Gun Control is Completely Useless.

Twitter removes rep's tweet threatening Beto O'Rourke with AR
Tweet violated rules against violence

https://www.keyt.com/news/politics/...t-threatening-beto-orourke-with-ar/1120534021

and the right for an American to own a gun does not legitimize crime

Lives in a world where there is no such thing as a death threat - likes to call other people morons.

Colpy said:

Why do you constantly have to prove you're a troll and a moron?

Click to expand...

Because I live in fear that somebody'll mistake me for an intelligent, erudite man, and then be real disappointed in fairly short order.

OK, so far we have some definitions and categories. "Arms" for the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms under English, American, and Canadian law, include weapons that in ordinary use are borne and deployed by one person, and exclude crew-served weapons and machines of war such as combat aircraft and warships. For now we are not addressing full-auto rifles, hand bombs and grenades, or one-man rocket launchers (we'll get to that later).

So, next question. . . to whom does the right belong? Let's put it in terms of "everybody but. . ."

OK, obviously the non compos mentis are out of luck. They are almost non-human, in terms of legal rights.

But what about convicted felons? Upon serving their time, all of their other Bill of Rights rights are restored. Do we restore their Second Amendment right? If not, will you admit that this is a limitation on the right not provided for in the Second Amendment?

How about people with mental-health problems, acknowledged and diagnosed, but not declared non compos mentis? Do they have the right, or do you agree that it is permissible to keep them from keeping and bearing arms, despite the fact that the Second Amendment has no language excluding them from the right?

How about people under civil protection orders? As the name implies, these are civil matters, and the standard of evidence is far lower than the criminal standard.

So that's three categories. I'll give you a break and not talk about minors. None of these categories are mentioned in the Second Amendment, yet there seems to be broad agreement that creating exceptions for them is a good idea, because they may be dangerous, despite not having been proved dangerous (in the case of felons, not having been proved continuing dangers).

Do you agree or disagree with these non-textual limitations on the Second Amendment?

How say you?

Colpy said:

Cut it down to the meat.
I think you can get around the felon argument by allowing judges to put a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms as part of the sentence at the time of sentencing. If that is not constitutionally possible, then I guess ex-felons, once their sentence and all post-prison time is served, they get to own guns.
The mentally ill are a more distressing problem. I've had both a cousin and a good friend fall seriously mentally ill, and believe me, neither of were in the mental condition to have firearms. Neither did, thank God. Both were, however, involuntarily sent to mental hospitals........which I imagine constitutes a temporary (at least) judgement of non compos mentis. The thing is they were released long long before their respective deaths, and they were never cured. My cousin actually, was murdered.
So, after that convoluted attempt to duck the question, I would advocate for more comprehensive judgement of incapacity........and say once again, if not possible, you've got to allow then their rights.
I have no idea what a "civil protection order" is, being Canadian. I assume what we call a restraining order.........but is that not a part of the criminal law?

Click to expand...

Yep, a restraining order, sometimes called a stay-away order. Same thing. But no, it is not a criminal matter. The victim, usually a woman, files for one against a victimiser, usually a man with whom she was in a domestic relationship, and she need only prove that she has a reasonable fear of him. Shouting, threatening, punching the walls, throwing dishes, destroying possessions, all things not necessarily criminal, can serve as bases. And the standard of proof is only "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt," the criminal standard, nor even "clear and convincing evidence."

Of course, such an order can also accompany criminal matters, such as assault. In many states, persons with such orders standing against them may not own guns.

Either way, I think we've established that supposedly unlimited right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed is, in point of fact, infringed in many ways, just as almost all of our Bill of Rights rights are.

Next up is whether or not the types of arms available to the people can be limited. This is where we start to deal with that middle ground, between war machines and one-man weapons, things like grenades (hand or launched), automatic rifles, and one-man rocket launchers. These things are tightly controlled in the U.S., called Class III weapons. Further, automatic weapons can no longer be manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S., except to governmental entities or specially-licensed holders.

And I'm sure you know that the subject matter of Miller in 1939 was a sawn-off shotgun, and the Supreme Court upheld the power of the state to ban it. Similarly, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, specifically restated that Miller remains good law in the U.S., and governments retain the power to ban "unusual and dangerous" weapons.

Thus we have both classes of people, and classes of weapons, that lie outside the protection of the bare-bones text of the Second Amendment and its equivalent rules in English and Canadian law. And this is completely consistent with limitations on other rights that are unconditionally stated in the laws of our countries. The right of free speech is not absolute (the classic examples of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, incitement to riot, or lewd behavior toward minors). Nor is the right to be free of search and seizure. Even in the Fourth Amendment, the text says "unreasonable search and seizure," (emphasis mine). If a suspected felon runs into his house and slams the door, the cops need no warrant to break down the door and get him, for example. Ditto the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking property. It need only be for a public purpose and fairly compensated.

Even when there is no limiting language in the statement of the right, the long-held American formulation is that the government may abrogate a right if doing so serves a "compelling government interest," and the restriction is "narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Both of those things can be tested in court, but if they pass the test, the infringement of the right stands. That is what Scalia was talking about when he upheld the power of the government to ban "unusual and dangerous" weapons.

And I must say, it seems sensible to me. Such an exercise of government power must clear significant hurdles: the political unpopularity of restricting rights, followed by a careful court analysis of the quality of the interest and the tailoring of the restriction. It is worth noting that the 1990s "assault weapon ban" passed Constitutional muster, but failed the political test, and was therefore not renewed when the law sunsetted.

This, in a nutshell, is the American approach to fundamental Constitutional rights. And it makes at least as much sense as the strained constructions you want to put on criminal sentences and the handling of people with mental problems. Either way, you end up with infringement of the right that "shall not be infringed."

Logically, you must accept that the right CAN be infringed for good cause, or you must declare your support for allowing people with mental problems, convicted felons who have served their time, abusive domestic partners, and even minors in many cases, to keep and bear any kind of one-man weapon they feel like, including grenades, automatic weapons, rocket launchers, and flamethrowers.

I am ready to hear your counterargument, or if you concede my argument, we can move on to what is the "compelling government interest" in gun control, and what is "narrow tailoring of the restriction" to satisfy that interest whilst leaving as much of the right as possible intact.

I would point out that doing that, finding a way to restrict the right for good cause while leaving it as widely in force as possible, is basically the same thing you're trying to do in your post above.

Next up is whether or not the types of arms available to the people can be limited.

Click to expand...

It is not always about what can and can not be done. Any restriction needs to be logically or rationally connected to the condition we are trying achieve. If you call for a banning of rifle turrets in jeeps under the premise of safer movie theatres, the legal system needs to say ' hey dumbass,jeeps arent typically a concern inside movie theatres'

So, next question. . . to whom does the right belong? Let's put it in terms of "everybody but. . ."

Click to expand...

Actually let's not. It is most definitely 'everybody' and any and all exceptions must be appropriate.

JamesBondo said:

It is not always about what can and can not be done. Any restriction needs to be logically or rationally connected to the condition we are trying achieve. If you call for a banning of rifle turrets in jeeps under the premise of safer movie theatres, the legal system needs to say ' hey dumbass,jeeps arent typically a concern inside movie theatres'

Click to expand...

Logic isn't your long suit, eh Bondo?

Curious Cdn said:

Logic isn't your long suit, eh Bondo?

Click to expand...

clearly you are an asshole.

Tecumsehsbones said:

Because I live in fear that somebody'll mistake me for an intelligent, erudite man, and then be real disappointed in fairly short order.

OK, so far we have some definitions and categories. "Arms" for the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms under English, American, and Canadian law, include weapons that in ordinary use are borne and deployed by one person, and exclude crew-served weapons and machines of war such as combat aircraft and warships. For now we are not addressing full-auto rifles, hand bombs and grenades, or one-man rocket launchers (we'll get to that later).

So, next question. . . to whom does the right belong? Let's put it in terms of "everybody but. . ."

OK, obviously the non compos mentis are out of luck. They are almost non-human, in terms of legal rights.

But what about convicted felons? Upon serving their time, all of their other Bill of Rights rights are restored. Do we restore their Second Amendment right? If not, will you admit that this is a limitation on the right not provided for in the Second Amendment?

How about people with mental-health problems, acknowledged and diagnosed, but not declared non compos mentis? Do they have the right, or do you agree that it is permissible to keep them from keeping and bearing arms, despite the fact that the Second Amendment has no language excluding them from the right?

How about people under civil protection orders? As the name implies, these are civil matters, and the standard of evidence is far lower than the criminal standard.

So that's three categories. I'll give you a break and not talk about minors. None of these categories are mentioned in the Second Amendment, yet there seems to be broad agreement that creating exceptions for them is a good idea, because they may be dangerous, despite not having been proved dangerous (in the case of felons, not having been proved continuing dangers).

Do you agree or disagree with these non-textual limitations on the Second Amendment?

How say you?

Click to expand...

Just wanted to add that I asked people the same thing about the mentally ill when it comes to the gun debate, and never once received an answer but was either ignored, told off or totally blocked.


To me, that suggests that even gun supporters don't know how to answer the question without breaking their own rules of "guns for everyone allowed".


As it is, fascinating discussion TB.

JamesBondo said:

clearly you are an asshole.

Click to expand...

Clearly, you are still a half-formed child-man.

Serryah said:

Just wanted to add that I asked people the same thing about the mentally ill when it comes to the gun debate, and never once received an answer but was either ignored, told off or totally blocked.
To me, that suggests that even gun supporters don't know how to answer the question without breaking their own rules of "guns for everyone allowed".
As it is, fascinating discussion TB.

Click to expand...

in Canada, we have a test to check if there is a constitutional right that has been infringed.
The Oakes test is outlined
as follows:
1. There must a pressing and substantial
objective for the law or government action.
2. The means chosen to achieve the
objective must be proportional to the
burden on the rights of the claimant.
i. The objective must be rationally connected
to the limit on the Charter right.
ii. The limit must minimally impair the
Charter right.
iii. There should be an overall balance or
proportionality between the benefits
of the limit and its deleterious effects

Hoid said:

There is never a good reason to threaten anyone either on social media or in person.

If the laws of the land were being followed there would be no need to confiscate guns.

Click to expand...

Both criminals and LIE-berals consider it to be threatening..................................


if the public wants action taken on illegal behaviour!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Just LOOK at the LIE-beral reaction to public calls........................................


for a real police investigation into Lavalin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JamesBondo said:

in Canada, we have a test to check if there is a constitutional right that has been infringed.
The Oakes test is outlined
as follows:
1. There must a pressing and substantial
objective for the law or government action.

Click to expand...

Sounds like our "compelling government interest" standard.

2. The means chosen to achieve the objective must be proportional to the burden on the rights of the claimant.

i. The objective must be rationally connected to the limit on the Charter right.

ii. The limit must minimally impair the Charter right.

iii. There should be an overall balance or proportionality between the benefits of the limit and its deleterious effects

Click to expand...

Sounds like a more flexible and detailed, but similar standard to our "narrowly tailored to serve the government interest" standard.

Tecumsehsbones said:

Sounds like our "compelling government interest" standard.
Sounds like a more flexible and detailed, but similar standard to our "narrowly tailored to serve the government interest" standard.

Click to expand...

"Demonstrably justified" means that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that the limits it has imposed are reasonable.

JamesBondo said:

"Demonstrably justified" means that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that the limits it has imposed are reasonable.

Click to expand...

Sounds good. I'm simply saying that the standards sound the same.

Hardly surprising that two similar systems from a single origin arrived at quite similar solutions.

JamesBondo said:

clearly you are an asshole.

Click to expand...

I must be as well because your logic escapes me too

A national handgun ban is potentially an election issue, here.