Guns

[jravnsbo]

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.


--first, Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.  The people want to be able to own firearms.

The Founders gave us the Bill of Rights which is a list of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS sucha s the seond amendment.

Check  out the 5th Circuit case of United States v. Emerson and the District case below it for a detailed history and explanation of the 2d Amendment as an individual right.

[jravnsbo]

What?  relax gun laws, Republicans have always said ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE, don't make more.

wakie--gun dealers now have to do background checks and it is illegal not for them to do so.  so if they are not doing this then yes they should be held accountable, as in arrested b/c they are breaking the law.

I don't believe in "gun locks" and definately don't believe int eh government mandating it, maybe make it optional.  But many people don't know how to fire a gun in a hurry with a gun lock on it and could be hurt by an attacker b/c the gun does have a gun lock on it.

[jravnsbo]

line item veto was sstruck down by the courts, and would take a cA as would the Balanced Budget amendment and the votes for 2/3's not just a simple majority are not there.

[jravnsbo]

well your original post said gun dealers, so that is what I addressed.

The example I was referring to was the burglar breaking into the houseor the rapist and the woman reaches for the gun to protect herself but b/c of a gun lock she couldn't operate it and was injured.  There are documented cases on this.

Stronger punishments, don't see a problem with that.  If you break the law you are a criminal, plain and simple.

[jravnsbo]

In fact the NRA is the ones that pushed for the law to give a mandatory sentence of 5 years if a gun was used ina  criminal offense.  So no matter if they pled the crime down they still got 5 years for the crime.

Can't remember the exact name of it now, but Virginia is where it started and has spread to a lot of states from there.

[jravnsbo]

I know, you start a conversation and then someone throws out a completely BOGUS argument and skews the whole debate.  Apples and oranges with spotted owl.

[jravnsbo]

If you don't curb the deer populatio by hunting it grows rampant as in some parts of the US and becomes dangerous in traffic accidents galore.  Let alone wondering all over and into some cities by mistake.

[jravnsbo]

Are you sure your not a republican?  you sound more republican each day.

I find it very interesting that the people who push the strongest for more gun restrictions are the same people who have done everything in their power to undermine law enforcement, and to make it easier for criminals to get away with their crimes.  These are also the people who say we have too many people in prison.

Does anybody truly believe that a person who does not fear the consequences of murdering people will fear the consequences of illegal handgun possession?  Or that such a person will not be able to get an illegal gun, regardless of the law?

There is already a federal law prohibiting those convicted of certain crimes from possessing guns.  If we enforce laws like this, as well as severely punish those who use guns in committing a crime, this will have a much greater effect on crime than passing a law that the liberals will ultimately prevent from being properly enforced anyway.

I agree wholeheartedly. We should enforce the laws we have, not create new ones. All those new proposals do is scare the populace.

[jravnsbo]

A seperate thought, more and moe states are passing right to carry and cnceal laws.  well seems interesting and that gun control is nto the road the nation is taking.

Read John Lotts book:

More Guns, less Crime  

lays out the case very well.  He is a professor from Yale.

[jravnsbo]

Well the problem is that gun control doesn't work.  Criminals will still find a way to get a gun ont he streets from other criminals.  

Plus Prisons should be hell.  If you are there for life and not getting out forever.  There is no rehabilitation as they know they have nothing to lose by killing another prison or hurting a guard.  

However I do support rehab for certain criminals, but hard to talk so generally about that.

The reason why many liberals push for gun control is very simple: it has the smallest human toll. To make criminal penalties stronger would have the effect of putting people for long periods of time in dehumanizing places such as prison. Such a result would be undesirable, because nothing crushes the human spirit more than confinement, and people need to keep their hopes up to be rehabilitated. I steadfastly believe that taking guns out of the hands of criminals would be much more beneficial than simply allowing them to commit the crime and then brutalize them.

[jravnsbo]

When I said Prison should be hell, I meant tough.  You put words in my tough and took it as what you thought.

Murders that have life sentences should not be allowed to have gym equipment and cable tv, which a lot of FREE americans don't even have.  

I am not for anyone being attacked no matter how bad they are.

The criminal code says nothing about being beaten to death or sodomized, jravnsbo. If you were confined to a prison for life, one would think that would be bad enough. Adding forcible anal sex and having your eyes bludgeoned out significantly worsens the conditions of the prison. While it might upset me to see these things happen, I become more resolved in my horror when I hear of people like you say that prisoners are deserving of this and those who simply turn a blind eye. I suppose someone like you can never be shown that this is an abomination in the human dignity category, but if you ever get put in Attica, good luck trying to sit down after movie night.

[jravnsbo]

I am all for rehab for them, as I said.  But they shouldn't get luxuries either.  They are in PRISON for gosh's sake.

A lot come out bigger and stronger than ever and more dangerous.  We do need to do rehab, but you can make prisons so contact is more limited and safer and you should definately isolate the most violent of the violent.

[jravnsbo]

I just read that JFK was alifelong NRA member, i didn't know that.

[jravnsbo]

excesses, please explain?

[jravnsbo]

executions are so expensive because all o the appeals.  That is why VA and TX have both adopted a system of running the state and federal appeals concurrently.  That dramatically reduces the time that prisoners sit and still gives them their full rights and appeals.

Califonria on the other habnd has what like 300 people on death row and it takes FOREVER to execute someone.

Texas-remember that everyone knows they are tough on crime and so some have said they have thought twice b/c they know Texas will carry it out and not p*ss around like California.

Plus if Guilty these killers do not kill again.  Look at the prisoners that killed a few more once they escaped a few years ago.

[jravnsbo]

no I said they get ALL OF THERE APPEALS which is how it should be.

But by dragging their feet no one benefits except the killer.

What about the victims rights and their families?  that is always lost in these type discussions.

[jravnsbo]

How is it wrong to execute a killer?  What if he escapes and kills again such as the killers in Texas?

So you would spare Timothy Mcveigh, the DC Snipers and Saddam and Possibly Osama Bin LAden?

[jravnsbo]

well that would be a minority opinion to be sure, but you are welcome to it.

Even Dean after pressure said OBL should get the death penalty, but took some waffling for him first.

[jravnsbo]

Kind of wide topic there Gustaf.  That would need to be detailed more.

If something is a "fundamental" right under our Constitution and decisions of the SCT then it receives the highest level of scrutiny called "strict scrutiny" and thent he SCT looks at whether it is right or wrong, not majority rule.  Example the KKK can burn crosses--reprehensible to the VAST majority, but legal under the Constitution.  

However, when not a fundamental right then lesser degrees of scrutiny are used.  PLus this is a democracy and so generally majority rules ( unless you are trying to get a vote in the Senate on a judicial nomineee and then 41 beats 59  -that strange Senate math! )

[jravnsbo]

evolving stands-- well there is a fundamental difference there in interpreting between strict contructionist and liberal expansion.

arbitrarily- its called prosecutorial discretion and depends ont eh case and facts.

disproportionately applied--well again your opinion, but there have been many of all races executed and if you did the crime then you could face this punishment no matter what your race.

prisoners should not be allowed to challenge off of data as you say was rejected by the senate-- that has nothing to do with their individual case.  Plus I doubt if that would apply in many state executions, as most murders are charged as state crimes.

--shame; hardly.  Why do killers get so many advocates?  first they are just that Killers.    What about the victims?  Who speaks for them?  

Plus killers should not get endless appeals.  They should get all their appeals through state and federal system, but unlimited appeals is crazy even if not facing the death sentence.

[jravnsbo]

we are getting off topic here--lets keep this forum for GUNS and I'll create another for the death penalty.

[jravnsbo]

Well when some positions are so out of the normal thoughts of one's society i think they should be pointed out as that way to start.  Then discuss it from there.

But I did think it would be helpful to you to discuss our legal system a bit.

Kind of wide topic there Gustaf.  That would need to be detailed more.

If something is a "fundamental" right under our Constitution and decisions of the SCT then it receives the highest level of scrutiny called "strict scrutiny" and thent he SCT looks at whether it is right or wrong, not majority rule.  Example the KKK can burn crosses--reprehensible to the VAST majority, but legal under the Constitution.  

However, when not a fundamental right then lesser degrees of scrutiny are used.  PLus this is a democracy and so generally majority rules ( unless you are trying to get a vote in the Senate on a judicial nomineee and then 41 beats 59  -that strange Senate math! )

An opinion is not right b/c you have the majority with you or vice versa. I just thought it was a little unnecesary to discuss that. I hate it when people use the argument that "you are not mainstream". One should always produce arguments for one's positions, not hide behind numbers of supporters.

[jravnsbo]

--helpful in your understanding our legal system and how majority rule is the standard and where it is not, such as the example of fundmanetal rights.

------------
Helpful in what way? I am not really sure about what you are referring to.

If someone is disputing facts (like claiming that the holocaust never occured) I agree that it could be important. Otherwise, it's doubtful. The minority can often be right and trying to make someone look suspicious by claiming that the person is extremist is a doubtful way of arguing, but that's my view (maybe I am alone in thinking that. HELP!)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jravnsbo]

first thank you for the compliment.

Next, well what i was trying to do was show how our legal system takes into account your argument already and let you see that.

See certain things are fundamental rights and it doesn't meatter what the majority thinks, what is right is right and protected even if offensive to a great majority, like flag buring for another example.  A huge majority hate flag buring and all of the States have passed a resolution stating they would favor a constitutional Amendment to protect it, and so ha the House of Rep by over 2/3 margins a number of times.  However in 1989 the SCT ruled it was free speech and thus a protected act.

--as I said majority rule is not the end all argument, but i think where the majority stands should be ONE factor and always made part of the discussion.

--helpful in your understanding our legal system and how majority rule is the standard and where it is not, such as the example of fundmanetal rights.

------------
Helpful in what way? I am not really sure about what you are referring to.

If someone is disputing facts (like claiming that the holocaust never occured) I agree that it could be important. Otherwise, it's doubtful. The minority can often be right and trying to make someone look suspicious by claiming that the person is extremist is a doubtful way of arguing, but that's my view (maybe I am alone in thinking that. HELP!)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I think we are talking about slightly different things. I am just saying that the majority's position is not a good argument in a debate, to promote one's own view. The legal and political system is something different. I believe that certain rihts and principles should be laid out and be impossible to change for the majority. This is the protection of the minority from the majority and is fundamental in any democracy. Apart from that I have nothing against majority decisions. But if there is something peculiar about your legal system which you think I am unaware of and that is somehow leading me to misconceptions, I would be grateful if you would explain it to me. (Since we have established on another thread that you are such a well-educated lawyer)

[jravnsbo]

many politicos always deny what they can't remember the first time, standard operating procedure , he he

The post that you puoted me is the one in question.

The "you don't know what you're asking for"-quote? So you don't remember your own posts, that's a little weird...