulation. In the US most gun regulations are from the States. And since McDonald vs Chicago, anti gun crowd is in a conudrum. The 14th Amendment has been used to justify the incorporation of the States into the Bill of Rights with numerous initiatives. However, Chicago argued that this theory didn't apply to the Second Amendment...just everything else that the "progressives" like. SCOTUS said no, you can't have it both ways. So now the States are bound the the same limits on regulation that the Fed is. The only hope is to get sympathetic justices on the court that are willing to ignore the original intent of the law and reinterpret it to satisfy the political factions that appointed them.

"Natural rights" are fantasies of philosophers and in any case irrelevant as no law in the US relies on whether something qualifies as a "natural right". I have no interest in debating this further in this context.

McDonald (opinion here) (it isn't referred to as Chicago; as you might imagine there are many cases that are captioned "_______ v. Chicago", so it would get quite confusing) only reinforced the above-quoted excerpts from Heller.

In both cases, far right conservative justices wrote the opinions, and in both cases, those justices acknowledged that gun possession may be regulated. In Heller, Scalia, and now in McDonald, Alito:

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "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." We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

 

[the3rd]

How about Scalia writing for the majority in Heller, the most unabashedly pro-Second Amendment decision in the history of the Court?



Which was accompanied by a footnote emphasizing that there are more valid regulations of firearms where that came from in case you were wondering:

No one who supports gun ownership in the US is saying any and all regulation should be repealed, but the current gun control advocates in and around our government want all projectile weapons short of low power, pump action, air rifles destroyed and banned forever. The Australia plan is just the beginning. Hillary has made this clear in fund raising speeches. There are transcript floating around if you look for them. Just because the people on this forum are more reasonable doesn't mean that the Democratic party wants anything less.

 

[Old State]

"Natural rights" are fantasies of philosophers and in any case irrelevant as no law in the US relies on whether something qualifies as a "natural right". I have no interest in debating this further in this context.
:

Do you realize that our entire government and reasoning for independence was based on "natural rights". It's the entire reason the Bill of Rights was written. Are you sure you understand what is meant my that? I'm not sure you do or your statement is pretty incredible.

So all our rights exist because a government gave them to us??? Do we only have a right to free speech because our government allows it?

What do you think was meant by this?:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Please see here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

 

[jbutler]

Do you realize that our entire government and reasoning for independence was based on "natural rights". It's the entire reason the Bill of Rights was written. Are you sure you understand what is meant my that? I'm not sure you do or your statement is pretty incredible.

So all our rights exist because a government gave them to us??? Do we only have a right to free speech because our government allows it?

What do you think was meant by this?:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Please see here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law and the phrase "natural rights" does not appear in the Constitution. You may as well be arguing about the ratio of Schrute bucks to Stanley nickels. No matter how many incredulous question marks you put after your sentences, your point will be equally meaningless in a discussion of current law.

 

[Old State]

I honestly thought you were going to clarify your statement but you are choosing to double down when you are drawing dead.

Even far left liberals understand and believe in the theory of natural human rights. The only debate is the definition of a right.

The best test I have seen is to ask "at who's expense?" If there is an answer to that other than "my own", than it is not a right.

I'll ask you two questions

1) did human beings exist before governments?

2) where do your rights come from?

 

[jbutler]

I honestly thought you were going to clarify your statement but you are choosing to double down when you are drawing dead.

Even far left liberals understand and believe in the theory of natural human rights. The only debate is the definition of a right.

The best test I have seen is to ask "at who's expense?" If there is an answer to that other than "my own", than it is not a right.

I'll ask you two questions

1) did human beings exist before governments?

2) where do your rights come from?

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote in my first response.

"Natural rights" are fantasies of philosophers and in any case irrelevant as no law in the US relies on whether something qualifies as a "natural right". I have no interest in debating this further in this context.

 

[Old State]

Even Ruth Ginsburg would find that statement absurd. As matter of fact you couldn't find a single legal historian left or right that would agree with you. Fidel Castro may agree but not many others and certainly no one in political office in the US

 

[Chicken Rob]

I agree with all you said except the last sentence. We don't know how many of those gun suicides were seriously contemplated and how many were impulsive. Most impulsive suicides are indicative of mental health issues and I don't think we should allow mentally unfit people to take their own lives (with exceptions to the degree that depression and other long term mood disorders are characterized as mental illnesses).

I'm ok with restricting the mentally ill from gun ownership. I guess what I meant by that last sentence is that the suicide based gun stats are an independent issue in my mind to other forms of gun violence that deserve separate attention.

When I think of what some of my friends endured to end their own lives, I can't even fathom it. One friend once spent the weekend at my hOuse after a second failed attempt, and right before his successful attempt. We talked about the loneliness and desperation inherent in the act itself, and he asked if I'd be with him while he died.

I don't think I could have handled it emotionally and feared what would happen legally, so I said no.

A gun would have been less gruesome and resulted in less suffering than what he endured. His family shared too many of the details with me and they haunt me years later.

However a gun should be unnecessary. We should have assisted suicide parlors (perhaps attached to a Howard Johnsons) where people can say goodbye peacefully surrounded by loved ones.

 

[the3rd]

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote in my first response.

Isn't the Ninth Amendment about protecting rights, natural, but not enumerated from govt. infringement?

 

[jbutler]

Isn't the Ninth Amendment about protecting rights, natural, but not enumerated from govt. infringement?

Considering that the word "natural" doesn't appear in the amendment, I don't consider it all that compelling. The framers were more than familiar with the concept of "natural rights" and so could have used the phrase if they thought it appropriate. Evidently they didn't.

 

[Old State]

Isn't the Ninth Amendment about protecting rights, natural, but not enumerated from govt. infringement?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


100% correct. Madison originally thought a BOR unnecessary because he felt the government would be of course bound to only the powers specifically enumerated (crazy huh?). He also wrote to Jefferson saying it would be impossible to cover all rights. Jefferson wrote back says to get the most important ones and deal with the others in another way and that government always devolved to take more power...so get something in writing. That became the 9th Amendment.

Here is what Madison said during the actual debate about the Amendment;
8 June 1789

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment]."

 

[Old State]

Considering that the word "natural" doesn't appear in the amendment, I don't consider it all that compelling. The framers were more than familiar with the concept of "natural rights" and so could have used the phrase if they thought it appropriate. Evidently they didn't.

They refferenced it dozens of times in the debates before the Dec of Ind and the Constitution.

The concept that your rightS come from your humanity or God isnt always referred to as "natural rights". The Dec of Independence is our mission statement saying why we have the right to exist as a separate government. The Constituion is a set of laws based on that. There wouldn't be many reasons to continually explain this as it was universally understood.

This whole discipussion is bizzare. All you need to do is Google "natural rights or natural law" and "US Constituion" and then spend the next week reading it explain 1000 different ways

The Federalist and Anti Federalist papers were a series of articles discussing the reasoning behind the proposed Constituion that had not yet been ratified. In AntiFederalist #2 Robert Yates wrote:

"The common good, therefore, is the end of civil government, and common consent, the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order, that what remained should be preserved: . . . But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc. Others are not necessary to be resigned, in order to attain the end for which government is instituted, these therefore ought not to be given up. . . . The same reasons which at first induced mankind to associate and institute government, will operate to influence them to observe this precaution. If they had been disposed to conform themselves to the rule of immutable righteousness, government would not have been requisite. It was because one part exercised fraud, oppression, and violence on the other, that men came together, and agreed that certain rules should be formed, to regulate the conduct of all, and the power of the whole community lodged in the hands of rulers to enforce an obedience to them. But rulers have the same propensities as other men; they are as likely to use the power with which they are vested for private purposes, and to the injury and oppression of those over whom they are placed, as individuals in a state of nature are to injure and oppress one another. It is therefore as proper that bounds should be set to their authority, as that government should have at first been instituted to restrain private injuries"

Just one of MANY examples

 

[the3rd]

Considering that the word "natural" doesn't appear in the amendment, I don't consider it all that compelling. The framers were more than familiar with the concept of "natural rights" and so could have used the phrase if they thought it appropriate. Evidently they didn't.

Could it be that they took certain language for granted (like we do today)and left out a few words, but had the sense to create a Supreme Court to sort things out as years passed?

 

[jbutler]

They refferenced it dozens of times in the debates before the Dec of Ind and the Constitution.

The concept that your right come from your humanity or God isnt always referred to as "natural right". The Dec of Independence is our mission statement saying why we have the right to exist as a separate government. The Constituion is a set of law based on that. There wouldn't be many reasons to continually explain this as it was universally understood.

This whole discipussion is bizzare. All you need to do is Google "natural rights or natural law" and "US Constituion" and then spend the next week reading it explain 1000 different ways

There has been no discussion, only you throwing tantrums because you have found a thought outside your bubble. That someone would disagree with what you summarily assert as obvious is only bizarre if this is the first time you've been outside said bubble. There's plenty of discussion in places where it matters whether natural rights as a concept are meaningful in any sense.

But as I have said several times, "natural rights" are irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of current law. Fortunately for our legal system, our law doesn't turn on vague platitudes about what we were given by "our humanity" or "god", but on concrete legislation and decisional law.

 

[Old State]

Sorry, You are definitely the one in the "bubble". More of a parallel universe. Current law exists to protect natural rights


There isn't a Supreme Court justice in the history of the US that would agree with you.

Not only is natural law and natural rights the foundation of our government, it's the foundation of numerous others that emulated us.

Maybe this will help you

http://www.nlnrac.org/american/bill-of-rights

"The Bill of Rights is rooted in the idea of the primacy of egalitarian, autonomous, individual “natural rights” (plural)—to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” especially through limitless, competitive acquisitiveness. From these self-regarding rights, and their mortally competitive spontaneous expression (the “state of nature”), reason deduces prudential, artificial rules, honorifically if misleadingly given the hallowed term “natural laws.” By following these rules, centered on the idea of contract, the natural rights are tamed so as to foster peacefully competitive commercial societies that shrewdly maximize collective and individual self-interest, above all through de-legitimizing the political cultivation of spiritual fulfillment."

 

[jbutler]

Sorry, You are definitely the one in the "bubble". More of a parallel universe. Current law exists to protect natural rights

There isn't a Supreme Court justice in the history of the US that would agree with you.

Not only is natural law and natural rights the foundation of our government, it's the foundation of numerous others that emulated us.

Maybe this will help you

http://www.nlnrac.org/american/bill-of-rights

This unfortunate discursion began because you began arguing that gun possession is a natural right and that had some kind of meaning for our laws relative to gun possession. If you want to have any kind of meaningful discussion, I would suggest we circle back around to the actual current law rather than what we were granted by god or our humanity.

You seemed intent on disproving my statement that guns are subject to regulation. If you care to continue that discussion, I'd be glad to. Otherwise, I'll bow out and you can try to explain to everyone else how John Locke would never have agreed with background checks.

 

[Old State]

Curious position in that current gun laws are required to be in line with the second amendment otherwise they are not enforceable. The Second Amendment was written 225 years ago and was base entirely on the natural right of self defense. They are one and the same thing

Heller was completely decided based on the original intent and therefore natural rights.

And I never said you can't regulate anything...though regulations should be very narrow if to pass Constituional muster. Regulations can't infringe on the original intent of the 2nd Amend

From Heller:


"It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, "this is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed... ."

 

[jbutler]

Curious position in that current gun laws are required to be in line with the second amendment otherwise they are not enforceable. The Second Amendment was written 225 years ago and was base entirely on the natural right of self defense. They are one and the same thing

Heller was completely decided based on the original intent and therefore natural rights.

And I never said you can't regulate anything...though regulations should be very narrow if to pass Constituional muster. Regulations can't infringe on the original intent of the 2nd Amend

From Heller:

"It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, "this is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed... ."

And it seems it will be that way for a few more years most likely. After that, the only kvetching about "original intent" will likely occur in dissents where it belongs.

 

[Old State]

And it seems it will be that way for a few more years most likely. After that, the only kvetching about "original intent" will likely occur in dissents where it belongs.

Yes, then we will finally have the Nation of men rather than laws that Founders warned us about. If you can't change the law just reinterpret it.

The Constituion will truly be in the hands of its enemies.

 

[the3rd]

And it seems it will be that way for a few more years most likely. After that, the only kvetching about "original intent" will likely occur in dissents where it belongs.

Be careful what you wish for. Your new Supreme Courts justices could decide to limit your First Amendment rights to satisfy the growing number of "safe space" crybabies.

 

[Old State]

""On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[jbutler]

Yes, then we will finally have the Nation of men rather than laws that Founders warned us about. If you can't change the law just reinterpret it.

The Constituion will truly be in the hands of its enemies.

So was the Constitution in the hands of its enemies prior to 2008 when it was reclaimed by Scalia, et al., or were Scalia and his gaggle the enemies themselves when they reinterpreted it in 2008?

Be careful what you wish for. Your new Supreme Courts justices could decide to limit your First Amendment rights to satisfy the growing number of "safe space" crybabies.

The trajectory of the First Amendment, including among the more centrist justices, is certainly toward a more permissive jurisprudence. Probably the most illustrative case in this regard is Snyder v. Phelps, in which a conservative, Alito, was the only justice who dissented from the majority permitting protests by the "God Hates Fags" people.

 

[Chicken Rob]

""On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed."

Thomas Jefferson

What year did Jefferson say this? 2011? 2015? It's a new world and there is not only room, but need for social evolution.

The founding fathers got all kinds of things wrong. Slavery and women's suffrage for example. We live in different times, it is reasonable to reevaluate what was put on the table 240 years ago.

The founders also built in a system to append and edit the constitution. Even they didn't think it was a perfect sacred document.

 

[Old State]

So was the Constitution in the hands of its enemies prior to 2008 when it was reclaimed by Scalia, et al., or were Scalia and his gaggle the enemies themselves when they reinterpreted it in 2008?



The trajectory of the First Amendment, including among the more centrist justices, is certainly toward a more permissive jurisprudence. Probably the most illustrative case in this regard is Snyder v. Phelps, in which a conservative, Alito, was the only justice who dissented from the majority permitting protests by the "God Hates Fags" people.

Scalia made every decision based on original intent and supported it with primary sources. If he was an extremist than so were the Founders. I never see any historical justification from his detractors. They just throw insults.

You have yet to back any claim with historical evidence. Show me exactly how Scalia's opinion is out of context with the original intent

 

[jbutler]

Scalia made every decision based on original intent and supported it with primary sources. If he was an extremist than so were the Founders. I never see any historical justification from his detractors. They just throw insults.

You have yet to back any claim with historical evidence. Show me exactly how Scalia's opinion is out of context with the original intent

You're missing my point. On June 25, 2008, the Constitution did not protect an individual right to own a firearm for protection. On June 26, 2008, by virtue of Scalia's opinion Heller, it did. So were the "enemies" - as you call them - in control on June 25 or June 26?

As to whether Scalia's opinion aligns with the the original intent of the text, I don't care and neither do most judges and legal scholars. Only a minority within the legal community are originalists. The rest recognize that we make law in the 21st century, not the 18th.

 

[Chicken Rob]

I love that a forum noob decides to jump in and argue this topic with a forum veteran with a law degree before hitting 50 posts.

 

[Old State]

What year did Jefferson say this? 2011? 2015? It's a new world and there is not only room, but need for social evolution.

The founding fathers got all kinds of things wrong. Slavery and women's suffrage for example. We live in different times, it is reasonable to reevaluate what was put on the table 240 years ago.

The founders also built in a system to append and edit the constitution. Even they didn't think it was a perfect sacred document.

The Founding ideals are still modern. Humans don't evolve that much in 200 years. They were a hundred years ahead of their time. Where exactly on the globe could women vote in 1789? Slavery was all over the world in 1789 including Africa and they attempted to address it. These types of comments are tired and cliche talking points repeated in left wing blogs

But you are right, there is an Amendment process and that process is intentionally difficult. This is why those who find the Constitution be an impediment to their agenda would prefer the court legislate.

As far as guns, there is historically nothing to indicate that they would reevaluate the Second Amendment based on modern times. As a matter of fact they would most likely clarify it and separate the militia clause instead of trying to kill two birds with one stone.

I imagine they would word it similar to the way Pennsylvania worded their right to bear arms:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. " Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

 

[Old State]

You're missing my point. On June 25, 2008, the Constitution did not protect an individual right to own a firearm for protection. On June 26, 2008, by virtue of Scalia's opinion Heller, it did. So were the "enemies" - as you call them - in control on June 25 or June 26?

As to whether Scalia's opinion aligns with the the original intent of the text, I don't care and neither do most judges and legal scholars. Only a minority within the legal community are originalists. The rest recognize that we make law in the 21st century, not the 18th.

This is nonsense and there is no historical evidence to back that up but plenty to refute it. Did any of the dissenting justices even deny an individual right? (No, they didn't.)
Why then did no one ever question it as an individual right until the early 20th century? Isn't it odd how every other Amendment in the BORs refferenced an individual right?

I love that a forum noob decides to jump in and argue this topic with a forum veteran with a law degree before hitting 50 posts.

How does this make a difference? You don't need a law degree to understand the Constituion and law schools haven't taught the original intent of Constitution in 130 years. They used to but now just teach case law where you learn about the Constituion via the interpretation of politically appointed judges. Up until the late 1800s law schools required students to read Blackstones commentaries, John Locke, and Madison's notes to the convention.

The change coincidentally coincides with the beginning of the "progressive movement". That's also when it was first implied that the Second Amendment was a collective right.

There are very few lawyers that have any meaningful understanding of the US Constituion unless that is their specialty. Just ask them, many will tell you that.

I also didnt begin arguing with him. I questioned the validity of this tracker


Still no evidence offered to support any claims. I have given quite a lot.