6 ms·

I don't understand the US at all. You just had the most horrific school shooting and now you are forcing states that want to ban guns in certain ways from doing

I don't understand the US at all. You just had the most horrific school shooting and now you are forcing states that want to ban guns in certain ways from doing it. What happened to states rights? I also don't see how not allowing conceal carry prevents you from bearing arms when "the government is coming to get you".

FunnyBadger 4y ago
You are confusing correlation and causation. Places with Gun Control today have higher crime rates including expectation of death by gun than those that are Gun Friendly. Look at our government statistics. And the hierarchal structure of the US Constitution and legal system (based on Common Law rather than Civil Law). Constitutional Amendments are far above any other federal law - for example, state laws barring free speech are struck down because the 1A is most fundamental. But regulating milk is not. Common Law generally inverts the legislative/legal process compared to a Civic Law system. The US, all British Commonwealth Nations and US territories and commonwealths are all Common Law, and that's pretty much the only places. The rest of the world is Civil Law based on French and Roman legal traditions which operate very differently and are based on different fundamental assumptions. It's sometimes said that in Common Law, ALL things are legal except those specifically outlined by law as forbidden, while in Civil Law, ALL things are forbidden except those specifically outlined by law as allowed. That's about how big the difference is though the impact on legislative process and judicial process are nontrivial as well.
- Jcowell 4y ago
  > Places with Gun Control today have higher crime rates including expectation of death by gun than those that are Gun Friendly. Note the why is very important here. My hypothesis is that guns from Gun friendly places being funneled into Gun Control places. A solution would be banning all guns to decrease the amount of gun deaths. This, however, is not a practical solution politically for various reasons.
  - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
    "A solution would be banning all guns to decrease the amount of gun deaths. This, however, is not a practical solution politically for various reasons." It's not a practical solution, full stop. See how mass quantities of drugs are smuggled around the world; guns and the small supplies of ammo criminals use (they aren't big on practicing) are much more compact, durable etc.
    - herendin 4y ago
      >It's not a practical solution, full stop. See how mass quantities of drugs are smuggled around the world Not a good analogy. People want guns because other people have guns. But people do not want drugs because other people have drugs
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        Sometimes, but not always. Some people want to buy drugs to do drugs with other people and to fit in. If their friends or whoever didn't do drugs they may not buy drugs themself. Some people want to own guns to go hunting by themself and would still want to do it even if nobody else owned guns.
        herendin 4y ago
        Irrelevant. If only edge cases support the analogy, then the analogy is a poor one, as I said.
Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
To start getting a take on US gun culture I highly recommend this essay: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/21/the-american-indian-foundation-of-american-gun-culture/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... "You just had the most horrific school shooting and now you are forcing states that want to ban guns in certain ways from doing it." How does your system of government work at the most fundamental level? Here we have constitutional government, where the highest law in the land is a written and not easily amended document. Oh, and it's the birthday of the primary author of the opinion, who's been more and more strident about the Supreme Court allowing the courts below it to nullify their previous decisions a dozen plus years ago. "What happened to states rights?" Like the right to keep slaves? See the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. (We can tell you're not an American or are a young one because you don't know the #1 connotation of "states rights" from the civil rights era.) "I also don't see how not allowing conceal carry prevents you from bearing arms when 'the government is coming to get you'." It makes all sorts of gambits more expensive. Look for videos of subjects of the PRC being vanned and never heard from again. The shades of 100 million killed by their own governments in 20th Century tell us this is by far the most important reason for a Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA), but it's hardly comprehensive, there's such a thing as lethal force used by criminals to defend against.
- wharfjumper 4y ago
  The article footnote: By David Kopel David Kopel is Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, D.C; and Adjunct professor, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He is author of 17 books and 100 scholarly journal articles. Kopel is an NRA-certified safety instructor. The Independence Institute has received NRA contributions. Good to know.
blindmute 4y ago
Which part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? States cannot make laws overriding the constitution's bill of rights.
- jfengel 4y ago
  What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear? All of it, but it's dishonest to pretend that it doesn't exist.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    I'm so sick of hearing this talking point. It's immediately followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Who's right shall not be infringed? The militia's? No. The people's. The militia is made up of the people. The militia has historically been comprised of people bringing their own arms to fight. How do you bring your own arms, when they're banned from personal ownership? James Madison's original draft of the 2A mentioned that even those that wanted to bear arms privately for their own reasons should not be required to participate in a militia in order to do so. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. It was removed as "too verbose", but the intention still remains.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      I so sick of people quoting part of it. It's dishonest. You can tell yourself that it can be ignored but it's a lie that it doesn't exist.
      - seanw444 4y ago
        It's an explanation for why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the reason. If it said "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed only for the purpose of forming a militia." then I'd agree. But it does not.

FunnyBadger 4y ago

You are confusing correlation and causation. Places with Gun Control today have higher crime rates including expectation of death by gun than those that are Gun Friendly. Look at our government statistics. And the hierarchal structure of the US Constitution and legal system (based on Common Law rather than Civil Law). Constitutional Amendments are far above any other federal law - for example, state laws barring free speech are struck down because the 1A is most fundamental. But regulating milk is not. Common Law generally inverts the legislative/legal process compared to a Civic Law system. The US, all British Commonwealth Nations and US territories and commonwealths are all Common Law, and that's pretty much the only places. The rest of the world is Civil Law based on French and Roman legal traditions which operate very differently and are based on different fundamental assumptions. It's sometimes said that in Common Law, ALL things are legal except those specifically outlined by law as forbidden, while in Civil Law, ALL things are forbidden except those specifically outlined by law as allowed. That's about how big the difference is though the impact on legislative process and judicial process are nontrivial as well.

Jcowell 4y ago
> Places with Gun Control today have higher crime rates including expectation of death by gun than those that are Gun Friendly. Note the why is very important here. My hypothesis is that guns from Gun friendly places being funneled into Gun Control places. A solution would be banning all guns to decrease the amount of gun deaths. This, however, is not a practical solution politically for various reasons.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  "A solution would be banning all guns to decrease the amount of gun deaths. This, however, is not a practical solution politically for various reasons." It's not a practical solution, full stop. See how mass quantities of drugs are smuggled around the world; guns and the small supplies of ammo criminals use (they aren't big on practicing) are much more compact, durable etc.
  - herendin 4y ago
    >It's not a practical solution, full stop. See how mass quantities of drugs are smuggled around the world Not a good analogy. People want guns because other people have guns. But people do not want drugs because other people have drugs
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Sometimes, but not always. Some people want to buy drugs to do drugs with other people and to fit in. If their friends or whoever didn't do drugs they may not buy drugs themself. Some people want to own guns to go hunting by themself and would still want to do it even if nobody else owned guns.
      - herendin 4y ago
        Irrelevant. If only edge cases support the analogy, then the analogy is a poor one, as I said.

Throwawayaerlei 4y ago

To start getting a take on US gun culture I highly recommend this essay: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/21/the-american-indian-foundation-of-american-gun-culture/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... "You just had the most horrific school shooting and now you are forcing states that want to ban guns in certain ways from doing it." How does your system of government work at the most fundamental level? Here we have constitutional government, where the highest law in the land is a written and not easily amended document. Oh, and it's the birthday of the primary author of the opinion, who's been more and more strident about the Supreme Court allowing the courts below it to nullify their previous decisions a dozen plus years ago. "What happened to states rights?" Like the right to keep slaves? See the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. (We can tell you're not an American or are a young one because you don't know the #1 connotation of "states rights" from the civil rights era.) "I also don't see how not allowing conceal carry prevents you from bearing arms when 'the government is coming to get you'." It makes all sorts of gambits more expensive. Look for videos of subjects of the PRC being vanned and never heard from again. The shades of 100 million killed by their own governments in 20th Century tell us this is by far the most important reason for a Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA), but it's hardly comprehensive, there's such a thing as lethal force used by criminals to defend against.

wharfjumper 4y ago
The article footnote: By David Kopel David Kopel is Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, D.C; and Adjunct professor, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He is author of 17 books and 100 scholarly journal articles. Kopel is an NRA-certified safety instructor. The Independence Institute has received NRA contributions. Good to know.

blindmute 4y ago

Which part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? States cannot make laws overriding the constitution's bill of rights.

jfengel 4y ago
What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear? All of it, but it's dishonest to pretend that it doesn't exist.
- seanw444 4y ago
  I'm so sick of hearing this talking point. It's immediately followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Who's right shall not be infringed? The militia's? No. The people's. The militia is made up of the people. The militia has historically been comprised of people bringing their own arms to fight. How do you bring your own arms, when they're banned from personal ownership? James Madison's original draft of the 2A mentioned that even those that wanted to bear arms privately for their own reasons should not be required to participate in a militia in order to do so. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. It was removed as "too verbose", but the intention still remains.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    I so sick of people quoting part of it. It's dishonest. You can tell yourself that it can be ignored but it's a lie that it doesn't exist.
    - seanw444 4y ago
      It's an explanation for why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the reason. If it said "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed only for the purpose of forming a militia." then I'd agree. But it does not.