The Thread of Democrats

[Tero]

Trump is a Nazi like his KKK daddy.

Hillary is a regular white person.

All them libertarians are Nazis too.

White college educated liberals are only slightly hip. Just barely out of Nazi range.

And, this is why I was careful to mention "my" definition - - because there are plenty of Progressive nutcases who really think this. Tero probably isn't being ironic here.

[Hermit]

the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Wrong on both counts.

The connection between the right to bear arms and the militia cannot be more explicit than the Second Amendment makes it. It actually mentions that connection before it mentions the right: "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." You ignored that, wilfully, I suspect.

On the other hand, the Second Amendment makes no mention of lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, whatsoever. You invented that, wilfully, I suspect.

[laklak]

There's plenty of debate about that, it's not a new argument. However, that's exactly what Heller vs DC says - citizens are guaranteed the right to possess arms for lawful purposes, regardless of their membership in or relationship to any official militia. So that is, in fact, what the 2nd means, as SCOTUS is the final arbiter. Chances for that to change in at least the next generation are frankly nil.

Here's the relevant text of the decision:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

There's more in the full decision:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[laklak]

Dup

[Hermit]

There's plenty of debate about that, it's not a new argument. However, that's exactly what Heller vs DC says - citizens are guaranteed the right to possess arms for lawful purposes, regardless of their membership in or relationship to any official militia. So that is, in fact, what the 2nd means, as SCOTUS is the final arbiter. Chances for that to change in at least the next generation are frankly nil.

Yes, I realise that is the SCOTUS's verdict on the meaning of the Second Amendment. I also realise that the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter on all matters legal in the US. That's probably why that institution is named the Supreme Court of the United States.

That said, I remain firmly of the opinion that the Second Amendment makes the connection between the necessity of a well regulated militia and the uninfringed right to bear arms crystal clear and explicit, and that it makes no mention of lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home, whatsoever.

I also note that the ruling on the case was not unanimous. In fact, at 5:4 it was one opinion short of being decided the other way. Right now I agree that the chances of overturning the judgement are negligible, especially the way the bench is stacked at the moment, but I would not say they are nil, nor that the judgement cannot possibly be reversed some time in the not too distant future.

[laklak]

I can see, perhaps, more restrictions. "Assault weapons" bans, for example, have already been held as constitutional, same for magazine limits. Both are big topics for a week or two after a school shooting, then everybody goes back to binging Netflix. But an outright ban on private ownership? I honestly can't see that happening for a very long time, if ever. If Trump gets another shot at appointing a justice it will certainly be at least 2 generations before any significant change.

[Hermit]

I can see, perhaps, more restrictions. "Assault weapons" bans, for example, have already been held as constitutional, same for magazine limits. Both are big topics for a week or two after a school shooting, then everybody goes back to binging Netflix. But an outright ban on private ownership? I honestly can't see that happening for a very long time, if ever. If Trump gets another shot at appointing a justice it will certainly be at least 2 generations before any significant change.

District of Columbia v. Heller was not about outright bans.

[JimC]

I can see, perhaps, more restrictions. "Assault weapons" bans, for example, have already been held as constitutional, same for magazine limits. Both are big topics for a week or two after a school shooting, then everybody goes back to binging Netflix. But an outright ban on private ownership? I honestly can't see that happening for a very long time, if ever. If Trump gets another shot at appointing a justice it will certainly be at least 2 generations before any significant change.

And there is absolutely no need for a total ban, in any case. Of course American Realpolitik means it has zero chance of ever happening, but you guys could make serious in-roads into your obscenely high levels of gun deaths by quite modest increases in regulations.

[laklak]

There's a push in Florida to get an "assault rifle" ban on the ballot in 2020. Should be interesting, real Red-vs-Blue stuff. I think it's chance of passing with the 60% required to amend the state constitution is very small, but we do have a burgeoning Blue population, made up of stupid fucking Yankees who've ruined their own states and now are down here trying to ruin ours. Fuck it, I'll move the boat to Alabama, they're too shit scared to move there. But I digress.

[Sean Hayden]

What will banning achieve? How many are out there now?

[JimC]

What will banning achieve? How many are out there now?

It depends whether they mean to ban future sales, or to compel current owners to peacefully hand their phallic objects in...

The latter seems to be a little problematic...

[Hermit]

What will banning achieve? How many are out there now?

Even if all assault style rifles were made to disappear, there'd be little change. They are the favourite tools for mass killings, which are always great for headlines and public outrage, but three quarters of all firearms homicides and murders are committed with sidearms. And if you succeeded to get rid of all them people would manage to commit those homicides and murders by other means. I'd be surprised if murder and homicide rates would drop by more than 10 or 20% in such a hypothetical case, though such a drop would of course be most welcome.

[laklak]

What will banning achieve? How many are out there now?

No good I can see, but logic isn't the point here, it's feeling good about "doing something!". I can't find any info on how many there are, they don't even collect those statistics. The NRA reportedly estimates somewhere between 8 and 15 million.

If law-abiding "assault weapon" owners were a problem you'd fucking well know about it.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 82739.html

[rainbow]

So the extreme right doesn't just have bad elements, it is bad elements?

Mind-boggling logic our 42 has.

[Hermit]

So the extreme right doesn't just have bad elements, it is bad elements?

Mind-boggling logic our 42 has.

He's right, though. In Italy Mussolini made trains run on time again. Hitler made Germany great again. Autobahn. Volkswagen. The armaments industry played a huge role in regaining full employment. Those black SS uniforms looked totally smashing. And where would NASA be today had Wernher von Braun not developed the V2?