Gun Control Laws

[TexasDeac10]

In my very limited exposure to each, I feel like Posner is way smarter and better than Scalia and Thomas. Why is he slumming it on the Seventh Circuit while those two are in the SCOTUS?

Well, a couple things:

1) he's not exactly slumming it. The 7th Circuit commands a lot of respect (in part because of Posner, but also Easterbrook and sometimes Wood).
2) politics. Posner would never, ever, ever be approved by the senate. He's made it very clear that "doing law" to him means "doing policy," and it's not surprising then that his opinions often rely on economics and pragmatism. I don't think I'm wrong when I say that neither Democrats or Republics would want him as a judge.

Edit: I also wouldn't say Scalia's lacking in intellectual capacity... he's a pretty smart dude. He's just sly and dishonest sometimes, as well as loony in his old age. Some of the Breyer vs. Scalia and Scalia vs. Ginsburg battles are pretty epic. I'll give you Thomas though.

 

[TexasDeac10]

I invented the footnotes to avoid unquotable responses in quotes or KanhojiRainbows during one of my spats with TR. This is an EFFICIENCY thing, not LAWYERING, and I will be damned if Junebug gets credit for my invention.

I thought it was a Junebug lawyer thing, kind of like using the "section" symbol a bunch of times in your citations to show that you're using LAW.

 

[DeacinBama]

I don't have a very well developed idea of how to make this happen, but it would be nice if we could find a way to arm our modern day militias (i.e., the National Guard) as a check against our the federal government without letting every citizen own a semi-automatic assault rifle. I'm just spit-balling here, but why not put weapons into armories run by states and then create stringent regulations on the individual possession of firearms. It seems like that would allay the fears of a tyrannical federalist government, but do a much better job of keeping weapons out of the hands of psychopaths. There appears to be a lot of defense of a strict interpretation of the Constitution around here, and I'm down with that, so why don't we actually do it and develop a "well regulated militia".

 

[Junebug]

1. That's contrary to 1. research specifically on suicide in the US (your library should have Night Falls Fast by Kay Redfield Jamison, but this will do just as well) and 2. the experience of Australia after its gun crackdown in 1996 (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full). Other means are equally terrible but nowhere near as lethal as firearms. This paragraph is just aggressively wrong on facts.

"The evidence, however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, eco‐ nomic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

God and Guns = Fox News America

 

[Junebug]

Well, a couple things:

1) he's not exactly slumming it. The 7th Circuit commands a lot of respect (in part because of Posner, but also Easterbrook and sometimes Wood).
2) politics. Posner would never, ever, ever be approved by the senate. He's made it very clear that "doing law" to him means "doing policy," and it's not surprising then that his opinions often rely on economics and pragmatism. I don't think I'm wrong when I say that neither Democrats or Republics would want him as a judge.

Edit: I also wouldn't say Scalia's lacking in intellectual capacity... he's a pretty smart dude. He's just sly and dishonest sometimes, as well as loony in his old age. Some of the Breyer vs. Scalia and Scalia vs. Ginsburg battles are pretty epic. I'll give you Thomas though.

He also wrote an article discussing a "baby selling" market that his opponents would have used to argue he was in favor of such a thing. They'd be wrong, but it would have been a hot potato.

If you think either Scalia or Thomas is unintelligent you are a moron.

 

[Junebug]

You and BKF vs. us in Texas chainsaw cage match

With all the "dickbag" (wasn't that the word BBD used?) liberals on this board I can see why a conservative would turn into troll.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

With all the "dickbag" (wasn't that the word BBD used?) liberals on this board I can see why a conservative would turn into troll.

Don't even try to reason with these group thinking peabrains. Point out how stupid they are and let it go.

 

[TownieDeac]

With all the "dickbag" (wasn't that the word BBD used?) liberals on this board I can see why a conservative would turn into troll.

It's so hard being overprivileged and socially challenged.



I rarely turn to slinging mud on this board. I try to stay above the fray. But you and DreamOn do a disservice to responsible gun owners.

 

[TownieDeac]

Don't even try to reason with these group thinking peabrains. Point out how stupid they are and let it go.

 

[lbE08]

Well, so much for a nice civil discussion on differences in opinions. Are there any pro-gun people on the board who aren't complete dickbags that we can talk to?

hi.

 

[Junebug]

OH SNAP, are we doing LAWYER TALK NOW? Is Junebug supporting a STRICT ORIGINALIST interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

I'll play.

http://www.tnr.com/article/books/defense-looseness

That's a pretty famous read.

Reads a lot like Stevens' dissent, which was also wrong. Oh, minus the following:

"Constitutional interpretations that relax rather than tighten the Constitution's grip on the legislative and executive branches of government are especially welcome when there are regional or local differences in relevant conditions or in public opinion. The failure to recognize this point (or perhaps indifference to it) was the mistake that the Supreme Court made when it nationalized abortion rights in Roe v. Wade. It would be the mistake the Court would be making in the unlikely event that it created a federal constitutional right of homosexual marriage."

Let me guess--you don't agree with that?

The difference is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms as a textual matter, but abortion and homosexual marriage aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Federalization of rights is particularly warranted when the Constitution says it.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

hi.

Yeah, but you're already on our side with stricter regulation and registration of guns.

 

[lbE08]

oh. well, happy to help.

 

[OldGoldandGrobe]

What American soldier would accept an order to attack his own people? Especially if the order comes from a pinko black guy. Most of the army is a bunch of gun totin' wannabe Tim McVeighs from Oklahomo anyway. If anything, these guys side with the Minutemen retards.

Use your fucking sense, gun nuts.

 

[Junebug]

It's so hard being overprivileged and socially challenged.

I rarely turn to slinging mud on this board. I try to stay above the fray. But you and DreamOn do a disservice to responsible gun owners.

"Overprivileged"? "Socially challenged"? Huh? Dude, you know nothing about me. My dad was a federal government worker. I'm still paying off student loans. And, yes, I spend too much time on this board, but given our post counts I'd say you are the one who is socially challenged.

Why can't you people discuss this issue rationally? Is it too soon for you all to be having this discussion? Is that the problem?

And please point me to one thing I've said that does a "disservice to responsible gun owners."

 

["Jason"]

Yes. There is simply no reason for a private citizen to own an assault weapon.

Look at the statistics for the last AWB, it didn't reduce homicide rates. Homicide rates actually went down in the years following it expiring. I am wondering how many people actually understand what another AWB would actually mean. Everyone throws around the term assault weapon, but I doubt many of these same folks could accurately describe the guns they are so afraid of.

 

[Strickland33]

And please point me to one thing I've said that does a "disservice to responsible gun owners."

Here.

And, I'll bite. Since when does traditionalist legalese and logic constitute rationality?

 

[Strickland33]

Look at the statistics for the last AWB, it didn't reduce homicide rates. Homicide rates actually went down in the years following it expiring. I am wondering how many people actually understand what another AWB would actually mean. Everyone throws around the term assault weapon, but I doubt many of these same folks could accurately describe the guns they are so afraid of.

What is so difficult to understand about the following equation?

CORRELATION ≠ CAUSATION

 

["Jason"]

What American soldier would accept an order to attack his own people? Especially if the order comes from a pinko black guy. Most of the army is a bunch of gun totin' wannabe Tim McVeighs from Oklahomo anyway. If anything, these guys side with the Minutemen retards.

Use your fucking sense, gun nuts.

Those soldiers didn't have any problem disarming citizens who wanted to protect themselves from criminals after Katrina. Soldiers do what they're told, that's why they're soldiers. Not saying they are going to attack Americans, but disarming the people in a scary step in that direction.