Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And you will assume they got it right without thinking for yourself?
Why has any of the constitution and its interpretation changed since it was written then if your contention is that it was right all along from the start?

It isn't the Bible, or the Pope.

The Constitution has changed 27 times, remarkable for a 200 year old document. But it changes when Americans think it needs change. I'm sorry you are unhappy about it but we'll let you know when it gets changed by overwhelming popular demand. Until then manufacturers of firearms operate within the law, as do gun shops and gun owners. If they don't there are sanctions in law to remove those constitutional rights afforded the citizen and legal resident.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

If it wasn't fit for purpose it would be changed. Prohibition was such an amendment that was repealed. Clearly Americans do not wish it changed.

Oh, then why do constitutional amendments exist if it was always right? Who claimed Amercans wanted it changed? It must be you because nobody else here has said that, much like nobody here has said the US isn't a democracy.

MadsL wrote: »

I think you are very much confusing a right with exercising a right. I am free to own a gun, and join a militia. However, my right to own a gun does not depend on service in a militia. However, I am free to exercise my right to serve in a militia should the need arise. Are we clear now?

Then what has "well regulated militia" to do with "right to bear arms"? There is no need for these to be in the same sentence unless there is a connection between them, which you are denying exists.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh, is it an either/or choice? Do explain.

Since I appear to have to: we have less gun ownership and therefore less massacres. Yes, these things are connected. It is an either/or.

MadsL wrote: »

I think we have already been warned on bickering, I have provided you with the relevant quote from George Mason explaining his view. I suggest you read it. Militia = the whole people.

Quoting stuff not in constitution by one guy writing constitution equally renounced by other guys writing constitution... nah, yer alright, ta.

Dan_Solo

Beano wrote: »

i think its best to leave him to it MadSL . he has no intention of listening to any opinion that isnt his own.

You are aware of the PM function? You should try it sometime if you want to have a private conversation. Otherwise this just looks petulant.

Beano

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are aware of the PM function? You should try it sometime if you want to have a private conversation. Otherwise this just looks petulant.

how anything looks to you is irrelevant to me.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

It isn't the Bible, or the Pope.

The Constitution has changed 27 times, remarkable for a 200 year old document. But it changes when Americans think it needs change. I'm sorry you are unhappy about it but we'll let you know when it gets changed by overwhelming popular demand. Until then manufacturers of firearms operate within the law, as do gun shops and gun owners. If they don't there are sanctions in law to remove those constitutional rights afforded the citizen and legal resident.

Again, entirely irrelevant as to whether 2A serves the American people's needs best.
You don't appear to be capable of arguing the fitness of the amendment without constantly reminding us all that, omg, the amendment exists as it is and can only be changed democratically, without a single person in this entire thread saying anything to the contrary.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh, then why do constitutional amendments exist if it was always right? Who claimed Amercans wanted it changed? It must be you because nobody else here has said that, much like nobody here has said the US isn't a democracy.

Read my post above.

Then what has "well regulated militia" to do with "right to bear arms"? There is no need for these to be in the same sentence unless there is a connection between them, which you are denying exists.

There is every connection between them - the potential need for a militia to defend the people from the State is pretty well spelled out above. This is why the people have a right to carry arms.
Do please read what I quoted. It is very clear. Or try this;

No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havock, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally difusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?

Since I appear to have to: we have less gun ownership and therefore less massacres. Yes, these things are connected. It is an either/or.
.

Explain the existence of school shootings in the UK then, one of the most restrictive gun policies in the world. Or the lack of them in Switzerland, the fourth highest level of gun ownership in the world.

Quoting stuff not in constitution by one guy writing constitution equally renounced by other guys writing constitution... nah, yer alright, ta

As much as you put your fingers in your ears and go nah-nah-nah, the history of the 2A is very clear if you actually try and understand US history.

But you really aren't reading my posts are you?

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again, entirely irrelevant as to whether 2A serves the American people's needs best.
You don't appear to be capable of arguing the fitness of the amendment without constantly reminding us all that, omg, the amendment exists as it is and can only be changed democratically, without a single person in this entire thread saying anything to the contrary.

In the absence of your proposals as to how to change it undemocratically, or remove millions of guns in private ownership, the only constant we can discuss is the 2A.

Perhaps we could hear your proposed amendment?

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Explain the existence of school shootings in the UK then, one of the most restrictive gun policies in the world. Or the lack of them in Switzerland, the fourth highest level of gun ownership in the world.

You are insisting I explain individual data points in a discussion about statistics. Apologies, but I will refuse to do so.
http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-research-shows-link-between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/
In US states there is a proven correlation between ownership and homicide. (BTW, anecdotes cannot refute this correlation, in case you were about to try that one again)

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are insisting I explain individual data points in a discussion about statistics. Apologies, but I will refuse to do so.
http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-research-shows-link-between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/
In US states there is a proven correlation between ownership and homicide. (BTW, anecdotes cannot refute this correlation, in case you were about to try that one again)

And John Lott has highlighted significant difficulty with the statistical methods used by that study.

that a count data approach was not used with actual count data and that the regressions didn’t use the most basic controls for panel data

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/problems-with-public-health-research-michael-siegel-craig-ross-and-charles-king-the-relationship-between-gun-ownership-and-firearm-homicide-rates-in-the-united-states-1981-2010-ajph/

Again, you are not reading my posts. I asked for your proposals to change the right to bear arms, not a (potentially flawed) study on gun violence.

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's the actual ratified wording of the 2nd amendment.
Does the US still need a regulated militia to ensure it's continuing existence? If you are not in a regulated militia, where does your automatic right to bear arms come from under the constitution?

Although the militia is considered to be the most important reason for the right for federal purposes, as the court has observed, the right pre-exists the Bill of Rights for non-militia purposes as well.

It says "well regulated militia". Very clearly. Can you point me to this "well regulated militia" in the USA that has 100,000,000 members? Ta. (boo hoo in advance when you can't find it).

The US's Federal Militia consists of approximately 58 million members, which, though not 100 million, isn't bad. Many citizens are also members of State militias, and a number are members of State militias without being part of the Federal militia. (With 50 States, I'm not about to go look up all the numbers)

It is argued that under current policies, the Federal Militia's construct which excludes almost all females, is at least due for review if not outright unconstitutional under current equality precedent, that would bring the figure up to the 100million, but that's a hypothetical not relevant to current legislation.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Again, you are not reading my posts. I asked for your proposals to change the right to bear arms, not a (potentially flawed) study on gun violence.

I hadn't realised I was required to answer any and every half baked irrelevant question of yours. Just this once, as apparently you pretend people haven't read your posts properly every time they prove you wrong.
2A needs redrafting to protect American citizens from guns held outside "well regulated" militia, military and law enforcement. Why do you need a proposed exact wording?

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US's Federal Militia consists of approximately 58 million members, which, though not 100 million, isn't bad.

Why are you deliberately omitting the word "reserve" from this number? How can they be "well regulated" as required by 2A, when they have received zero training and indeed have never received even correspondence from their state national guard?

Manic Moran

What 'reserve'? Who constitutes the Militia of the United States is defined in Title 10, US Code. Regulation thereof means that the US Government knows who is in it, and has a mechanism for its call-up and use, and rules for the administration and operation when called up. It does know, and it has such mechanisms. Please note, for example, the difference between the US Army and the Army of the United States

Training is irrelevant to regulation, although it is has been the position of the government that having people who already know how to use a rifle when inducted for service is in the military interest as they are more competent after training, hence the creation of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Submissions to that nature were also made in the Supreme Court case on the matter.

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

What 'reserve'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#The_reserve_militia
Will you edit that page please if it doesn't match your better terminology?
Knowing somebody's name and age doesn't strike me as being a "well regulated" militia TBH.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

My point is very simple. Americans have felt no need to change the 2A in over two hundred years.

That's right, the judiciary have instead. You can thank people like The Heritage Foundation and its agent, Mr Justice Scalia, for the Supreme Courts limp aberrations of judgements in recent times.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I hadn't realised I was required to answer any and every half baked irrelevant question of yours. Just this once, as apparently you pretend people haven't read your posts properly every time they prove you wrong.

What do you suggest you have "proved wrong" exactly?

2A needs redrafting to protect American citizens from guns held outside "well regulated" militia, military and law enforcement.

How many times do you have to be told that the application of the second amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court extends to individual rights to bear arms, regardless of, and in spite of a "well regulated" militia, military and law enforcement.

We've already established this - clearly you are not listening.

Why do you need a proposed exact wording?

Well if you quibbling with the wording, you could at least suggest an alternative. It's less than 30 words, not like you are being asked to re-write Magna Carta.

If you cannot provide a wording, could you describe a methodology for removing this ammendment from 50 states constitutions, and the US Constitution and then disarming a few hundred million Americans?

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#The_reserve_militia
Will you edit that page please if it doesn't match your better terminology?
Knowing somebody's name and age doesn't strike me as being a "well regulated" militia TBH.

I have given up on trying to change Wiki for the better. Look at the discussion I've had on the talk page for the entry for the M36 tank destroyer as an exercise in frustration.

However, I don't really care what the Wiki page calls it. US law calls it "the militia of the United States." I'll go with that.

Pretty much by definition, any militia is a reserve component. Again, 'regulation' means an administrative function to include knowing who's a member, and mechanisms for raising, operating (including training, equipping, discipline etc) and funding that force. The US has all such mechanisms in place.

Manic Moran

MadsL wrote: »

If you cannot provide a wording, could you describe a methodology for removing this ammendment from 50 states constitutions, and the US Constitution and then disarming a few hundred million Americans?

I think it's about 43 State Constitutions. A small number, to include my own California, are silent on the matter of arms.

MadsL

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it's about 43 State Constitutions. A small number, to include my own California, are silent on the matter of arms.

Thanks for the correction, noted. Useful in case I get "proved wrong" by citing 50 rather than 43.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

How many times do you have to be told that the application of the second amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court extends to individual rights to bear arms, regardless of, and in spite of a "well regulated" militia, military and law enforcement.

We've already established this - clearly you are not listening.

No we haven't established this, apparently you are not listening.
The Supreme court decided the "well regulated militia" had no connection at all to the "right to bear arms" despite them being in the same sentence. This is clearly incorrect. Why mention the "well regulated militia" at all if it has no bearing on the right to bear arms.
Yes, democracy, that's the way it is, they know better, yadda yadda. You clearly cannot read, listen, understand etc etc.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

If you cannot provide a wording, could you describe a methodology for removing this ammendment from 50 states constitutions, and the US Constitution and then disarming a few hundred million Americans?

Again, you might be happy with new wording for a constitution drafted by one guy in five minutes. Thankfully few countries on earth agree.
Gun ownership is apparently around 100 million in the US, not "a few hundred", but that's another utterly pointless thing to raise. It's either the right thing or the wrong thing for 100 million civilians to have firearms. Whether the people can be made accept democratically decided laws in their own country is irrelevant as to whether that law is of overall benefit or not.

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The Supreme court decided the "well regulated militia" had no connection at all to the "right to bear arms" despite them being in the same sentence. This is clearly incorrect.

You are correct. The above statement is indeed incorrect, as that is not what they decided. They decidd that the people have a right to arms separate from and in addition to the militia issue, not instead of.

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are correct. The above statement is indeed incorrect, as that is not what they decided. They decidd that the people have a right to arms separate from and in addition to the militia issue, not instead of.

Then why is a well regulated militia mentioned in the same sentence if it has no connection to the right to bear arms?

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Whether the people can be made accept democratically decided laws in their own country is irrelevant as to whether that law is of overall benefit or not.

This is true, although I'm not entirely sure the relevance in this case. The people on the US as a whole are supportive of the concept of individuals having firearms, which generally matches with the laws in place. It is certainly true that the the majority of the population would like to see changes in the specifics of the laws, though finding some form of consensus as to the nature of those changes is proving far more difficult.

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Then why is a well regulated militia mentioned in the same sentence if it has no connection to the right to bear arms?

What part of "in addition to" did you miss?

donvito99

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Then why is a well regulated militia mentioned in the same sentence if it has no connection to the right to bear arms?

They deal with it - the prefatory clause - in the same way that Scalia dealt with it in the Heller case, ignore it entirely.

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

What part of "in addition to" did you miss?

Where is "in addition to" alluded to in the amendment?

Beano

donvito99 wrote: »

They deal with it - the prefatory clause - in the same way that Scalia dealt with it in the Heller case, ignore it entirely.

perhaps you should read the decision. i posted a link to it earlier

donvito99

Beano wrote: »

perhaps you should read the decision. i posted a link to it earlier

Can you point out where in Heller the SC deals with prefatory clause bit? Because they don't, maybe in a dissenting judgement, but they just don't.

And in doing so, they have ignored decades of precedent and, more critically, jurisprudence.

Beano

donvito99 wrote: »

Can you point out where in Heller the SC deals with prefatory clause bit? Because they don't, maybe in a dissenting judgement, but they just don't.

And in doing so, they have ignored decades of precedent and, more critically, jurisprudence.

pages 22 to 25 of the decision cover the prefatory clause. 25 to 27 cover the relationship between the prefatory and operative clauses. would you like me to quote all of it?