Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…6781012

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Beano wrote: »
    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?

    The majority deal with the 2nd Amendment in the same way the NRA deal with it.

    http://s13.photobucket.com/user/pisgah/media/000_0003-1.jpg.html

    The judgement is tripe. He says at the beginning "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans." A SC judge ignoring 70 years of explicit precedent. He ignores the most recent caselaw, adopts new jurisprudence and methodology, and delves into a ridiculous "originalism" approach to constitutionalism.

    It is the worst piece of law delivered by a US judge since Dred Scott.


  • Options
    #273
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    donvito99 wrote: »
    The majority deal with the 2nd Amendment in the same way the NRA deal with it.

    http://s13.photobucket.com/user/pisgah/media/000_0003-1.jpg.html

    The judgement is tripe. He says at the beginning "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans." A SC judge ignoring 70 years of explicit precedent. He ignores the most recent caselaw, adopts new jurisprudence and methodology, and delves into a ridiculous "originalism" approach to constitutionalism.

    It is the worst piece of law delivered by a US judge since Dred Scott.

    i'm sure your opinion causes Scalia to lose sleep.


  • Options
    #274
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Beano wrote: »
    i'm sure your opinion causes Scalia to lose sleep.

    I wan't aware that that was necessary to hold one.


  • Options
    #275
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,272 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    donvito99 wrote: »
    The judgement is tripe. He says at the beginning "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans." A SC judge ignoring 70 years of explicit precedent. He ignores the most recent caselaw, adopts new jurisprudence and methodology, and delves into a ridiculous "originalism" approach to constitutionalism.

    Well, actually, before that he says "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

    What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.    "

    Which thus leads to that strong presumption not being particularly unreasonable.

    And what 70 years of jurisprudence and caselaw? The Supreme Court had never, in the 200+ years it had been in existence, directly addressed the question of what 2A was supposed to mean with regards to the individual vs militia, though Cruikshank and Presser in the 1870s came close.


  • Options
    #276
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Manic Moran wrote: »

    And what 70 years of jurisprudence and caselaw? The Supreme Court had never, in the 200+ years it had been in existence, directly addressed the question of what 2A was supposed to mean with regards to the individual vs militia, though Cruikshank and Presser in the 1870s came close.

    On the issue of jurisprudence, it is well known that Scalia, Alito and others have now decided they're going to interpret the constitution like amateur historians.

    And yes, while very few have taken the issue of the 2A head on, Miller [1939] dealing with modern legislation and 20th century issues which held that the 2A did not protect guns not used for military purposes i.e. there was no constitutional right separate and distinct to the "militia" criteria to bear arms.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    steveblack572
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭steveblack572


    According to wikipedia,
    "In Ireland, semi-automatic AR-15s are legal. Features such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, certain flash hiders, or magazines holding more than 10 rounds would make it a restricted firearm. A restricted firearms license requires good reason and is granted by the local chief superintendent.

    Since when can you buy these type of guns here?


  • Options
    #278
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,592 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    steveblack572 wrote: »
    According to wikipedia,
    "In Ireland, semi-automatic AR-15s are legal. Features such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, certain flash hiders, or magazines holding more than 10 rounds would make it a restricted firearm. A restricted firearms license requires good reason and is granted by the local chief superintendent.

    Since when can you buy these type of guns here?

    I said I wouldn't post on this thread again but I'll answer this.

    Since about 2004, that article is wrong though- pistol grips, adjustable stocks and flash hiders and a 10+ round mag would not make it restricted.

    What makes it restricted is that it is a semi automatic centrefire.

    A 10+ round mag would make a rimfire restricted but not a centrefire. Dunno what dope wrote that but they have read the Restricted Firearms SI wrong.


  • Options
    #279
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Strider wrote: »
    I said I wouldn't post on this thread again but I'll answer this.

    Since about 2004, that article is wrong though- pistol grips, adjustable stocks and flash hiders and a 10+ round mag would not make it restricted.

    What makes it restricted is that it is a semi automatic centrefire.

    A 10+ round mag would make a rimfire restricted but not a centrefire. Dunno what dope wrote that but they have read the Restricted Firearms SI wrong.

    So I couldn't buy one tomorrow? I have huge spiders in my apartment. I mean fcuking HUGE!

    I'd actually have no problem with someone owning a barrett sniper rifle if they could provide a reason they needed it that didn't make me laugh.

    That's part of the problem with US laws and idiots here who defend them. Pretty much no-one needs an assault/sniper rifle. Excuses given are always covered in a bit of hindsight. "Well, of course we need an AR-15. It's for the AR-15 competition"


  • Options
    #280
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Grayson wrote: »
    Pretty much no-one needs an assault/sniper rifle.

    nobody needs a car or the internet or a beer or a hundred other things. It's not about needs, if it were you could ban pretty much everything overnight and life would be awful sterile and tedious.


  • Options
    #281
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    steveblack572 wrote: »
    According to wikipedia,
    "In Ireland, semi-automatic AR-15s are legal. Features such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, certain flash hiders, or magazines holding more than 10 rounds would make it a restricted firearm. A restricted firearms license requires good reason and is granted by the local chief superintendent.

    Since when can you buy these type of guns here?

    You can't because you'd never be able to demonstrate a genuine need. They're legal, but you'd never get a licence.

    No Super is going to let you have one because as with all firearms in this country if it gets nicked it's highly likely that some poor unfortunate and unarmed Garda is going to end up looking at the wrong end of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,592 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Jawgap wrote: »
    You can't because you'd never be able to demonstrate a genuine need. They're legal, but you'd never get a licence.
    .

    Yes you would, people have them.


  • Options
    #283
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Grayson wrote: »
    So I couldn't buy one tomorrow? I have huge spiders in my apartment. I mean fcuking HUGE!

    I'd actually have no problem with someone owning a barrett sniper rifle if they could provide a reason they needed it that didn't make me laugh.

    That's part of the problem with US laws and idiots here who defend them. Pretty much no-one needs an assault/sniper rifle. Excuses given are always covered in a bit of hindsight. "Well, of course we need an AR-15. It's for the AR-15 competition"

    Well if you 'like' the Barrett (which strictly speaking is an anti-materiel rifle rather than anti-personnel sniper rifle) - you'll love SSK industries' .950 JDJ rifle.

    If fires a 24mm round or to put that in context, light flak in WWII used 20mm rounds!!

    Only three have been made and the 'bullets' cost 40 bucks a piece!


  • Options
    #284
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Strider wrote: »
    Yes you would, people have them.

    Not in our club, but I'll concede I don't know everyone who owns a gun in Ireland.


  • Options
    #285
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Well if you 'like' the Barrett (which strictly speaking is an anti-materiel rifle rather than anti-personnel sniper rifle) - you'll love SSK industries' .950 JDJ rifle.

    If fires a 24mm round or to put that in context, light flak in WWII used 20mm rounds!!

    Only three have been made and the 'bullets' cost 40 bucks a piece!

    no thanks, i like my shoulder where it is. i've seen a vid of that thing being fired. scary.


  • Options
    #286
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    nobody needs a car or the internet or a beer or a hundred other things. It's not about needs, if it were you could ban pretty much everything overnight and life would be awful sterile and tedious.
    Public ownership of these things is of overall benefit to society. "I like guns", which is what is boils down to for 99% of civilian ownership, doesn't really make up for multiple massacres with those same legally held firearms.


  • Options
    #287
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Public ownership of these things is of overall benefit to society. "I like guns", which is what is boils down to for 99% of civilian ownership, doesn't really make up for multiple massacres with those same legally held firearms.

    Not really - there are huge externalities associated with car ownership in particular - I'm sure someone can pull the stats but I rekon more lives are lost in car accidents in the US than gun deaths.

    .....and I'd bet the house that there are many, many more people are killed by cars in Switzerland than by guns - Switzerland has a high gun ownership rate and there is a significant public good associated with that with respect to their armed forces being able to guarantee the country's neutrality.


  • Options
    #288
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Not really - there are huge externalities associated with car ownership in particular - I'm sure someone can pull the stats but I rekon more lives are lost in car accidents in the US than gun deaths.
    I have no doubt about that. Can a gun move food around the country? Can a gun drive a kid to school? Can a gun bring a heart attack patient to hospital? Nope, but it's pretty good at shooting people.
    No comparison really.


  • Options
    #289
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I have no doubt about that. Can a gun move food around the country? Can a gun drive a kid to school? Can a gun bring a heart attack patient to hospital? Nope, but it's pretty good at shooting people.
    No comparison really.

    How did we ever feed and educate ourselves before the combustion engine.....;)

    Not to mention the use a gun can be put to for hunting and keeping a supply of fresh meat coming in.....


  • Options
    #290
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Jawgap wrote: »
    How did we ever feed and educate ourselves before the combustion engine.....;)
    By having a smaller, more rural, less educated, more self sustaining population who lived far shorter lives and used animal based trasnport.
    Jawgap wrote: »
    Not to mention the use a gun can be put to for hunting and keeping a supply of fresh meat coming in.....
    It can. Virtually none of the 100 million US gun owners do.
    You're reaching here Jawgap!


  • Options
    #291
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    By having a smaller, more rural, less educated, more self sustaining population who lived far shorter lives and used animal based trasnport.

    It can. Virtually none of the 100 million US gun owners do.
    You're reaching here Jawgap!

    really?

    Ireland has a car ownership rate of 491 cars per 1000 population and a male life expectancy of 78.3

    The Seychelles has car ownership rate of 181 per 1000 population and a male life expectancy of 69.7 years.

    They have a gross enrollment ratio in secondary schools that exceeds ours (their secondary cycle is the same duration as ours). The difference in life expectancy can be accounted for by the lack of health infrastructure and from deaths through occupational injury - if you exclude those from both datasets, LE in the Seychelles exceeds Ireland......

    .......the reason they get better health outcomes is because of their diet - which, given their remote location, kind of suggests that remote populations don't have to be less educated, more self sustaining population and live far shorter lives?

    The combustion engine may transport food - but if it's transporting the wrong food or making that food more affordable, then it ain't really helping.

    Oh, and apparently there are 13.7 million hunters in the US - and it's wrong to assume that each of the 100 million guns in circulation is owned by one person - according to Gallup, 47% of Americans said they owned a gun and 62% of those said they owned more than one.

    Oh and 58% of gun owners said they used their guns to hunt with (some much for the 'virtually none' in relation to hunting) and 66% said they used it for target practice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    nobody needs a car or the internet or a beer or a hundred other things. It's not about needs, if it were you could ban pretty much everything overnight and life would be awful sterile and tedious.

    people need cars for transport. They might not need a monster truck though. And we have laws that prevent certain types of cars from being on the road. It's for safety and because we realise people have no need for those cars.

    I have no problem with a farmer owning a shotgun for shooting vermin. If they claimed that they needed an AR-15 they're lying.

    Someone who hunts deer needs a rifle. They don't need a Barrett sniper rifle.

    In any situation where someone claims they need military hardware to perform a civilian function, they're lying. There's plenty of less dangerous alternatives.
    The military options were designed for the military. It's like someone claiming they need a Bradley for their commute to work. Sure it'll get from A to B but it's not actually designed for that.


  • Options
    #293
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Grayson wrote: »
    people need cars for transport. They might not need a monster truck though. And we have laws that prevent certain types of cars from being on the road. It's for safety and because we realise people have no need for those cars.

    I need a rifle for my target shooting. I need a pistol for my target shooting. It's the same as somebody needing football boots for football. Firearms are the tools of my sport.

    Me having a gun isn't a public safety issue because I keep my guns in a safe when not in use, have a monitored alarm and am considered a sensible, safe person by An Garda Siochana.

    So if I am considered safe by the Gardai, take all the precautions that the Gardai require, have a genuine sporting need for the firearm, then why shouldn't I be allowed the tools to take part in my sport?

    Someone who hunts deer needs a rifle. They don't need a Barrett sniper rifle.

    I don't shoot deer myself as I only do target shooting but if you are shooting deer, you need a powerful rifle. The more powerful the rifle, the more likely you are to have a humane kill. In fact, the law states that you must have a high powered rifle when hunting deer. It's illegal to use a low power rifle such as a .22 when hunting deer.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but the .223 calibre AR 15 is considered unsuitable for deer hunting here in Ireland as the bullet isn't powerful enough. That means that everybody here in Ireland hunting deer have more powerful guns but yet you don't see us going around shooting schoolchildren.


    If somebody has a genuine use for the firearm, are of sound mind, and obey all the rules set by the Gardai for them such as safe storeage etc., then I've no problem with that person having a firearm, even if it is a Barrett.


  • Options
    #294
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Fully agree Battlecorp. None of this really seems applicable to the US situation where 100 million people have guns with the primary reason seemingly being "guns are cool".
    I'm assuming for similar reasons to it being inhumane to use .223 for deer (bullet too light, fragments, tumbles etc) it's "inhumane" to use against humans? Isn't this round technically in breach of Geneva conventions IIRC?


  • Options
    #295
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Fully agree Battlecorp. None of this really seems applicable to the US situation where 100 million people have guns with the primary reason seemingly being "guns are cool".
    I'm assuming for similar reasons to it being inhumane to use .223 for deer (bullet too light, fragments, tumbles etc) it's "inhumane" to use against humans? Isn't this round technically in breach of Geneva conventions IIRC?

    which .223 round are you referring to? there is more than one.


  • Options
    #296
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Fully agree Battlecorp. None of this really seems applicable to the US situation where 100 million people have guns with the primary reason seemingly being "guns are cool".
    I'm assuming for similar reasons to it being inhumane to use .223 for deer (bullet too light, fragments, tumbles etc) it's "inhumane" to use against humans? Isn't this round technically in breach of Geneva conventions IIRC?

    Wow, you're still persisting with that even in the face of the evidence above :rolleyes:

    Plus it's the Hague Conventions not the Geneva Conventions that require ammunition to be humane

    ......and they only apply to armies and conflict between states, they do not apply within states.


  • Options
    #297
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I'm assuming for similar reasons to it being inhumane to use .223 for deer (bullet too light, fragments, tumbles etc) it's "inhumane" to use against humans? Isn't this round technically in breach of Geneva conventions IIRC?


    I don't know to be honest.


  • Options
    #298
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Wow, you're still persisting with that even in the face of the evidence above :rolleyes:

    Plus it's the Hague Conventions not the Geneva Conventions that require ammunition to be humane

    ......and they only apply to armies and conflict between states, they do not apply within states.

    The US isnt a party to that part of the Hague convention anyway.


  • Options
    #299
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Wow, you're still persisting with that even in the face of the evidence above :rolleyes:
    Give us your gun ownership figure then. Or is pooh pooh your only counter?
    Jawgap wrote: »
    Plus it's the Hague Conventions not the Geneva Conventions that require ammunition to be humane
    So important...
    Jawgap wrote: »
    ......and they only apply to armies and conflict between states, they do not apply within states.
    So they are inhumane except when you shoot kids or family. That's a blessed relief!
    How do troops carrying .223 manage to fight against anybody without breaking the Hague convention then? They just opt out I guess... magically humane again.


  • Options
    #300
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Give us your gun ownership figure then. Or is pooh pooh your only counter?
    So important...
    So they are inhumane except when you shoot kids or family. That's a blessed relief!
    How do troops carrying .223 manage to fight against anybody without breaking the Hague convention then? They just opt out I guess... magically humane again.

    by the simple expedient of the rounds they use not being in contravention of the hague convention. why do you assume they are?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Give us your gun ownership figure then. Or is pooh pooh your only counter?

    Well if you want to go back to post #291, I already linked to the data - you can have a look or continue to ignore it and just keep bashing that keyboard....
    Jawgap wrote: »
    .........

    Oh, and apparently there are 13.7 million hunters in the US - and it's wrong to assume that each of the 100 million guns in circulation is owned by one person - according to Gallup, 47% of Americans said they owned a gun and 62% of those said they owned more than one.

    Oh and 58% of gun owners said they used their guns to hunt with (some much for the 'virtually none' in relation to hunting) and 66% said they used it for target practice.



    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So they are inhumane except when you shoot kids or family. That's a blessed relief!
    How do troops carrying .223 manage to fight against anybody without breaking the Hague convention then? They just opt out I guess... magically humane again.

    Physics, dear boy......physics
    .223 is about the same as the NATO calibre - bullets kill by energy transfer which is a function of the projectile size, shape and construction, and most importantly muzzle velocity.

    A 5.56mm NATO round is smaller than the 0.223 but it is jacketed meaning it doesn't (or is not intended) to deform or fragment on impact. If the bullet is designed to kill it's acceptable - if it's designed to deform or fragment on impact it's not.

    Shooting animals you probably want a bullet that causes massive damage and a quick kill.

    In an urban environment and for home defence you probably want a big bullet with low velocity to avoid ricochets and to put the person you are shooting at down first time.

    The Hague Conventions don't apply to the latter two examples and so that ammo can be legitimately produced - how it's used is a matter for the user. In the same way a spade can be used to dig a hole and smash somebody's head in, so a bullet designed to kill animals can be mis-used and directed at people.


Advertisement