Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 28206
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LinekersLegs said:
Aye, the Supreme court overturning all lower court decisions is a risk, especially if Trump gets to pick more justices. However the court has been surprisingly reluctant to take more cases since Heller in 2008 despite multiple opportunities to do so.

Not sure what other roads those in favour of gun restrictions can go down though - trying to get national laws in place much harder and even if implemented might have legal challenges. Executive orders aren’t any better, I’m certainly expecting Trump’s bump stock ban to face some hurdles as Obama’s team looked at trying it and didn’t think it would pass legal review.
Click to expand...

Reading the 2A would be a good start - they'll never be able to ban guns, or certain types of guns, while it exists in its current form.

They can either get rid of it (which would be almost impossible), or recognize the implication of what the militia bit of it means and go down the road of a Swiss-style system, where a lot of the stuff that people call for - a registry, no private sales, proper training etc - would naturally follow and which the NRA would find far more difficult to oppose.
 
tsubaki said:
Reading the 2A would be a good start - they'll never be able to ban guns, or certain types of guns, while it exists in its current form.

They can either get rid of it (which would be almost impossible), or recognize the implication of what the militia bit of it means and go down the road of a Swiss-style system, where a lot of the stuff that people call for - a registry, no private sales, proper training etc - would naturally follow and which the NRA would find far more difficult to oppose.
Click to expand...
You mean everyone who wanted to have a gun would have to be part of the National Guard? Can see quite a few hurdles to it but certainly an approach I haven’t seen full explored - know of any writer/articles that has?
 
tsubaki said:
Reading the 2A would be a good start - they'll never be able to ban guns, or certain types of guns, while it exists in its current form.

They can either get rid of it (which would be almost impossible), or recognize the implication of what the militia bit of it means and go down the road of a Swiss-style system, where a lot of the stuff that people call for - a registry, no private sales, proper training etc - would naturally follow and which the NRA would find far more difficult to oppose.
Click to expand...
There was a federal assault weapons ban from 94 to 2004. Of course we can ban certain types of guns.
The trick to doing it is campaign finance reform.
 
LinekersLegs said:
You mean everyone who wanted to have a gun would have to be part of the National Guard? Can see quite a few hurdles to it but certainly an approach I haven’t seen full explored - know of any writer/articles that has?
Click to expand...

No - I mean say to people that you can bear arms but you must be able to be deployable as part of a militia (which is a separate body from the NG as they found in Heller) if it is called out.

That means your weapons have to be of a certain type, they have to be maintained, and you have to be trained in their use as well as the other things that a well-regulated militia would require. Once you do that the legal justification for banning non-standard guns is that much easier; people demonstrably are not being "denied arms" and you could regulate away gun shows, shops, and the vast majority of the gun industry.

What is more this has already been established by the SC (in Miller where they found that the 2A didn't cover sawnoff shotguns because there was no conceivable use in the militia), all the anti-gun lobby need to do is follow that decision to a more coherent interpretation of the 2A, which would allow them to do almost everything they want, especially if the state does what the Swiss do and actually issue the weapons themselves.

Ruairi77 said:
There was a federal assault weapons ban from 94 to 2004. Of course we can ban certain types of guns.
The trick to doing it is campaign finance reform.
Click to expand...

There was, but its hard to see how the AWB would have survived a decision in the Supreme Court on the second amendment.
 
tsubaki said:
No - I mean say to people that you can bear arms but you must be able to be deployable as part of a militia (which is a separate body from the NG as they found in Heller) if it is called out.

That means your weapons have to be of a certain type, they have to be maintained, and you have to be trained in their use as well as the other things that a well-regulated militia would require. Once you do that the legal justification for banning non-standard guns is that much easier; people demonstrably are not being "denied arms" and you could regulate away gun shows, shops, and the vast majority of the gun industry.

What is more this has already been established by the SC (in Miller where they found that the 2A didn't cover sawnoff shotguns because there was no conceivable use in the militia), all the anti-gun lobby need to do is follow that decision to a more coherent interpretation of the 2A, which would allow them to do almost everything they want, especially if the state does what the Swiss do and actually issue the weapons themselves.



There was, but its hard to see how the AWB would have survived a decision in the Supreme Court on the second amendment.
Click to expand...
Interesting approach, know of any groups that are supporting it or why some of the more established ones aren’t considering it?
 
LinekersLegs said:
Interesting approach, know of any groups that are supporting it or why some of the more established ones aren’t considering it?
Click to expand...

I don't know of any who support it, and as for why the established onces aren't considering it I have no idea - though as with all hierarchical movements there is the problem of groupthink being imposed; just look at the NRA for instance where the idea of challenging gun legislation on 2A terms was actively fought against.
 
Because when everyone's armed, we'll all be safer.....and not make any mistakes.

A teacher at Parkland, Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High—who said he’d be willing to arm himself at school to protect students—has been accused of leaving his loaded handgun in a public restroom, where it was picked up and fired by a drunk homeless man. The Miami Herald reported chemistry teacher Sean Simpson told deputies he left his gun by accident but, by the time he realized, the homeless man had already found it and fired the Glock 9mm at a wall. Simpson said he was able to grab the gun away from the homeless man, Joseph Spataro, who was later charged with firing a weapon while intoxicated. Simpson was arrested and charged with failing to safely store a firearm and posted a $250 cash bond, but reportedly faces no disciplinary action from the school, where 17 people were killed by a teen gunman on Feb. 14.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/parkland-teacher-left-his-loaded-handgun-in-public-bathroom?ref=home
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top