Can we have a rational discussion about guns and why the typical arguments for gun control and its implementation won't work?

[highfigh]

Well, of course no reasonable person would want a violent person to have permission to have a firearm. I was just making the point that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and can be infringed. Therefore, I can see no constitutional impediment to compulsory background checks and licensing - in ALL circumstances - as a condition for permission to possess a firearm. Judicial decisions to the contrary are clearly politically motivated.

And, no question, such requirements won't prevent criminals being criminals, or stupid people being stupid.

I think the use of "shall not..." was used because it carries more weight than "will not". I also think there was a good amount of assumption that people would act in a lawful manner but they already had laws pertaining to murder and I don't remember hearing that murderers were ever released, so repeating that particular crime in the outside world was very unlikely. Look at the penalties used by England in the past- placing heavy stones on the chest of a person, dungeons, beheading, drawing and quartering- hardly civil punishments for crimes that are also uncivil. Now, we have people placing their signature on a document after the judge asks "You'll be good, right?".

 

[highfigh]

Let there be no doubt - I certainly support banning anyone convicted of serious violent crimes or drug offences (they often go hand-in-hand) from owning firearms.

You know that reputation of extremely polite Canadians? We don't have that. Here, people kill because of the way the dead person looked at the killer- sometimes called 'mean-mugging'. Being mad about the way someone looked at them is effing kindergarten behavior!

 

[Trell]

You know that reputation of extremely polite Canadians? ...

You think of the reputation of those Canadians that are extremely polite as opposed to the rest of them?

 

[highfigh]

You think of the reputation of those Canadians that are extremely polite as opposed to the rest of them?

No, compared to many Americans.

 

[Trell]

No, compared to many Americans.

I'm just pulling your leg

 

[highfigh]

I'm just pulling your leg

Again with the leg-pulling- I'm already walking in circles.

 

[GO-NAD!]

At some point, rights just need to be taken away after committing certain crimes. When someone can't obey laws, some kind of penalty is in order and when someone uses a gun to kill during the commission of a crime or if they use it intentionally, they should never be allowed to possess another. Spraying lead has become a first choice when a conflict arises and people really need to realize that they should just walk away. IMO, if someone is found guilty of intentional homicide and it's not a wrongful conviction, they should stay in prison. I don't think justice is served when someone is released after the minimum imposed time but that begs the questions:

How can we get people to stop killing as a casual act?
What should be done with all of the murderers?

I wonder...does the degree of latitude granted for legal uses of firearms expand the circumstances under which people will be motivated to use firearms illegally? For example - and yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy - where a speed limit was 50mph and people typically drove at 60mph, is now 60mph and people typically drive at 70mph.

As far as I'm concerned, George Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter, if not second degree murder. There was no justification for him shooting Trayvon Martin. He did not need to accost the kid, no matter what he suspected.

Here in Canada, this case was very controversial:
Shooting of Colten Boushie - Wikipedia

I believe Gerald Stanley was guilty of manslaughter, or at a minimum, criminal negligence causing death. Whatever illegal activities Boushie and his friends were up to, his shooting was unjustified. Stanley wasn't even charged with unsafe storage of a firearm.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I think the use of "shall not..." was used because it carries more weight than "will not". I also think there was a good amount of assumption that people would act in a lawful manner but they already had laws pertaining to murder and I don't remember hearing that murderers were ever released, so repeating that particular crime in the outside world was very unlikely. Look at the penalties used by England in the past- placing heavy stones on the chest of a person, dungeons, beheading, drawing and quartering- hardly civil punishments for crimes that are also uncivil. Now, we have people placing their signature on a document after the judge asks "You'll be good, right?".

I'm sure the authors of the second amendment couldn't conceive of anything more deadly than a musket, as well.

 

[highfigh]

I wonder...does the degree of latitude granted for legal uses of firearms expand the circumstances under which people will be motivated to use firearms illegally? For example - and yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy - where a speed limit was 50mph and people typically drove at 60mph, is now 60mph and people typically drive at 70mph.

As far as I'm concerned, George Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter, if not second degree murder. There was no justification for him shooting Trayvon Martin. He did not need to accost the kid, no matter what he suspected.

Here in Canada, this case was very controversial:
Shooting of Colten Boushie - Wikipedia

I believe Gerald Stanley was guilty of manslaughter, or at a minimum, criminal negligence causing death. Whatever illegal activities Boushie and his friends were up to, his shooting was unjustified. Stanley wasn't even charged with unsafe storage of a firearm.

The opinions of the jury determine the verdict- I assume the potential jurors are queried as they are here, but if the prosecutor doesn't dig deeply enough or present a convincing case, the guy's gonna walk. I'd like to see more about that 'hang fire'- how long, exactly, was the delay?

I guess the US isn't the only place where First Nation people don't get equal treatment. Hmmm.

The amount of latitude depends on location, too- in Texas, a homeowner called 911 to report that his neighbor's house was being entered and he went out to confront them. The operator told him to stay inside after he told the operator that he was going to get his shotgun. He did go out and IIRC, he shot two, killing one. He got off. He was in no danger, so that should have been intentional homicide.

 

[highfigh]

I'm sure the authors of the second amendment couldn't conceive of anything more deadly than a musket, as well.

I bet they could-

The first machine gun was invented before the Revolutionary War

Invented in 1718, the "Puckle Gun" is the first weapon to be called a "machine gun," but it doesn't look much like the modern version.

www.wearethemighty.com

 

[GO-NAD!]

You know that reputation of extremely polite Canadians? We don't have that. Here, people kill because of the way the dead person looked at the killer- sometimes called 'mean-mugging'. Being mad about the way someone looked at them is effing kindergarten behavior!

It's all a matter of perception. We've got our fair share of assholes, too.

I have visited the US many times. I can't recall any unpleasant encounters with Americans.

Actually, there was an incident in Papa Joe's bar outside the gates of Roosevelt Roads many years ago. A Seabee deliberately drove his shoulder into my back as he walked by. Yadda, yaddah, yaddah...the entire place erupts into a brawl. When the dust settled, I stayed, he was punted from the bar.

Other than that, it's been all good.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The opinions of the jury determine the verdict- I assume the potential jurors are queried as they are here, but if the prosecutor doesn't dig deeply enough or present a convincing case, the guy's gonna walk. I'd like to see more about that 'hang fire'- how long, exactly, was the delay?

I guess the US isn't the only place where First Nation people don't get equal treatment. Hmmm.

The amount of latitude depends on location, too- in Texas, a homeowner called 911 to report that his neighbor's house was being entered and he went out to confront them. The operator told him to stay inside after he told the operator that he was going to get his shotgun. He did go out and IIRC, he shot two, killing one. He got off. He was in no danger, so that should have been intentional homicide.

I don't know if that info is available in any public sources. I haven't seen it anyway.

I don't know what it will take to achieve reconciliation with the indigenous peoples, but we have a long way to go.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I bet they could-

The first machine gun was invented before the Revolutionary War

Invented in 1718, the "Puckle Gun" is the first weapon to be called a "machine gun," but it doesn't look much like the modern version.

www.wearethemighty.com

I've heard of the Puckle gun. It didn't receive rave reviews. There were so few made (perhaps just two), it's quite conceivable that they had never heard of it.

Round bullets for shooting Christians, square ones for use on Turks. The field of ballistics must have been unknown to Puckle.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Yeah, I get that. But, the point behind my question still stands - that the "uninfringeable" right is actually "infringeable". And, if that right can be infringed, it's just a political question as to the degree of infringement that is instituted.

Actually, it's a question for the courts, not politics. Congress, states, counties, and cities, etc, can pass laws as they choose. If someone believes the law is, for example, unconstitutional, a plaintiff has to present their case in a federal court. If a court decides against the plaintiff, they can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, but that takes a lot of time and money. And a court may decline to hear the case, effectively supporting the lower court ruling without saying anything. Many gun laws have just never been challenged or tried, or the cases haven't been chosen to be heard. For example, some concealed carry laws, post-conviction possession restrictions, permits, licenses, whatever. Depending on the judges these could be determined to be unconstitutional. The US legal system is not a deterministic process. Perhaps Mr. Clark can jump in and comment.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Actually, it's a question for the courts, not politics. Congress, states, counties, and cities, etc, can pass laws as they choose. If someone believes the law is, for example, unconstitutional, a plaintiff has to present their case in a federal court. If a court decides against the plaintiff, they can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, but that takes a lot of time and money. And a court may decline to hear the case, effectively supporting the lower court ruling without saying anything. Many gun laws have just never been challenged or tried, or the cases haven't been chosen to be heard. For example, some concealed carry laws, post-conviction possession restrictions, permits, licenses, whatever. Depending on the judges these could be determined to be unconstitutional. The US legal system is not a deterministic process. Perhaps Mr. Clark can jump in and comment.

I was alluding to the politicization of American courts - especially the SCOTUS - as decisions on major/polarizing issues tend to be rather partisan.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I was alluding to the politicization of American courts - especially the SCOTUS - as decisions on major/polarizing issues tend to be rather partisan.

It has always been that way. Is there a country where the courts aren't politicized?

 

[GO-NAD!]

It has always been that way. Is there a country where the courts aren't politicized?

Well, the perception here is that the SCOTUS is quite politically biased, while up here...not so much. Of course, there wouldn't be a judge in any country whose philosophy or political leanings didn't influence their decisions, but it seems to be far more muted here. You just don't see blatant efforts to stack a court with a view to flipping previous decisions - such as conservative hopes to get wade v. rowe overturned.
Why Canada Doesn’t Have The Same Partisan Supreme Court Fights As The U.S. | HuffPost Canada Politics (huffingtonpost.ca)
Unlike the U.S., Canada does not do spectacle when it comes to picking Supreme Court judges | National Post

I'm not suggesting that the process is superior here, but it's certainly different.

 

[Alex2507]

I don't know what it will take to achieve reconciliation with the indigenous peoples,

Give 'em their land back and go back to Europe.

 

[panteragstk]

Give 'em their land back and go back to Europe.

Something tells me we won't quite be welcome.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Give 'em their land back and go back to Europe.

How can I "go back to Europe" if I wasn't born there?