I think the toddler didnt mean to shoot anyone.
I also don't think there is a toddler with the dexterity and strength to stab any one properly I mean half of them cant get food in thier own fsce without missing.
And the madness continues
- Thread starter Mr Badger
- Start date
I think the toddler didnt mean to shoot anyone.
I also don't think there is a toddler with the dexterity and strength to stab any one properly I mean half of them cant get food in thier own fsce without missing.
I didnt say he/she meant to, considering there are children and babies in the house parents or guardians should have kept the gun somewhere safe and out of reach and should have kept an eye on the children.....
Yes. Jack Rakove, who's a professor of political science and law at Stanford uni, who won a Pulitzer prize for his writing on the meaning of the USA constitution. So his is an expert opinion on the subject.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/10/p...econd-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html
Then the second part is not nullified by the first and its meaning is very clear - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
of course but its note a comparable situation to a knife like you're making out.
who ever owns the gun should be going to jail for a very very long time so many lives ruined
so why can't felons but guns
they might be able to in some circumstances:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-control-advocates-on-felon-ban-idUSKBN19H1KZ
The first part of the amendment is a general statement, the second part is fairly clear.
AFAIK the founding fathers didn't believe in a peace time army as they saw it as a threat to the country should the government go all Venezuela, that's why they would want any militia to be well regulated as well, either way public ownership of guns is a massive deterrent to both government tyranny and outside forces at the time.
I think what the founding fathers had in mind for the public acting as a militia was that all 'patriots' would uphold the principles of what the USA was founded on, any organised militia or army could I guess become corrupted through government or outside forces etc. The biggest regulation on the public as a militia was their belief in the Constitution.
Last edited:
It is the same country that issues concealed carry licenses to blind people. Who says it makes sense.
Because precedent is that the rights of people convicted of a crime can be infringed. Without that precedent, law couldn't exist. That precedent predates the creation of the constitution of the USA and is clearly meant to be included in it.
I think your fundamental point is right, though - the USA does infringe on the rights of its citizens to bear arms and almost everyone in the USA accepts that principle as reasonable. There's not much support, for example, for private ownership of fully functional tanks(*) and missile launchers, let alone stuff like combat aircraft, ICBMs and nukes, but they're all arms. Almost everyone agrees that a line should be drawn, but there's a lot of disagreement on where it should be drawn.
* Amusingly, pricate ownership of fully functional tanks is illegal in the USA and legal in the UK despite the enormous difference in restrictions on private ownership of weapons.
What do you mean the state breaks the second amendment? Generally if/when that has deemed to have happened then it would be taken to the Supreme Court for a ruling.
It was right there in the text you replied to. I'll lay it out in the traditional way:
Premise: The second amendment forbids the state (or anyone else) from infringing on the rights of the people to own and bear arms.
Premise: The state completely forbids some people from owning and bearing arms.
Conclusion: The state breaks the second amendment.
not necessarily - the Supreme Court decides the extent of rights allowed under the second amendment , whether any state or federal law does infringe upon it etc.. not just us lay people saying 'oh well what about nuclear weapons, they're arms'
this is perhaps therefore a matter of semantics as from my perspective I'd not frame the various restrictions on arms as being in breach of the second amendment any more than say prosecuting a death threat breaching the first amendment
I think both are very obviously a breach of amendments, as are various other things. As I said a couple of posts earlier, "precedent is that the rights of people convicted of a crime can be infringed. Without that precedent, law couldn't exist."
I'd agree that it is a matter of semantics. I think that a permitted breach of a constitution that was clearly intended to be permitted by the authors of that constitution is a permitted breach of that constitution and as far as I can tell you think that it isn't a breach because it's permitted.
yup, basically - I'd view a law breaching the second amendment as being something that the Supreme Court has ruled or would be likely to rule against in the near future if appealed against - an example being the DC concealed carry restrictions:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/washington-dc-concealed-carry_us_5977938de4b0c95f375f4472
essentially I'd view the second amendment not just as the short bit of text itself that people no doubt want to interpret in many different ways but rather the actual way that that short bit of text has been interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court
I mean you can take one extreme interpretation re: individual rights to any arms and claim that banning nukes breaches it, others could easily chose a different interpretation and try to claim the opposite extreme that it simply applies to militias and never meant to cover individual rights. Given that the wording is ambiguous and there are all sorts of arguments from linguists, historians etc.. re: what it actually means I think it is better to consider instead that the US constitution is and is applied in the way it currently is based on the numerous Supreme Court rulings relating to it.
There'd be a lot fewer incidents like this if MORE Americans were members of the NRA. NRA has strong guidelines on gun safety, training courses, best practices on how to store your gun and make sure untrrained people and children can't access it. NRA does more for fun safety in America than any number of people complaining about their legality.
This is a tragedy that was avoidable.
This is simplistic and wrong. You've arbitrarily narrowed down the possible scenarios to a single one of your choice (violent robber bursts into your room and attacks you without warning) and then declared a locked up gun wont solve it and sat back in satisfaction. But you don't have any experience with guns in the USA, do you? Nor did you bother to look into gun safety practices either, did you?
A gun for self-defences doesn't need to solve every possible scenario in order to be useful. It needs to be applicable to some. Safely storing a gun can be done in a number of ways. There's the archetypal safe - which you can open in 20 seconds if you know the combination and not at all if you don't. There are trigger guards which lock the gun from being used until you undo them - which will require a key or a combination (much like a bike lock). These are less secure than a safe but still offer a significant level of protection. If the trigger guard had been on the gun then this tragedy would not have occurred. And again, they can be removed by the legitimate owner rapidly. Secondly, you're disregarding all of the many scenarios in which you have more than a few seconds to get the gun. You hear someone downstairs and decide to investigate. You hear someone outside in your garden or at your back door. Or the most obvious - you don't live alone. So maybe YOU don't have time to go and get the gun, but your partner does perhaps being able to save themself. You also overlook just how violent robberies are in the USA. There was a real wave of Home Invasion style robberies and still are.
So lets summarise: You didn't look into how long it might actually take to get a safely stored gun. You also didn't consider the wide range of scenarios in which a gun might help.
EDIT: It ****** me off every time there's a horrible tragedy like this, some people immediately jump on it as an opportunity to push their anti-gun agenda.