PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control proposal from Sen. Susan Collins



David G
06-18-2016, 12:27 PM
A variation on the previous proposals. Reasonable?

And after that, perhaps we could reform the administration of the no-fly list?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/283962-moderate-republican-offers-compromise-on-gun-control

Hwyl
06-18-2016, 03:54 PM
I was going to email her. Now I think she's moved as much as she is going to.

BrianW
06-18-2016, 04:35 PM
Using the Terror Watch List to restrict Constitutional Rights in wrong...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDcd1Fe5lg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause


The Fifth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and Fourteenth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) Amendments to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_of_justice) and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause#cite_note-PAMadisonDPC-1) The Supreme Court of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) interprets the clauses more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process), a prohibition against vague (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness) laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights). Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens.


The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) provides:
[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause#cite_note-5) Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) provides:
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause#cite_note-6)


The ACLU is fighting against the Terrorist Watch List for good reason. Using the same flawed list for any other reason is exactly what we feared would happen when the Patriot Act was signed into law.

The slow and steady erosion of our personal rights by pitting special interest groups against each other. Groups who use the Act to strip away the rights of others while not noticing their own rights are being stripped away at the same time.

CWSmith
06-18-2016, 04:44 PM
And after that, perhaps we could reform the administration of the no-fly list?

I was on the no-fly list for a time. Well, me and a lot of Smiths. Teddy Kennedy was also on it, so I had very good company.

Boater14
06-18-2016, 05:21 PM
Total reep bs. Collins has us paying attorney fees and croynon gives justice all of 72 hours to investigate. A gun measure from a reep,is like a chicken coop security measure from a fox. Don't let that Collins moderate myth fool you. Push comes to shove she's ted Cruz.

Gerarddm
06-18-2016, 05:27 PM
^ Aye. See my signature and vote accordingly.

BrianW
06-18-2016, 06:18 PM
^ Aye. See my signature and vote accordingly.

Because it requires no thought process. Vote brainless and often, it will be fine.

:D

David G
06-18-2016, 06:35 PM
Because it requires no thought process. Vote brainless and often, it will be fine.

:D

No... because, as oznabrag points out, the Republicans chose a path decades ago that has led them here. Where? In this case - to a place where it is very hard to find a Republican national candidate (and likely ANY candidate) that is on the right side of history. Hopefully... that will change eventually, and I can go back to voting for smart, responsible, Republicans. Like Mark Hatfield. Tom McCall. Dwight Eisenhower. Charles McNary. Robert LaFollette. Robert Taft. Arthur Vandenberg.

Until they get back to the business of the nation - either voluntarily, or thru humiliating repeated defeats, - and quit putting the interests of their own careers and those with the fattest checkbooks first, then the advice offered is generally good. Don't vote for Republicans.

Phillip Allen
06-18-2016, 06:43 PM
someone here sounds like a Bolshevik...

Gerarddm
06-18-2016, 06:48 PM
^ Well, it isn't me. And thanks for the support, David G and Oznabrag.

The sooner the current version of the Republican Party blows itself to smithereens and dies, the sooner the Democratic Party can calve off a responsible opposition. The Democratic tent is big enough.

Phillip Allen
06-18-2016, 06:51 PM
^ Well, it isn't me. And thanks for the support, David G and Oznabrag.

The sooner the current version of the Republican Party blows itself to smithereens and dies, the sooner the Democratic Party can calve off a responsible opposition. The Democratic tent is big enough.

how far did you get in school?... nevermind

David G
06-18-2016, 07:11 PM
someone here sounds like a Bolshevik...

You mean like Mark Hatfield? Or Tom McCall? Dwight Eisenhower. Charles McNary. Robert LaFollette. Robert Taft. Arthur Vandenberg. Do you even know who those people are?

So... with no evidence whatsoever, and probably without even knowing what a Bolshevik actually IS... you feel it is alright to call me names - rather than address the content of what I said? Is that how it works?

How would you feel if - likewise with no evidence - I decided to call you a KKK acolyte? Or a Muslim? Or... I can think of any number of other emotionally-charged epithets I could call you - for which there is ample evidence. Is that the sort of exchange you are desiring to initiate with your unfounded name-calling?

BrianW
06-18-2016, 07:32 PM
No... because, as oznabrag points out, the Republicans chose a path decades ago that has led them here.

Like say, how many decades ago? Maybe two, or three? Perhaps 40 years ago they decided to have lousy candidates on 2008, 2012, and 2016?

:)

There are some Republicans at State levels, and even in the Congress who aren't too bad.

Voting based solely based Party is a no brainer. :D

David G
06-18-2016, 07:50 PM
Like say, how many decades ago? Maybe two, or three? Perhaps 40 years ago they decided to have lousy candidates on 2008, 2012, and 2016?

:)

There are some Republicans at State levels, and even in the Congress who aren't too bad.

Voting based solely based Party is a no brainer. :D

No... it is only logical. You've not thought this all the way thru.

The individual Republican candidate or office-holder may be 'not too bad'. But they do not operate in a vacuum. They are very often constrained by the allegiance to the party leadership wherever they are, and/or the sorts of donors they attract by being Republicans. And... by the very existence of another R... they delay the day of reckoning. The time when the party pivots away from Big Money, away from overheated populism, away from division, away from a path where they continue to marginalize themselves... toward more effective, more genuinely inclusive, more conservative (in the true sense) perspective which is valuable to any decision-making process.

BrianW
06-18-2016, 08:33 PM
No... it is only logical. You've not thought this all the way thru.

The individual Republican candidate or office-holder may be 'not too bad'. But they do not operate in a vacuum. They are very often constrained by the allegiance to the party leadership wherever they are, and/or the sorts of donors they attract by being Republicans. And... by the very existence of another R... they delay the day of reckoning. The time when the party pivots away from Big Money, away from overheated populism, away from division, away from a path where they continue to marginalize themselves... toward more effective, more genuinely inclusive, more conservative (in the true sense) perspective which is valuable to any decision-making process.

Reading all that, I got the impression you were talking about Democrats, not Republicans. It reads pretty well both ways.

:)

David G
06-18-2016, 08:53 PM
Reading all that, I got the impression you were talking about Democrats, not Republicans. It reads pretty well both ways.

:)

Ahhh... the old False Equivalence gambit. Well... yes... it reads 'tolerably' well both ways. But it most certainly Does Not read equally well both ways.

Remember what Acton said about what happens during times of unusual concentration of wealth & power? Corruption happens. And you'll probably recall that he said nothing about any political party being immune. But the fact is - these days - The Dems are going there, when they do, more grudgingly. The Repubs are going there All In. They are whole-heartedly leading the charge toward the further excesses of laissez-faire economics, crony capitalism, and cozy corruption. Which is why the Dems, for all their warts, not only look more appealing, but are our only realistic hope for pulling out of the dive. The longer we wait, the uglier it's gonna get. Does the R nomination of Trump tell you nothing?

Canoez
06-18-2016, 08:56 PM
Using the Terror Watch List to restrict Constitutional Rights in wrong...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDcd1Fe5lg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause





The ACLU is fighting against the Terrorist Watch List for good reason. Using the same flawed list for any other reason is exactly what we feared would happen when the Patriot Act was signed into law.

The slow and steady erosion of our personal rights by pitting special interest groups against each other. Groups who use the Act to strip away the rights of others while not noticing their own rights are being stripped away at the same time.

I absolutely agree with this. That said, we need to have a way to identify and deal with those who should be on a terror "watch list" while still dealing with due process.

People are quick to blame the current administration for not catching folks like Mateen and the San Diego shooters, but are also quick to call up things like due process (which is correct). You can't have it both ways, however.

Canoez
06-18-2016, 09:01 PM
No... it is only logical. You've not thought this all the way thru.

The individual Republican candidate or office-holder may be 'not too bad'. But they do not operate in a vacuum. They are very often constrained by the allegiance to the party leadership wherever they are, and/or the sorts of donors they attract by being Republicans. And... by the very existence of another R... they delay the day of reckoning. The time when the party pivots away from Big Money, away from overheated populism, away from division, away from a path where they continue to marginalize themselves... toward more effective, more genuinely inclusive, more conservative (in the true sense) perspective which is valuable to any decision-making process.

Have a care here. The Republican Governor of Massachusetts has been, overall, well-liked and has offered well-reasoned and well-balanced decisions. (Governor of Maine - notsomuch.) There is no politician, that anyone will totally agree with, but don't tar and feather all solely by means of party.

David G
06-18-2016, 09:09 PM
Have a care here. The Republican Governor of Massachusetts has been, overall, well-liked and has offered well-reasoned and well-balanced decisions. (Governor of Maine - notsomuch.) There is no politician, that anyone will totally agree with, but don't tar and feather all solely by means of party.

A quibble. I'm perfectly willing to postulate the occasional exception. And good for them. And see the second half of my comment. And such more moderate R's have a pattern recently of becoming either marginalized within the party... or co-opted. So until there is a serious move by the more reasonable grass-roots R's to veer away from the Tparty and BigMoney end of things... it will only get worse. And the longer before the correction... the uglier it'll be. Isn't the nomination of Trump already ugly enough? Do we also have to crash the economy again? Repeal the ACA? Adopt the R ideal policy package that has done such stunning work in Kansas? How long are you willing to give the R's the benefit of the doubt based on the occasional exception?

Canoez
06-18-2016, 09:21 PM
I'm not willing to give the party as a whole a "pass". I'm an Independant with Democratic leanings and I recognize that. In my view - and I will admit, it is my view - the Republican Party isn't the Republican Party anymore. It has fractured, and that is plainly visible in party in-fighting, the nomination of Trump, and the influence of the Tea Party and other factions which have co-opted the mainline party. I do view this as dangerous to the country to some degree.

It is a party which gets low information individuals to vote on their hot-button issues using fear-mongering. They've gotten good at this and have collected a large number of hot-button issues to give them a voter base. They have also managed to very effectively gerrymander State voting districts. The amazing thing to me is that people will vote for these hot-button issues while virtually every other issue that they are also supporting is completely against their own personal self-interests. There also seems to be a significant amount of denial within the Republican Party voters about who benefits the most from government largesse that the voters rail against. (Hint - it does seem to be Republicans. Alternatively, "it's OK for me to get these benefits, I've earned them, but not that ####### over there.")

Still, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Phillip Allen
06-18-2016, 09:27 PM
maybe if the Republican party "calved" off a mutually friendly/supportive party and the democrat party were to disappear they would be acceptable to certain folks here?

finish school please

David G
06-18-2016, 09:30 PM
I'm not willing to give the party as a whole a "pass". I'm an Independant with Democratic leanings and I recognize that. In my view - and I will admit, it is my view - the Republican Party isn't the Republican Party anymore. It has fractured, and that is plainly visible in party in-fighting, the nomination of Trump, and the influence of the Tea Party and other factions which have co-opted the mainline party. I do view this as dangerous to the country to some degree.

It is a party which gets low information individuals to vote on their hot-button issues using fear-mongering. They've gotten good at this and have collected a large number of hot-button issues to give them a voter base. They have also managed to very effectively gerrymander State voting districts. The amazing thing to me is that people will vote for these hot-button issues while virtually every other issue that they are also supporting is completely against their own personal self-interests. There also seems to be a significant amount of denial within the Republican Party voters about who benefits the most from government largesse that the voters rail against. (Hint - it does seem to be Republicans. Alternatively, "it's OK for me to get these benefits, I've earned them, but not that ####### over there.")

Still, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Fairy Nuff... I'm simply suggesting that it's time for such a move. Time to hasten the transition. The party will recover. Or it'll die off like the Whigs, and something new and more viable will arise to take its place. And overall, we will be better off. I would truly welcome the day when I could once again hear reasoned discourse from liberals & conservatives on matters of import.

George Jung
06-18-2016, 09:37 PM
The False Equivalence gets trotted out frequently - I imagine there's few alternative arguments. But I'd ask our apologists - what, exactly, do the Republicans support, that you actually agree with.

The 8 yrs intransigence in Congress is, of itself, sufficient grounds for dumping the lot. Gestating Trump for President? Unforgivable.

Canoez
06-18-2016, 09:44 PM
maybe if the Republican party "calved" off a mutually friendly/supportive party and the democrat party were to disappear they would be acceptable to certain folks here?

finish school please

Finish school? WTH?

What they need to do is to get something that isn't bat-crap crazy out of the "mainstream" Republican Party. I used to have respect for the party - there needs to be a "loyal opposition" - but they haven't been that during the last two Democratic Administrations.

David W Pratt
06-19-2016, 05:50 AM
If the Second Amendment is intended to limit government, a list like the no-fly is exactly where you would find those needing to exercise it

Peerie Maa
06-19-2016, 06:01 AM
If the Second Amendment is intended to limit government, a list like the no-fly is exactly where you would find those needing to exercise it
I find it incredible that any one would suggest that any government writing a document that sets out how said government governs would include clauses that limit their ability to govern.

Canoez
06-19-2016, 07:31 AM
I find it incredible that any one would suggest that any government writing a document that sets out how said government governs would include clauses that limit their ability to govern.

Nick, that is exactly how the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment in the past.

Peerie Maa
06-19-2016, 07:39 AM
Nick, that is exactly how the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment in the past.
Peoples ability to pass exams is no measure of their common sense.

Daniel Noyes
06-19-2016, 07:47 AM
No... because, as oznabrag points out, the Republicans chose a path decades ago that has led them here. Where? In this case - to a place where it is very hard to find a Republican national candidate (and likely ANY candidate) that is on the right side of history. Hopefully... that will change eventually, and I can go back to voting for smart, responsible, Republicans. Like Mark Hatfield. Tom McCall. Dwight Eisenhower. Charles McNary. Robert LaFollette. Robert Taft. Arthur Vandenberg.

Until they get back to the business of the nation - either voluntarily, or thru humiliating repeated defeats, - and quit putting the interests of their own careers and those with the fattest checkbooks first, then the advice offered is generally good. Don't vote for Republicans.

a classic Red Flag is people who claim to be on the "right side of History", despite all evidence to the contrary... (all socalists, Lefty's and Atheists... just for David G :) )


https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M56e350c43387058ab4d47d55895c77cbo2&pid=15.1&P=0&w=250&h=167 https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M035f425497a9f09fa8e4ea8bc5955629H1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300 https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M75f872dc24c878362a97f1abfeee97c0o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=253&h=176 https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M957eff8a7a63d361f3bf6b45e3d87624H0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=214&h=175

Daniel Noyes
06-19-2016, 08:28 AM
Just wait, if Trump becomes president Daniel, you can ad his portrait to the bunch above you were so kind to post.

Trump can't hold a candle to these Socalists... heck the Clintons a much further along the road to joining this rouges gallery than Trumpy!


https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mde87aee36d57628764588531493fd2c3o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=314&h=177

Daniel Noyes
06-19-2016, 08:37 AM
You're right, he'll be worse! Glad you agree!

wow! I knew you'd finally come around :) , it's great to agree on such an important point... (just one tiny correction, " he'll be worse! " you miss spelled "she" in your post, for got the s)

Phillip Allen
06-19-2016, 08:39 AM
I find it incredible that any one would suggest that any government writing a document that sets out how said government governs would include clauses that limit their ability to govern.

WOW! a government without limit... join the rogues gallery above

Peerie Maa
06-19-2016, 08:42 AM
WOW!
Incisive.

Gerarddm
06-19-2016, 08:51 AM
David G hits the nail on the head.

PA hits his thumb with his rhetorical hammer.

The existence of any Republican office holder, no matter how 'moderate', simply enables the regressives. It really is as simple as that, it is a numbers game. Any truly moderate republican will turn independent out of honor and sense of duty. If they don't, screw 'em, they are as useless as teats on a bull.

See my signature, still.

Osborne Russell
06-19-2016, 08:51 AM
I find it incredible that any one would suggest that any government writing a document that sets out how said government governs would include clauses that limit their ability to govern.

Why else write anything down at all? The government could do anything.

Osborne Russell
06-19-2016, 08:53 AM
The ACLU is fighting against the Terrorist Watch List for good reason. Using the same flawed list for any other reason is exactly what we feared would happen when the Patriot Act was signed into law.

The Republican Party cheers for the ACLU and was against the Patriot Act from the start. Right.

Peerie Maa
06-19-2016, 08:53 AM
Why else write anything down at all? The government could do anything.
You totally miss my point, and the irony that it contains.

oznabrag
06-19-2016, 10:03 AM
Using the Terror Watch List to restrict Constitutional Rights in wrong...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDcd1Fe5lg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause





The ACLU is fighting against the Terrorist Watch List for good reason. Using the same flawed list for any other reason is exactly what we feared would happen when the Patriot Act was signed into law.

The slow and steady erosion of our personal rights by pitting special interest groups against each other. Groups who use the Act to strip away the rights of others while not noticing their own rights are being stripped away at the same time.


^ Aye. See my signature and vote accordingly.


Because it requires no thought process. Vote brainless and often, it will be fine.

:D

Well, Brian gets this one right. Voting against every POS (Party Of Segretti) candidate for every office requires no thought process. It has never been easier to do the right thing.



No... because, as oznabrag points out, the Republicans chose a path decades ago that has led them here. Where? In this case - to a place where it is very hard to find a Republican national candidate (and likely ANY candidate) that is on the right side of history. Hopefully... that will change eventually, and I can go back to voting for smart, responsible, Republicans. Like Mark Hatfield. Tom McCall. Dwight Eisenhower. Charles McNary. Robert LaFollette. Robert Taft. Arthur Vandenberg.

Until they get back to the business of the nation - either voluntarily, or thru humiliating repeated defeats, - and quit putting the interests of their own careers and those with the fattest checkbooks first, then the advice offered is generally good. Don't vote for Republicans.


Like say, how many decades ago? Maybe two, or three? Perhaps 40 years ago they decided to have lousy candidates on 2008, 2012, and 2016?

:)

There are some Republicans at State levels, and even in the Congress who aren't too bad.

Voting based solely based Party is a no brainer. :D

Well, Brian is batting a thousand on this one! About 45 years ago, the POS decided that Racism, electioneering, violation of voting rights and fear-mongering xenophobia were viable and honorable political strategies.

They have never looked back.

Having sold their souls to the Great Satan, it should be no surprise that one of his most flamboyant minions is now the POS Presidential Nominee.

It has never been easier to do the right thing at the polling booth.



Reading all that, I got the impression you were talking about Democrats, not Republicans. It reads pretty well both ways.

:)

Perhaps one can equate the Democrats with the POS in a pig's eye, but not with an open mind.

Therefore, I don't believe you are being sincere about the subject.


I absolutely agree with this. That said, we need to have a way to identify and deal with those who should be on a terror "watch list" while still dealing with due process.

People are quick to blame the current administration for not catching folks like Mateen and the San Diego shooters, but are also quick to call up things like due process (which is correct). You can't have it both ways, however.

We need a Congress that will raise enough revenue to protect our nation and our Nation.


maybe if the Republican party "calved" off a mutually friendly/supportive party and the democrat party were to disappear they would be acceptable to certain folks here?

finish school please

The POS is like a drunken, abusive, violent spouse. They have used up all their chances.

If 85% of the POS elite were to be jailed this afternoon, it would not be too many, or too much, IMO.

I never did finish school.


Fairy Nuff... I'm simply suggesting that it's time for such a move. Time to hasten the transition. The party will recover. Or it'll die off like the Whigs, and something new and more viable will arise to take its place. And overall, we will be better off. I would truly welcome the day when I could once again hear reasoned discourse from liberals & conservatives on matters of import.

Long may they rot.


The False Equivalence gets trotted out frequently - I imagine there's few alternative arguments. But I'd ask our apologists - what, exactly, do the Republicans support, that you actually agree with.

The 8 yrs intransigence in Congress is, of itself, sufficient grounds for dumping the lot. Gestating Trump for President? Unforgivable.

Hear, hear!


Finish school? WTH?

What they need to do is to get something that isn't bat-crap crazy out of the "mainstream" Republican Party. I used to have respect for the party - there needs to be a "loyal opposition" - but they haven't been that during the last two Democratic Administrations.

Me, too. Then they demonstrated that they were a pack of political vandals with the overtly-stated goal of destroying this Nation and the rule of law for their own gain and the ascension to power of their warlord masters.

With props to BrianW, once again, it shouldn't take any brains at all to figure out who to vote against in every election, for every office.


I find it incredible that any one would suggest that any government writing a document that sets out how said government governs would include clauses that limit their ability to govern.

Aman believes what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.


Nick, that is exactly how the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment in the past.

I'd like to see that in writing. Got a cite?



WOW! a government without limit... join the rogues gallery above


David G hits the nail on the head.

PA hits his thumb with his rhetorical hammer.

The existence of any Republican office holder, no matter how 'moderate', simply enables the regressives. It really is as simple as that, it is a numbers game. Any truly moderate republican will turn independent out of honor and sense of duty. If they don't, screw 'em, they are as useless as teats on a bull.

See my signature, still.


Yup.

Paul Pless
06-19-2016, 10:13 AM
rouges gallery

???

http://s.tf1.fr/mmdia/i/90/6/rouge-a-levre-burberry-10860906ylxsn.jpg?v=1

Canoeyawl
06-19-2016, 10:25 AM
???

http://s.tf1.fr/mmdia/i/90/6/rouge-a-levre-burberry-10860906ylxsn.jpg?v=1

GOP... the constituency

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AbTMePnmV7g/UiAQFsAE7gI/AAAAAAAABpI/nkmIuz3ERXU/s1600/blog+box+of+rocks.jpg

Canoez
06-19-2016, 01:40 PM
I'd like to see that in writing. Got a cite?


Sure. No problem. From the Library of Congress (https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php):


In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/92/542.html), 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,”

Peerie Maa
06-19-2016, 01:52 PM
^ This just turned up on Facebook

Public-carry advocates like to cite historical court opinions to support their constitutional vision, but those opinions are, to put it mildly, highly problematic. The supportive precedent they rely on comes from the antebellum South and represented less a national consensus than a regional exception rooted in the unique culture of slavery and honor. By focusing only on sympathetic precedent, and ignoring the national picture, gun-rights advocates find themselves venerating a moment at which slavery, honor, violence, and the public carrying of weapons were intertwined.

The opinion most enthusiastically embraced by public-carry advocates is Nunn v. State, a state-court decision written by Georgia Chief Justice Joseph Henry Lumpkin in 1846. As a jurist, Lumpkin was a champion both of slavery and of the Southern code of honor. Perhaps, not by coincidence, Nunn was the first case in which a court struck down a gun law on the basis of the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court cited Nunn in District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf), its landmark 2008 decision holding, for the first time in over 200 years, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. Why courts or gun-rights advocates think Lumpkin’s view of the right to bear arms provides a solid foundation for modern firearms jurisprudence is puzzling. Slavery, “honor,” and their associated violence spawned a unique weapons culture. One of its defining features was a permissive view of white citizens’ right to carry weapons in public.
from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-of-public-carry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/?utm_source=atlfb

CK 17
06-19-2016, 02:43 PM
Using the Terror Watch List to restrict Constitutional Rights in wrong...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDcd1Fe5lg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause





The ACLU is fighting against the Terrorist Watch List for good reason. Using the same flawed list for any other reason is exactly what we feared would happen when the Patriot Act was signed into law.

The slow and steady erosion of our personal rights by pitting special interest groups against each other. Groups who use the Act to strip away the rights of others while not noticing their own rights are being stripped away at the same time.
it wasn't a slow and steady erosion of personal rights in that night club. . .

oznabrag
06-19-2016, 02:59 PM
Sure. No problem. From the Library of Congress (https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php):

Thank you, sir.

I feel very strongly that the SCOTUS in 1875 was pretty messed up.

The Second states that keeping and bearing arms is necessary to a free state, but then the court says that state has no authority over that possession.

Pretzel logic.


^ This just turned up on Facebook

from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-of-public-carry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/?utm_source=atlfb

Oh boy.

Lumpkin was one more piece of work.

Canoez
06-19-2016, 03:09 PM
Thank you, sir.

I feel very strongly that the SCOTUS in 1875 was pretty messed up.

The Second states that keeping and bearing arms is necessary to a free state, but then the court says that state has no authority over that possession.

Pretzel logic.

Well, yes and no. At the time, the US didn't have a standing army per the Constitution. That said, the President had the authority to call up State Militias as required for a period of up to two years to fight for the defense of the country. Also, with some exceptions, all able-bodied men from 18-45 (later 18-54) were conscripted as members of their State Milita and were required to provide their own arms, powder, ball, etc. for that service.

Early Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment, and in particular, up until I think about the 1960's from what I've been reading, were primarily concerned with the arming of State Militias for the benefit of the State and Nation and what benefit that was derived by the State and Nation from the 2nd.

David G
06-19-2016, 08:29 PM
No... because, as oznabrag points out, the Republicans chose a path decades ago that has led them here. Where? In this case - to a place where it is very hard to find a Republican national candidate (and likely ANY candidate) that is on the right side of history. Hopefully... that will change eventually, and I can go back to voting for smart, responsible, Republicans. Like Mark Hatfield. Tom McCall. Dwight Eisenhower. Charles McNary. Robert LaFollette. Robert Taft. Arthur Vandenberg.

Until they get back to the business of the nation - either voluntarily, or thru humiliating repeated defeats, - and quit putting the interests of their own careers and those with the fattest checkbooks first, then the advice offered is generally good. Don't vote for Republicans.


someone here sounds like a Bolshevik...


You mean like Mark Hatfield? Or Tom McCall? Dwight Eisenhower. Charles McNary. Robert LaFollette. Robert Taft. Arthur Vandenberg. Do you even know who those people are?

So... with no evidence whatsoever, and probably without even knowing what a Bolshevik actually IS... you feel it is alright to call me names - rather than address the content of what I said? Is that how it works?

How would you feel if - likewise with no evidence - I decided to call you a KKK acolyte? Or a Muslim? Or... I can think of any number of other emotionally-charged epithets I could call you - for which there is ample evidence. Is that the sort of exchange you are desiring to initiate with your unfounded name-calling?

PA - you never did respond to this. No defense. No apology. You just wandered off.

What I'm gathering from that behavior is that you're fine with the notion of people making unfounded accusations and calling other people names - no matter if the accusations are ugly, or a flat-out lie.

But just to be clear - you have no objection if I start calling you a KKK member... or a Muslim Terrorist... is that correct? Correct me if I've lost or misconstrued your intentions.

CWSmith
06-19-2016, 08:37 PM
She is working with Sen. Kelly Ayotte (http://thehill.com/people/kelly-ayotte) (N.H.), one of the chamber's most endangered Senate GOP incumbents, as well as Sens. Jeff Flake (http://thehill.com/people/jeff-flake) (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (http://thehill.com/people/lindsey-graham) (R-S.C.).

I am so hoping that Ayotte gets the boot!!! She is the worst kind of manipulative politician.

Daniel Noyes
06-19-2016, 08:51 PM
GOP... the constituency

Liberal Gun Grabbers... and their leadership :)


https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mc822ae03b1c216f4af02397bb62fe2c9o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=303&h=182

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M035f425497a9f09fa8e4ea8bc5955629H1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M957eff8a7a63d361f3bf6b45e3d87624H0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=214&h=175https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M56e350c43387058ab4d47d55895c77cbo2&pid=15.1&P=0&w=250&h=167https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M75f872dc24c878362a97f1abfeee97c0o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=253&h=176