All Things Second Amendment

[ok doser]

When I apply my "charging grizzly bear" test to the concussed person, I believe that it would simply be immoral to deny the concussed person a weapon, and that even while concussed, in the case that they are being imperiled by a wild beast of some sort, we should reserve the concussed person's right to bear arms.

what if the nature of their "concussion" leads them to the paranoid, deluded belief that everyone around them, family, children, neighbors - is a threat?


I've been considering this subject while I work outside (beautiful day here ) in terms of dementia and the need to take away the senile person's autonomy, especially wrt driving, but also as it applies to firearms.

 

[Idolater]

what if the nature of their "concussion" leads them to the paranoid, deluded belief that everyone around them, family, children, neighbors - is a threat?

I'd hold off if there's credible reason to think they are going to turn the gun on innocent people. Sounds like they should be confined until they either find their mind, or barring that, indefinitely.

I've been considering this subject while I work outside (beautiful day here ) in terms of dementia and the need to take away the senile person's autonomy, especially wrt driving, but also as it applies to firearms.

If a particular mentally handicapped person is going to likely cause a car accident, then it makes sense to deny them permission to drive a car on public roads. How to determine what "likely" means though? i d k

 

[Idolater]

19 pages long, Justice Thomas dissenting with the Supreme Court in denying certiorari, which is legalese for whether the Court will hear a case a f a i k, to about 10 recent Second Amendment cases. Thomas writes a scholarly analysis i m o, referencing numerous Second Amendment cases heard by the Supremes, along with statutes from Old England, and a number of jurisprudential decisions in both America and in England, and concludes both that the Court should have heard at least one of these cases, and that the Second Amendment, if it does nothing else, guarantees that we can carry arms /guns openly.

It's a very good and fairly brief history lesson on the right to bear arms.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-824_2cp3.pdf

For example, right on the first page, Justice Thomas writes something that users on social media have basically been publishing for years:

This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights. And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.

 

[Idolater]

...Socrates’ scenario certainly prompts a question. What if a person is concussed, and not in their right mind? What then? Are we justified in infringing his right to bear arms, if he is concussed?

So on the one hand, and there are going to be three hands in this, there is what I call the war test. If we are at war with an invading army, and literally every American is a good guy unless there’s evidence to the contrary, would you in that war scenario, advocate that the person in question should be armed.

This is Ukraine's reality right now. Does anybody think that before a Ukrainian right now is permitted to "keep and bear" a gun, that they undergo any sort of "background check", or do you think it's much more likely that unless they are known criminals and mental defects, that they sure are going to be permitted to carry a gun?

 

[Idolater]

@Town Heretic ftw!

In response to being accused of being "paranoid":

I was until I bought the ax. lain:

Classic. Legendary.

Give the Devil his due.

 

[Idolater]

Thing of beauty.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

 

[Idolater]

Justice Alito concurred with Justice Thomas:

Samuel Alito lashes out at liberals in guns case as tensions boil over at SCOTUS

That Alito chose to also strike out alone against the dissenters highlights the current tension on the court

edition.cnn.com

Justice Breyer in defense of his dissent said that he thought that the problem of gun violence should be solved by lawmakers and not by law courts.

I tend to agree with Breyer on this point, my disagreement with him is in his conception of the Constitution's regime here. The Supreme Court has the absolute power under the Constitution to judicial review, and so the Court's part to play as the third branch of our Constitution's regime is not to make laws, but to judge the Constitutionality of laws.

We can't have our legislatures making gun control laws repugnant to the Constitution is all. They must make only Constitutional laws. This is the bottom line of the SCOTUS's absolute power of judicial review. This is how the branches of our government balances the absolute powers in the other branches. This is how we can have absolute power in our government, without it collapsing into despotism of any kind, through the separation of powers like between the second and third branches of our government here.

The Supreme Court said to the legislature of New York (and California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc.): nono. You can't have "may issue". You must have "shall issue" gun permitting.

 

[Idolater]

... undergo any sort of "background check", or do you think it's much more likely that unless they are known criminals and mental defects, that they sure are going to be permitted to carry a gun?

This guy ... is one or the other. Appears to actually be a racism motive, his new neighbors were all from Honduras. He also appears to have murdered an eight year old.

'He could be anywhere now:' Search continues for Texas man suspected of killing his neighbors after being asked to stop firing his rifle outdoors | CNN

The FBI is helping in the manhunt for a gunman accused of shooting and killing five people -- including a child -- at a Cleveland, Texas, home after neighbors asked him to stop firing his rifle outdoors, officials said.

us.cnn.com

 

[Idolater]

This guy ... is one or the other. Appears to actually be a racism motive, his new neighbors were all from Honduras. He also appears to have murdered an eight year old.

'He could be anywhere now:' Search continues for Texas man suspected of killing his neighbors after being asked to stop firing his rifle outdoors | CNN

The FBI is helping in the manhunt for a gunman accused of shooting and killing five people -- including a child -- at a Cleveland, Texas, home after neighbors asked him to stop firing his rifle outdoors, officials said.

us.cnn.com

Plot thickens.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653154298941915136

icymi 4 time deported fugitive.

 

[Idolater]

icymi 4 time deported fugitive.

https://us.cnn.com/2023/05/02/us/cleveland-texas-neighbor-shooting-fugitive-tuesday/index.html

"Though Oropesa’s current immigration status is unknown, he had entered the US illegally and been deported by immigration officials at least four times since 2009, said an ICE source who identified him as Francisco Oropesa Perez-Torres. An immigration judge first removed him in March 2009 before he was deported again in September 2009, January 2012, and July 2016, the source said.

It is not known how long Oropesa has been in the US since his last deportation, according to the source."

 

[Idolater]

Coming on five years now but has aged well:

They still very much do.

The NRA is a gun safety organization. They exist because they want there to be zero accidental or negligent discharges anywhere at anytime in America. Tell me what's wrong with that?

The NRA remains the standard bearer for gun safety.

True today too. GOA and other fringier organizations are devoted to and known for gun rights, not gun safety like the NRA.

They also naturally have an interest in gun law.

Because they have to, in self-defense. If they (Democrats) weren't really coming for our guns, the NRA wouldn't even be a villain in the Democratic party's false narrative rn. You have to recognize this fact. The NRA is a gun safety organization, that's their mission. Why are they villains in the Democratic party narrative? Because it's a false narrative, and the Democrats really are coming for our guns.

The NRA is the best thing going for gun rights people like me, but they are far from ideal.

The Republican party is better, I've come to see (it's been five years) but also not ideal, but they are the best choice, and it's objective, and it's a blowout. iow support the Republican party first and only after that a gun rights organization, because gun rights organizations are largely just going to support Republicans anyway.

The Republican party lends an ear to the NRA, but Republican politicians are the officers in our government. If you're like me and believe in defending our Constitution at all costs (which includes the Bill of Rights and Second Amendment), then do vote Republican because Republicans feel this same way. See below for some good news about the fruit this ideology is starting to bear.

... I see the courts cracking down more and more on laws that contravene the Second Amendment. What we're really heading toward is whether or not the majority of Americans who are OK with gun control, are also OK with amending the Bill of Rights, because the Supreme Court is making it clearer and clearer that the Second Amendment affirms a right that most Americans seemingly don't believe that we possess.

iow when the Second Amendment is invaded, the Bill of Rights is being invaded, which means the Constitution is being invaded, and the Supreme Court's duty and responsibility in our form of government is to defend the Constitution.

(But this is what Republicans think only. Republicans endorse the appointments of conservative, "Originalist," Federalist Society approved jurists as judges and justices, and these are all synonyms for jurists who believe their first responsibility as a jurist, is to defend the Constitution at all costs.)

... The Second Amendment is a law aimed at lawmakers, and the S. Ct. is saying that gun control is meddling in gun markets, and that the Second Amendment specifically prohibits that. We have to decide whether we're going to amend the Bill of Rights, or if we're going to abide by it. The S. Ct. is going to force the issue.

See below. They are now doing it.

... we are heading toward a decision node wrt the Bill of Rights. We have never amended it since the first ten amendments amended the original Constitution itself, and if Americans really do believe in gun control, then the S. Ct. is going to force us to choose to amend it, instead of illegally making gun control laws.

[The Supreme Court's] 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen ... requires that firearm regulations don’t impede on the language of the Second Amendment and be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition.” US District Judge Roger T. Benitez in Friday’s decision said the ban on high-capacity magazines fails to meet that standard and that “there is no national tradition of prohibiting or regulating firearms based on firing capacity or ammunition capacity.”

https://us.cnn.com/2023/09/23/us/california-gun-magazine-ban-overturned/index.html

Also, "California Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement called the decision “politics, pure and simple,”" which is a lie, pure and simple.

'Should be fun.

So far, so good. Vote Republican. Trump SCOTUS ftw.

 

[Idolater]

... If [Democrats] weren't really coming for our guns, the NRA wouldn't even be a villain in the Democratic party's false narrative rn. ... The NRA is a gun safety organization, that's their mission. Why are they villains in the Democratic party narrative? Because it's a false narrative, and the Democrats REALLY ARE coming for our guns.

... support the Republican party [first,] and only after that a gun rights organization, because gun rights organizations are largely just going to support Republicans anyway.

... Republican politicians are the officers in our government. If you're like me and believe in defending our Constitution at all costs (which includes the Bill of Rights and Second Amendment), then do vote Republican because Republicans feel this same way. ...

iow when the Second Amendment is invaded, the Bill of Rights is being invaded, which means the Constitution is being invaded, and the Supreme Court's duty and responsibility in our form of government is to defend the Constitution.¹

(But this is what Republicans think only. Republicans endorse the appointments of conservative, "Originalist," Federalist Society approved jurists as judges and justices, and these are all synonyms for jurists who believe their first responsibility as a jurist, is to defend the Constitution at all costs.)

... Vote Republican. Trump SCOTUS ftw.

Four more years! If just for gun rights, and abortion, four more years! You can easily be a two-issue voter in this election, most elections you're reduced to a single-issue voter, but in this one you can easily be a two-issue voter, it makes it easier to pinch your nose when you cast your ballot.


¹ "Judicial review" is the absolute power the Supreme Court has the right to exercise. It is Constitutional because it'd take a Constitutional amendment to revoke it. And we're nowhere near being able to amend the Constitution to revoke their absolute power 'judicial review'. Where Republicans like Trump appoint jurists to the bench who will defend the Constitution through exercising the power of judicial review, Democrats prefer to nominate jurists who REFUSE to defend it. This is literally THE difference between the two parties, and the only difference you should care about. As an American. I mean, everything maps to this difference in statecraft morality. To revoke judicial review, or to nominate jurists who won't exercise judicial review, is to expand the power of the legislature, which throws off our balance of powers. It breaks what our framers built. They built it balanced, and the Democrats want to unbalance it, because they're really just absolute majoritarians, which is absolutely not what our framers were. And I'm not saying they were Republicans. I'm saying they were Originalists.

 

[Idolater]

View attachment 12760

Somewhat. It's kind of more like, saying we can't build ourselves our own private fire station though on our own property, and drive around in a fire truck, and wear full fireman gear, and carry an ax in our truck, and install a fireman's pole in our house. Because only firemen can do that. But our right to self-defense is our right to be a fireman and prepare to fight a fire, and why would the fact that we politically organize ourselves to make fire departments, revoke our own personal, private and human right to prepare to fight a fire? It is very much like, "No no, you can't have genuine fireman's gear to prepare for a fire, only genuine firemen get that stuff, but here, you amuse yourself with these imitation fireman tools, "fire extinguishers" even though you can't even have real fireman grade extinguishers, just these little baby ones, they're toys really," and no responsible fire chief would ever send his firemen out to fight a fire carrying those trinkets. He'd give them real fire extinguishers, and big giant firehoses with tons of water pressure, because he's not irresponsible and doesn't want his men to get killed. Those are the only firefighting things we're allowed to have, and many of us aren't even allowed to carry some of them (though we can own them, which means that we're only going to be able to really fight a fire if and only if it happens to start right in our own home, because we're not allowed to carry around our bigger firefighting gear, even though we're tentatively allowed to own it). The things that would get real firemen killed fighting a fire. Gee, thanks Democrats! Thanks for protecting our "rights". Seems that we only have the right to PRETEND to be firemen, according to you all.

 

[Idolater]

If a particular [disabled] person is going to likely cause a car accident, then it makes sense to deny them permission to drive a car on public roads. How to determine what "likely" means though? i d k

China hit-and-run: 35 killed after car plows into crowds outside sports center, police say | CNN

lite.cnn.com

This guy killed 35 people with a car because he was having a bad day.