Skip to main content

View Diary: The Breaking Dawn murder plot and our love affair with guns (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Regular massacres are inevitable under our current (14+ / 0-)

    firearms policy.  Why someone needs two semi-automatic rifles and 400 rounds of ammunition immediately with no waiting period or even registration of ownership is rather beyond me.  Looks like it's going to be easier to buy guns than to vote -- what could possibly go wrong with that?

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:18:45 AM PST

    •  So they have to need them? (16+ / 0-)

      Rights based on needs are not rights of citizens.
      They are privileges granted to subjects.

      "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

      by kestrel9000 on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:42:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No one has a right not to have a waiting period (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        historys mysteries, wader

        before a firearms purchase.

        No one has a right not to have a firearms purchase registered.

        You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

        by Cartoon Peril on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:52:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In Law, show me what you propose is true. n/t (9+ / 0-)

          "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

          by meagert on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:56:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here is a link indexing some of the various (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            challenges which have been mounted against firearms possession and purchases policies: link (.PDF).  

            As you will see, practically every state or local firearms policy that you can imagine is being challenged, generally in federal court.  The report to which I have linked is dated 9/1/12 and provides present case status summaries.  Here is a sample:

            -- On 10/4/11, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that the District of Columbia’s prohibition against assault weapons and large capacity magazines is constitutional and that District law requiring basic registration of handguns is constitutional.
            The report is 12 pages long.  This, combined with consultation of the pleadings and orders in the summarized cases, would be an excellent starting point for anyone interested in what is and what is not protected under the Second Amendment.

            You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

            by Cartoon Peril on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:13:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you, but no settled Law as yet. (9+ / 0-)

              And frankly, they are an indication that hodge-podge legislative actions, willy-nilly lawsuits, and partisan lower court judicial findings do not in any way represent Constitutional Law. See my sig line.
               Not a one of us says that all legal restrictions are unconstitutional. But we do believe that it's the State's responsibility to show any incursion into a Constitutional Right be legal.
               Before you go wanting to enact new laws, you might want to do a little research into the current ones (see waiting periods, for one). Which ones are well written, or badly written. Which ones are being ignored, or over emphasized. Which ones require enormous sums of money to enact, or unenforceable requirements (see registration enactment costs, policing and confiscation efforts)

              "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

              by meagert on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:28:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The law is quite settled, as I point out below. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wader, ichibon

                All acts of the legislature, and of legislative bodies such as local governments, are presumed to be constitutional.  Otherwise a democratic government could not operate.

                Right now, my position is legally accurate in all respects, as to my knowledge no court has ruled otherwise.  You are of course entitled to believe that some court may determine otherwise.  I think that will be unlikely, but regardless of the likelihood of that occurring, until then, these laws remain fully valid and in effect.

                I should note that DC v. Heller expressed no opinion about such things as waiting periods and firearms registration.  I have my own doubts as to whether they reduce firearms violence, but I think that when and if such an issue is presented to the courts, it will be found to be well within the legislature's constitutional perogative to impose such requirements.

                You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

                by Cartoon Peril on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:44:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  And this is based on... (15+ / 0-)

          ...what, exactly?

          By that logic, then any imaginable, pointless limitations can be put on any other Civil Right.

          One can only assume, then, that you were fine with what was done to the OWS participants -- no one has a right, after all, to express their opinion in a public location at a time and place of their own choosing.

          "Free Speech zones," huzzah!  But only from the designated protest hours of 1:00 pm until 2:00 pm, and no expressions of dissent with the current governmental agencies.

          In fact, let's have people go through a waiting period before they express their opinions, and have that opinion registered and available to any future governmental agency who later decides that the person so expressing their opinion is an undesirable...

          If it's an acceptable limitation on one Civil Right, surely it's good enough for the rest of them...

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:04:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No right exists without limitations; very few (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            historys mysteries

            people are killed with insults every year, and no airplane, to my knowledge, has been hijacked with pornography.

            You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

            by Cartoon Peril on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:14:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And...? (13+ / 0-)

              How is this, in any way, responsive to the questions I posed?

              At no point did I state that any rights exist without limitation, so that insinuation is simply a strawman, at best.

              And that is, of course, aside from the fact that, if you believe speech has never been used to incite violence, then you are woefully uninformed.

              Such being the case, and that speech can, in fact, lead to violence, then there is no logical reason why your proposed limitation on one Civil Right should not be imposed upon the other.

              Well, I suppose you could be inconsistent about it, and demand one set of restrictions but not the other, but that would be rather hypocritical, in my opinion.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:21:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  That's not something that's true (13+ / 0-)

          just because you say it is.

          I say that mandatory registration violates my Second Amendment rights. See, "shall not be infringed."
          And that's true because I say it is. Therefore, your "true because you say it is" is hereby voided by my "true because I say it is." That's because I said it second and two's a higher number.
          Now:
          Black black no tap back.
          So there.

          I don't mind a three day waiting period for me, anyway, because that's how it is for me. I have  a common last name and i live on the other side of the country from where I was born. I can't walk into a gun shop and walk out with a gun. I have to come back in three days - sooner if the dealer thinks to call and check. If they don't hear back in three days, it's considered  a clear.

          "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

          by kestrel9000 on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:07:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As a constitutional matter, acts of a legislature (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            historys mysteries, ichibon, cany

            are presumed to be constitutional, so it is not a tit for tat situation.  Unless and until a law can be shown to be unconstitutional, it is constitutional.  

            No court has to my knowledge ever ruled that a waiting period or a registration requirement is unconstitutional.  Hence those requirements are constitutional.

            On a broader scope, I think it quite unlikely that any court will find such requirements to be unconstitutional.  Please refer to the report I mention upthread for a summary of the various legal actions related to these and many other firearms regulations.

            You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

            by Cartoon Peril on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:19:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is not true (6+ / 0-)

              States enact all kinds of Laws that are not Constitutional, even their own State Constitutions. You know what happens when you presume.....

              "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

              by meagert on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:43:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Consult your precedents again, here is a (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ichibon, cany

                summary from the normally batty Professor Volokh (link):

                The United States Supreme Court has long imposed a presumption of constitutionality on judicial review of statutes, not a presumption of unconstitutionality. See, e.g, O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 282 U.S. 251, 257-58 (1931) (citing cases). Further, the Court has described the presumption of constitutionality as “strong” when courts review an act of Congress. See, e.g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 416 (1976).

                You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

                by Cartoon Peril on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:52:40 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  How About a Waiting Period for Voting?? (7+ / 0-)

          Or speaking??

          Anybody willing to ignore existing laws against murder, rape, robbery and general mayhem is not going to be dismayed by a restriction on how much ammo they can get in a single trip to Walmart.

          True bipartisanship is prosecuting criminals regardless of Party.

          by The Baculum King on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:16:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  So, how many SUCCESSFUL mass killings has MO (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          had with our zero wait time?

          How many folks in IL get shot, especially in East St Louis?

          Almost none of the criminals in IL that conduct their business with firearms have valid FOID cards.  How does Illinois law prevent murder?

          Gun restrictions are not safety measures, see my sig line to get an idea how I got to that concept.

          Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
          Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
          Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

          by ErikO on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:47:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I just purchased 6 pistols (14+ / 0-)

      Somewhat embarrassing but I lowballed them with a telephone bid at an estate auction.  Evidently, I was the only bidder.  Does this mean BATF should kick in my door?

      I would also observe that I used to have an FFL and an explosives license and I need to renew my CWP.  The guns are now legally registered and all the transfer paperwork is in order.

      I would also observe most hunters own between a couple and dozen long guns at any given time.  When is two guns too many?  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site