Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

More recently, in Heller
Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia

Best SCOTUS money could buy.

 

[iceaura]

Best SCOTUS money could buy.

When reason is abandoned, power and money win.

The 2nd Amendment clearly and plainly establishes an individual American citizen's C right to own and carry a firearm suitable for use (at need) in a militia , the (asserted to be necessary) means for securing their freedom.

Screwing around with the plain reading of the Bill of Rights, especially in order to reduce their protections, is dangerous. You hand power like that to a government, it won't be handed back without a struggle.

In this case, it is also unnecessary. The goal is reduction of gun violence in the US, in part via greater restrictions and greater accountability attached to firearm ownership and use? Then means of statutory law and custom are ready to hand - could be in place by next December. There is solid majority support, a political wave and motivation available, and an election at hand.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're thinking that the drunks with guns could fight the US military and win? ROFLMAO.

 

[iceaura]

You're thinking that the drunks with guns could fight the US military and win? ROFLMAO.

I'm thinking that people as incapable of reason as to still be talking like that will appear to be untrustworthy and unreliable repositories of political power come November - to large numbers of reasonable voters.

And I'm thinking there's a reason the Republicans - who have great influence on media framing - are setting gun control up as a 2nd Amendment fight on the eve of an election.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One side of their mouth says "We don't obey any law that takes our guns!"

The other side says "We won't give up our guns no matter what the law."

Their toys are more important the integrity of the United States.

 

[iceaura]

One side of their mouth says "We don't obey any law that takes our guns!"

The other side says "We won't give up our guns no matter what the law."

Their toys are more important the integrity of the United States.

And that has what, exactly, to do with the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And that has what, exactly, to do with the 2nd Amendment?

First time visiting this planet?

 

[billvon]

Their toys are more important the integrity of the United States.

Of course they are.

They are the most loyal patriots the world has ever seen - until something doesn't go their way. Then the US is a corrupt dictatorship where freedom has been abolished, because they can't get that 150-round drum for their AR-15.

 

[iceaura]

They are the most loyal patriots the world has ever seen - until something doesn't go their way. Then the US is a corrupt dictatorship where freedom has been abolished, because they can't get that 150-round drum for their AR-15.

So blow them off. A whack minority that small cannot swing an election - appeal to the large fraction of reasonable voters, by making sense.

 

[sculptor]

A few years ago, I decided to get a hunting licence so I could hunt deer on the government/army corps/dnr land. (I mostly hunt my own land)
That was the last time I took a shot over 500 yards. I had the 300 win mag and thought that as it was made for the long shot maybe I should let it stretch it's legs. Ok so I took the shot and dropped a buck-------------now came the hard part, I had to drag the damned heavy beast over 1/2 a mile to get it home.
(gasp, pant, wheeze)
Ok back on topic, when I asked for the licence: The clerk asked my age. It seems that if born after a certain date you need to show that you have completed an approved Hunter Education course.
Perhaps such a training course for anyone seeking to buy a firearm might not be a bad idea? I would go a step further for those wishing to buy a machine gun.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So blow them off. A whack minority that small cannot swing an election - appeal to the large fraction of reasonable voters, by making sense.

NRA TV appeals to Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, and they do it well. They have no need to be rational.

 

[billvon]

So blow them off. A whack minority that small cannot swing an election - appeal to the large fraction of reasonable voters, by making sense.

While you often post some pretty silly stuff, I have no desire to "blow you off."

 

[sculptor]

NRA TV appeals to Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, and they do it well. They have no need to be rational.

OK
after your prodding, I finally keyboarded in nra tv and................well.......boring
Do you watch this a lot?
If so:
Why?

 

[Vociferous]

That's not true. You have been watching too much TV - in real life, people are often arrested and convicted (or pressed to plea bargain) of crimes based on interrogations and interviews and evidence obtained thereby, without any Hollywood confession moment.

Only when they do not heed the opportunity to "remain silent."

To repeat: Witnesses, bank and phone records, interviews checked against each other, undercover stuff, physical traces, and of course surveillance etc, all the ordinary police stuff.

It works the same with guns as with anything else.

Still a lot of vague stuff you haven't managed to put into any concrete example of real-world enforcement.

Perhaps those that support the NRA position, could as a part of their patriotic duty volunteer to protect schools with out any payment for doing so.... thus demonstrating their commitment to the 2nd and the safety of school children.
Where were they when the school in Florida was shot up?
Doesn't self-defense extend to protecting your children in schools?

Not in many states, where only law enforcement is allowed to be armed on school grounds. You've heard of "gun-free zones", right?

irrelevant. the state recognizes positive rights that you don't like that is as i said irrelevant.

Then you should be able to give me an example of a "state recognizes positive right."

true and no one is asking that. all people are saying is one has the right to have access to it.

No, "access" would imply a positive right not granted in Roe v Wade.

"medicine predate history"? That's obviously and ignorantly wrong.

just because your ignorant doesn't make your ignorance as fact. archeological evidences shows the plants with medicinal value have been being used since the paleolithic era. around 60,000 years ago. considering history only goes back 7 or 8 thousand years yeah medicine predates history.

"Plants with medicinal value" is very far from recognizing it as medicine.

this is why people mock the right wing you say stupid shit like this. i suggest you go read a dictionary and learn what the term slave labor means. no is calling for changing doctors up and forcing them to provide health care to people. when intelligent people speak of the right to health insurance we are talking of a universal health care system in which people have access to health insurance so that that they can pay for health care or as you call it slave labor.

All universal healthcare systems invariably curtail how much doctors can make. Many left healthcare over Obamacare regulations, and the UK faces healthcare worker shortages.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/health/obamacare-doctor-shortage/index.html
http://www.theweek.co.uk/checked-out/88286/the-truth-about-nhs-staff-shortages
I guess longer wait times and poorer quality of care are better than slavery.

intent matters. that they fucked up is bad but wasn't intentional. you demand a system that intentionally makes it easier for the cartels to get guns.

People not realizing that intentionally giving cartels guns was a bad idea are criminally negligent morons.
You haven't shown that current law arms cartels. And even if you could, your own argument about intent would equally apply.

so your arguing the second amendment doesn't provide females the right to keep guns? god your sexist asshole. i don't believe in the manufactrured right to a gun but at least i believe females should have access to a gun.

No, I'm saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You're the one who asked:

could you please explain how a gun registry has anything to do with prevent the fwederal government from disarming the state miltias?

Were you unaware that militias of that time were solely men?
How do you justify thinking both that the right to a gun is "manufactured" AND that "females should have access to a gun"? Sounds contradictory.

which despite your ignorant caterwauling is not a violation of the second amendment.

Try reading the Federalist Papers.

what is your obsession with feces? are you perhaps a coprophiliac? i don't care mind but i do think its weird you get aroused by shit and perhaps would be better served keeping that fetish to yourself.

Why am I not surprise that you know all about such fetishes.

i can quote cases too

US vs miller said no such thing thats you reaching. miller stated the opposite against an individual right. it specified that the second amendment only held military weapons as allowed as that is what you would be called to bring when called. gun nuts like you have a long history of twisting things to suit your purposes. also do you even no how miller got before the supreme court? the appelate justice ruled in favor of miller cause he was a bank robber who wouldn't be able to show before the supreme court. he did this so when it would go before the supreme court with the government appeal there would be no one arguing against it and the government gun control argument would win. in fact the unanimous opinion flat out stated the secondamedment dealt with military service.

Yep, a sawed-off shotgun was not considered a militia weapon, so it was not covered by the 2nd Amendment, implying that militia weapons are covered, and for "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." " And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

or this quote from
Aymette v. State


or the state vs buzzard 2 years later in this dissenting view


Salina v. Blaksley

State courts don't apply nationally, nor do they establish Supreme Court precedent. You're desperately reaching.

again with presser you reach the individiual right that presser wrote of was to serve in the armed forces in the common good of the united states not gun ownership.

I quoted the Presser opinion. Here it is again:

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."​

again with Cruikshank your distorting the meaning of the ruling based on your own wants and biases. all this case states was that it was the states perogatives to regulate guns not creating an individual right. this lying detroys your credibility but as you've previosly stated you don't care about credibility you only care about pushing the lie.

Again, I quoted that opinion:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."​

It literally says that the right is not granted by or dependent upon the Constitution, but shall not be infringed.

again with the coprophilia ill leave the shit slinging to you monkey boy its about all your good for.

You're projecting, since you're the only one who has been getting graphic about defecating. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...fficult-in-the-us.160567/page-31#post-3511168

i passed first grade english thank you very much

Thanks for letting me know. I couldn't determine that from your posts.

that you rely on it to make an argument is rather telling can you not think better. whether or not the other parts are complete or incomplete sentences is irrelevant every part has meaning or are you going to be the second person on this to site to actually argue that we can just ignore parts of legal documents as fluff? cause i believe your on that level

If you really think incomplete thoughts can be operative phrases, that's on you and your "first grade english."
Prefatory phrases are not irrelevant or fluff. They are justifications for the operative phrase, that specifies "the people", not the militia.
But be proud of that "first grade english." I'm sure many people in Appalachia don't even make it that far.

not really there is nothing in the second amendment that prevents a national gun registry nothing unless of course who hold to the idea of it being an unlimited right which given your shit throwing argument is what your arguing

Again, try reading the Federalist Papers.

 

[iceaura]

Only when they do not heed the opportunity to "remain silent."

Can't do "he said she said" without saying anything.
And then there's the witnesses, evidence - - it's almost as if investigating crimes were something the police do.

Still a lot of vague stuff you haven't managed to put into any concrete example of real-world enforcement.

The police have no problem making concepts such as "questioning witnesses" and "gathering evidence" concrete.

 

[iceaura]

NRA TV appeals to Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, and they do it well. They have no need to be rational.

But liberals, and those seeking to justify new laws, do.
Irrationality and fearmongering only works for the bad guys.

While you often post some pretty silly stuff, I have no desire to "blow you off."

But no desire to deal with my posting, either, apparently.
A dilemma?
Fortunately, the people one needs to blow off in pursuit of sane gun control are not presenting difficult arguments - neither are they politically powerful.

So imho: The key is in not alienating the majority of sensible adults by presenting them with irrational threats and badly confused justifications and naively disingenuous pretendings. Demonstrate one's accountability to reason and fact, and the reasonable will gather 'round in support - that's my theory.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

OK
after your prodding, I finally keyboarded in nra tv and................well.......boring
Do you watch this a lot?
If so:
Why?

I don't watch much at of it at all (not enough anti-nausea meds), but gun nuts eat it up, world class confirmation bias going on there. Just about any pro-gun argument you see on the web either originated there or is repeated there for others to parrot.

 

[sculptor]

Via Heller & Caetano: Is this legal?
Remington 870 Tac-14 12 Gauge Firearm 5 Rounds 14” Barrel Raptor Pistol Grip

https://www.targetsportsusa.com/remington-870-tac-14-12-gauge-shotgun-81230-p-76972.aspx

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In which state?

 

[sculptor]

In which state?

all ?