Guns

[Gustaf]

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.

I actually think the idea of state militias is kind of out-dated, but that's just me.

[Gustaf]

I live in a rural area and I don't have a gun.
I don't need one either.

I have deers around in my suburb, but no one really minds them. Most people have real problems to worry about.

[Gustaf]

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.

I'm not an expert on this subject but I thought hunters took care of this when they went out huting in the hunting season. We have tons of deers and elks in Sweden, as well as large forests and a rich wildlife, but we don't need our citizens to go around carrying guns. It has never been an issue, so I doubt that argument.

[Gustaf]

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.

Not true. I am all for putting people in jails and tough penalties. But I am still sceptical of allowing people to purchase guns freely. The point is obviously not criminals, who will get weapons anyway. Most people who get murdered, are killed by close relatives or family members, husbands killing wives and so on. In these cases the crimes are often rash and passionate and a free access to guns increase the risk of a deadly outcome.

[Gustaf]

Btw, we are on page three and still talking about the original subject. Is that a record??

[Gustaf]

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.

I know it is a minority opinion, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.  Opposing the death penalty is a minority opinion.

Doesn't make it right either.

So can we conclude that an opinion can not be justified by how many people support it?

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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!)

[Gustaf]

--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)

[Gustaf]

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)

I reread your previous post and now I understand better what you were saying. I thought the part about Supreme Court and flag-burning was directed at someone else so I didn't read it thouroughly at first.

Well, I know that not everything is decided by majority decisions and I think that is right, as I state in my post above. I was kind of making another point, but I guess what you are saying has some bearing on that too.  

There is nothing wrong with staking what the majority position is, but it should not be used as a strong argument for a view.

To Mr. Fresh: I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that a view is warranted b/c it is a minority opinion, but if there is I agree with you. I just find it weird that you seemed to be debating something which I thought rather obvious; that the number of people supporting a view does not make it right, whether they are few or many.

[Gustaf]

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)

I reread your previous post and now I understand better what you were saying. I thought the part about Supreme Court and flag-burning was directed at someone else so I didn't read it thouroughly at first.

Well, I know that not everything is decided by majority decisions and I think that is right, as I state in my post above. I was kind of making another point, but I guess what you are saying has some bearing on that too.  

There is nothing wrong with staking what the majority position is, but it should not be used as a strong argument for a view.

To Mr. Fresh: I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that a view is warranted b/c it is a minority opinion, but if there is I agree with you. I just find it weird that you seemed to be debating something which I thought rather obvious; that the number of people supporting a view does not make it right, whether they are few or many.

It was just me joking around a bit with Miamu, read his quote, then read my statement.  True, and obviously obvious.

Oh. I didn't get the joke then...(yeah, I'm thick...)

[Gustaf]

All I have to say, again, is that people should have the right to bear firearms. Gun control is stupid.

Convincing argument...

[Gustaf]

All I have to say, again, is that people should have the right to bear firearms. Gun control is stupid.

Convincing argument...

He is composed of many one-line ultra-conservative un-defended arguments.

Yeah, I've noticed.

[Gustaf]

And he wants to run for president?  Haha!!
Imagine PD in a debate.

The GOP's answer to Howard Dean...

[Gustaf]

And he wants to run for president?  Haha!!
Imagine PD in a debate.

The GOP's answer to Howard Dean...

Hey!  That's not nice..

To who? PD or Dean?

[Gustaf]

Dean.  I don't care if your nice to PD.

I suspected that...

[Gustaf]

Dean.  I don't care if your nice to PD.

I suspected that...

Nice to see we got that cleaned up, because I would send Howard dean's posse after you...

All the way to Sweden? I am shivering!

[Gustaf]

He has meetups in London.  So watch your back...

I could handle a draft dodger...

[Gustaf]

He has meetups in London.  So watch your back...

I could handle a draft dodger...

Okay, I AM sending Dean after you. That's it.  

Bring him on!

[Gustaf]

You don't know what you're asking for..

What's the worse he can do? Tax increases? Believe me, we're used to it in Sweden...

[Gustaf]

You don't know what you're asking for..

What's the worse he can do? Tax increases? Believe me, we're used to it in Sweden...

I don't remember that post.

What post? The several jravnsbo-posts about Dean advocating tax increases? Or the non-existent ones about Swedish taxes?

How can you refer to a post you don't remember???

[Gustaf]

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...

[Gustaf]

LOL,

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...

[Gustaf]

Ha, that's funny.  If I hadn't got sick with the flu and missed a speech, I would have won speaker of the year award in high school speech class.

Why is it funny?

[Gustaf]

And he wants to run for president?  Haha!!
Imagine PD in a debate.

Just to let you know, I have won every debate I've ever been in. I'm on my high school's debate team. I'm also an elected Student Senate member.

And you didn't do it by saying "ALL DOCTORS WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS ARE MURDERERS!  IF THE WOMAN IS DYING BECAUSE OF HER PREGNANCY SO BE IT!  LET HER DIE!"

You don't know what school he goes to, now do you?

I realise that I might not have stated my stance on gun control, and since we have all been requested to make long posts from now on, I will include that here to make my post "pass".

I have some sympathy for the idea of the right to bear arms, even though the constitutional amendment is horribly out-dated. It comes down to, as English pointed out, that a lot of lives can be saved by at least moderate gun control. Therefore I believe it should be excercised to some extent, but not too far, and weapons for hunting purposes and so on should obviously be more easily accessed.

So that was another boring, moderate position by me...

I have to find some issue where I am extreme...damn, it's so easy to be extreme in Sweden, you are so polarized to begin with....