http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/29/national/a100639D08.DTL
As opposed to criminals with concealed weapons?
Stupid anti-concealed carry logic:
- Thread starter sanjuro
- Start date
Lets give an emotionally handicapped group of people with notoriously bad judgment guns to stop another massacre.
Guns don't kill people, I do.
sanjuro, are you following AB357 in the state legislature right now? Because In California it's impossible to get a concealed permit from most of the counties due to the "discretionary issuing" system put in around 1923 intended to prevent minorities from carrying legally. Those counties that do issue are in the desert where no one lives.
Hey, I live in a city which tried to overturn the 2nd Amendment...
If law-abiding citizens who pass somewhat stringent certification (and aren't bonkers), then I don't see a problem.
The sheriff of San Fran stated specifically that he will not issue to normal citizens. How's that for "stringent"? So who decides what's stringent? The Sheriff of Sacramento openly said this past week that a uniform issuing system is not going to work.
To check my statement, feel free to call and ask the SFSD how many permits are issued in SF county/city and who has them.
Problem is that most Sheriffs in CA don't issue to people who are applying for self-protection, rather issuing to campaign donors and connected VIPs.
The "discretionary" clause is the problem. I'm not surprised since the current system was put in place specifically to prevent Asians and Latinos from legally obtaining permits, at a time when they weren't allowed to testify against whites.
this reminds me, in the 90s, when the CCW reform first started in the south, the racists came out of the woodwork and claimed that the blacks would have "shoot outs in the streets and temper would cause mass unrest".(remember in Jim Crow era the white supremicist claimed that blacks were not capable of thinking, that they were somehow mentally handicapped, that they couldn't testify in court against whites, and all that nonsense?)
After all these years, the arrest rate of blacks who have permits is no different than that of the whites with permits, which is comparable to that of police officers.
California is just discriminating on a whole new level, but the argument is the same.
Last edited:
That's an interesting theory about racism tied to limiting CCW.
I did a brief search on the web, and I see that most of the arguments suppose that it is less likely to get a permit in areas with a lot of minorities. Of course, areas with a lot of minorities are also major population centers where the idea is more density = more violence = try to cut back the guns.
However, I think gun ownership is going to the forefront again in the Bay Area because of the murder-suicide involving an Indian Yahoo engineer.
I don't think this will have a direct impact on CCW, but considering a Indian female co-worker (and we work literally down the street from Yahoo) was asking about the background check in the break room (I told her it is strictly criminal, not psychological), I know a lot of people who are clueless about guns are now thinking about it.
Oh please. Where exactly in the 2nd amendment does it specifically state handguns? Fully automatic weapons? Shoulder-fired rocket launchers? The courts have always muddled their way through this, deeming "reasonable assumptions" but the fact is that there is no stipulation anywhere in the Constitution about which types of weapons could be prohibited, and which should be allowed.
It doesn't, nor does it ban them either.
As least, that's what the Supreme Court has stated:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html
oh, Rocket Launchers, awesome strawman argument. You win.
Where in the first amendment does it state that free speech protects the Internet? Digital media? Or that 4th amendment protects phone lines or cellphones? because the WWW and phones were certainly not around in 1770s. Are digital media a form of press? I think so. So why does it get protected under the first even though WWW came 200 years after the writing of the BoR? Meanwhile pistols were actually around in 1770s.
I support free speech in all forms and shape, regardless of medium, and I support the protection of privacy in all shape and form. That's the spirit of of the BoR as I see it.
The debate over the BoR is a whole industry in itself, and I will not pretend that I am a constitutional scholar. But evidently handguns leads to rocket launchers in some circles, and I can't say how I can explain it.
For the record I don't own nor do I desire to own any destructive devices as defined by the BATFE, of which Rocket Launcher is a part of the category.
Last edited:
if the purpose of the 2nd ammendment is for 1. home protection, and 2. to keep the gubment in check ("for the forming of militias") then why shouldn't we the people have access to comparable arms as the gubment?
That's the debate about firearm bans and the 2nd Amendment: whether the 2nd is designed for maintaining state militias, i.e., the National Guard, or for private ownership of guns.
The dissenting opinion focuses on this line: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
did Sanjuro just try to explain the Bill of Rights to manimal?
So does the majority opinion.
The Heller ruling has settled the debate for the time being. It's a very well-considered opinion, too, which takes into account the contemporary phraseology and vocabulary.
Last edited:
Manimal is the same guy who said that "if the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is home protection..."did Sanjuro just try to explain the Bill of Rights to manimal?
Either he's arguing a topic he doesn't believe in, or he's got his facts wrong. Or he's one of them librual activist judges I keep hearing about from Rush and Hannity, inventing rights out of thin air.
i was merging the common modern interpretation with the original intent, both of which are valid needs for the 2nd amendment.
care to elaborate?
Not to trample on the graves of some smart dudes, but who gives a **** what the founding fathers' intent (assuming singular) was, whether for or against private gun ownership. The only issue that should be at hand is whether there is a relevant and reasoned need for it today. The founding fathers were smart enough to know that needs change, why aren't we? It's such an asinine argument to figure out what they would have wanted; they would have wanted us to make the best decision for our world, today.
So, is the 2nd amendment the only one where you get to make up "rights" based on "interpretation" or are the others fair game as well?
after the last eight years....make up fvcking anything as you go along is acceptable...
I don't think you'd be saying that about freedom of speech or the press.
Edit: In addition, the Bill of Rights simply can't be interpreted that way. The Bill grants us nothing; it merely codifies (at least what the founders perceived as) certain natural rights of man, vis-a-vis no government in particular, and states the US gov specifically won't mess with any of these, not to exclude others not enumerated. If they thought the right to bear arms was a natural right, it's not a matter of this changing over time. Sure, there are new applications of existing rights...new media of press and communication being particularly easy examples...but the right itself never changes or goes away. It's merely applied to the new situation.
Last edited:
Before you start pointing fingers about how to interpret the 2nd Amendment, it is not very clear in the Supreme Court either.
I am unsure about this, but I doubt the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights are as debated about its language and intentions as the 2nd.
According to that Times article, Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, believes
Well, yes. The first amendment has been subjected to just that forever.
A good link to see both majority writings and dissents from the court:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/secamend.html
I'm being sarcastic. Manimal is one of those people who doesn't much like the ACLU, and I'm pretty confident that his gut reaction is against reading the constitution to ascribe positive rights to people.
When he thinks it through, he seems to be all for "inventing" rights out of thin air. Note that this is something that godless commie faggot liberal fascist judges do all the time...
Actually, I would, and in a roundabout way for the reason you state below. I'm not saying there wasn't wisdom in their intent. I'm saying we should capture the wisdom, but not try to apply the exact intent. The founding fathers themselves expected the world to change.
My statement is that free speech, freedom of religion, AND an armed citizenry still have relevant and reasoned value today, and it is on that the argument should center: what specific application of those freedoms makes sense for our society, today and in the near future. However, the moment there is not a relevant and reasoned need for any of those rights, I don't give a flying **** that the founding fathers considered them natural rights. Not that I realistically see their value ever disappearing, but even if it produces the same result it's screwy logic to base our arguments and decisions on a point in time 200 years ago OVER the needs of today's world.
I'm not an expert on RM PAWN debate cases. GO right ahead and draw a ****ing picture.
huh...
There is a process to appeal an amendment, as was with Prohibition.
However, tying gun ownership with local militia issues I believe virtually guarantees the 2nd Amendment staying on the books.
But I am unsure private gun ownership has gone the way of the passenger pigeon. Hunting for food and home protection are still two legitimate reasons for gun ownership, and while I don't want to sound like a conspiracist, private gun ownership does keep the government in check, which was an original intent.
You sure about that?
Did you read the text of the amendment? Is there any mention of home protection in there?
What about this Nazi law, "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938"?
I know that Grammar Nazis are frowning...
not in those exact terms, but neither is there any mention of the phone lines in the 4th, or blogging in the first, etc. I suppose I read "security of the free state" to include homes that are in the boundary of that "free state". What use is the bill of rights if the state only referred to the governing entity?
but hey, whatever disagreement between you and manimal, is none of my concern.
You still owe me a relevant picture.
Last edited:
1453 said:
So you say that here, but in the other thread, say that assault weapons are too dangerous to own...? If you're really accepting of the idea that weapons keep the government in check, why is it reasonable for the government to limit citizens to keeping weapons inferior to that of the military and police?
(I also realize that I, myself, often point out that "assault weapons" aren't that much more dangerous than other "non-assault" weapons, but that's in the context of murder/school shooting--when facing the unarmed, or a police officer(s), any gun does pretty well. In terms of ground combat in large groups, superiority of arms matters more.)
I actually wrote this:
I don't think me owning a handgun prevents tanks from rolling down Market Street. But I don't think tanks would roll down Market for any reason.
I think the 2nd A. is a relationship between the citizens and the government.