Report of Oregon college shooting...

[mnrose]

Nope, not accurate. 1939 in US v Miller court held that sawed of shotguns were illegal reasoning that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.” Not until DC v Heller in 2008 did the court hold that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense.

By a 5-4 decision. One justice different and the result would be different.

 

[Unas]

But, the question of individual right wasn't ruled upon in that prior case. And there's scores of evidence that the founders intended the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right - just like the 1st. Do we really think the term "the people" means one thing in the 1st and some other thing in the 2nd?

Until just a decade ago or so, courts understood that a well established milita did not mean just any individual Charleton, Ted Or Wayne. The recent 2008 decision turned that understanding on its head.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

That's a pathetic way to live especially since that "tyrannical government" is now of your best allies and biggest trading partners. Heck that same "tyrannical government" is pictured on the coins I paid for my morning coffee with this morning and on the foyer of my kids' school. Oooo I'm so scared of them I need to pack heat regardless of the fact that school kids are getting murdered.
What a ridiculous sentiment.

As the saying goes, if you can't beat them, join them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your country more like ours now instead of the way yours was a few centuries ago?

And most people aren't afraid of the gov't because of the second amendment.

 

[Unas]

By a 5-4 decision. One justice different and the result would be different.

Miller was unanimous . . .

 

[mnrose]

DC. v. Heller was 5-4 (the 2008 decision which gave every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane the right to own a gun, instead of as part of a "well-regulated" militia).

 

[Gumbo4x4]

DC. v. Heller was 5-4 (the 2008 decision which gave every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane the right to own a gun, instead of as part of a "well-regulated" militia).

Heller vs DC was about more than just the individual right. That was 5 votes stating not only was it an individual right, but ALSO that the DC law violated that right. The 2nd part is the only reason there were any no votes at all, IMO.


Edit: and the case did not give rights to anyone. It established the fact these rights have always existed.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Until just a decade ago or so, courts understood that a well established milita did not mean just any individual Charleton, Ted Or Wayne. The recent 2008 decision turned that understanding on its head.

Um, no.

A) Your definition of militia is not what the founding fathers outlined. Go read up on Madison.

B) Heller vs DC did not define what is or is not a militia. It wasn't even part of the case.

 

[CPanther95]

People have an amazing ability to revise history.

Until extremely recently, there was never so many attempts to try and eliminate gun ownership in the US. People always had guns readily available and many homeowners in the US thought nothing about having a loaded shotgun propped up in a corner by the back door. And kids were educated enough not to grab it and start shooting their friends. Nobody was trying to redefine the 2nd Amendment because it has always been plain and obvious what it meant as written.

To claim that individuals have only earned that right to bear arms due to a recent court ruling is ludicrous.

 

[CdnCarrie]

As the saying goes, if you can't beat them, join them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your country more like ours now instead of the way yours was a few centuries ago?

And most people aren't afraid of the gov't because of the second amendment.

I never said they were afraid of the gov't due to the 2nd amendment. It just appears to me that Americans seem to use the "have to fight the gov't" defense often when it comes up in gun debate.

Not sure what you mean by the "more like ours".

 

[IndyRnRfan]

I never said they were afraid of the gov't due to the 2nd amendment. It just appears to me that Americans seem to use the "have to fight the gov't" defense often when it comes up in gun debate.

Not sure what you mean by the "more like ours".

What I meant is because we have the second amendment, we are not afraid of our gov't. Sorry for the misunderstanding. If I lived in a country with very strict gun laws that had very powerful people like ours, I'd more likely be afraid of someone trying to use their money or power to influence bad things.

 

[SirDuff]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your country more like ours now instead of the way yours was a few centuries ago?

Is your country anything like it was a few centuries ago?

 

[Colleen27]

Amen! When are we the voters going to do something about this. We have the power in our hands to stop this but blindly go along election after election. This is a non-partisan problem and it is our fault if we don't do something about it.​

Practically speaking I'm not sure what alternative we really have. Both sides are playing the same game and our system is stacked against those who don't enjoy the sponsorship of one of the two major parties. The voters are part of the problem - relying on things like name recognition, which is best achieved via expensive advertising campaigns, rather than doing their own research - but at this point the influence of big money in politics is so entrenched that there's not much hope of the electorate making real change. It would take a Congress with the moral fiber to stand up and say "Yes, this benefits me but it is wrong and I'm putting an end to it," and we all know that's not going to happen.

Absolutely the victims should be acknowledged as well as the hero who was shot seven times confronting the gunman. I wish that all of the media would agree to NOT give any attention to the gunman. Don't keep repeating his name, don't show his photo on the news, just DON'T. But they just don't get it.

I can't think of anything that would shut down meaningful discussion faster than the media committing to willful ignorance of the shooter's life, background, motives, etc. Without talking about the shooter, we really can't talk about how and why these things happen. And without talking about how and why these things happen, we can't work towards preventing future shootings.

Really? Drugs are illegal. How hard are they to get?

Drugs and guns aren't comparable. Drugs are easily grown (pot), manufactured (meth, othe synthetics), or smuggled (cocaine, heroin). And they're easily transported because they're small and easy to conceal when passing through borders and other security checks. Guns, on the other hand, are large, readily detectable by even cursory security measures, and difficult if not impossible to manufacture for black-market distribution. The black market for guns in this country is fed by legal sales and loopholes - person to person sales, theft of legally owned firearms, and "straw" purchases. Cut that off and you're not going to get a flood of foreign guns filling the gap... because moving guns across borders is much more difficult than having a courier swallow a few balloons and board a flight.

 

[mom2rtk]

By a 5-4 decision. One justice different and the result would be different.

So are close decisions suddenly less valid?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

What I meant is because we have the second amendment, we are not afraid of our gov't.

Do you think Canadians, the British, Australians, etc. are afraid of their government?

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Do you think Canadians, the British, Australians, etc. are afraid of their government?

I'd be worried if I lived in Australia. Thanks to their gov't crime has increased. Can't say much about the others as I haven't done the research.

What I can tell you is those countries have issues but I don't see anyone doing some of the crazy stuff I've read and seen here. All you have to do is watch the news and you can see how dumb certain groups of people are and with a little bit of money which there is plenty it wouldn't take long for a national problem to start up. I like to look at those countries people as having more common sense than we have here in the US.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Is your country anything like it was a few centuries ago?

It is still run pretty much the same way, so, yes.

 

[mnrose]

So are close decisions suddenly less valid?

No, of course not. It just goes to show that the law is not quite as "settled" as pro-gun advocates would have you believe. There was a very cogent, and well-reasoned dissent that could easily become the law of the land should the composition of the court change. Close decisions are much more vulnerable to being overturned at some point, as any con law student in any law school would tell you.

 

[CPanther95]

Do you think Canadians, the British, Australians, etc. are afraid of their government?

It's not a question of if they fear their government, it's a question of whether or not they are equipped to protect and preserve their existing governments.

Of those 3, the UK is probably the most ill-equipped to do so. They have less than 7 firearms per every 100 residents and they require a license (and maintain a database) for even the few types of firearms that aren't banned. It is logistically feasible for it to become a police state. Of course it's not likely, but the point is that our country was crafted in such a way that it isn't even a possibility here.

I love the UK and thoroughly enjoyed the time I've spent there, but there's something wrong with a society where the justice system firmly believes that the use of a handgun for self-defense is perfectly justified if your life is threatened - but the government passes laws that state that self-defense is not a justifiable reason to carry, purchase, or even possess one.

 

[Dentam]

I can't think of anything that would shut down meaningful discussion faster than the media committing to willful ignorance of the shooter's life, background, motives, etc. Without talking about the shooter, we really can't talk about how and why these things happen. And without talking about how and why these things happen, we can't work towards preventing future shootings.

That is not what I said. Keep the shooter anonymous - do not broadcast or print his name or photo. Refer to him as the shooter. It is a fact that these young men look at the attention that other shooters get and want that for themselves. Just look at the statements made by this shooter prior to this tragedy.

 

[SirDuff]

It is still run pretty much the same way, so, yes.

Really. You are saying that the US now is the same as it was in 1715? Interesting perspective. Canada is as heck isn't. Not because (as you suggest) we tried to copy the US but because things change. In some ways, the choices made by Canadians were similar to those made by Americans (not because we were copying, but because we have similarities) and in others we differ. But I'd laugh if anyone tried to suggest that we were run "pretty much the same way" as in 1715. Heck, neither Canada nor the US existed (as such) a few centuries ago.