The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

Actually, yes, in the event of a new Constitutional Convention, I'd absolutely want to get rid of the 3rd Amendment and replace it with a broader right to privacy. It's not urgent, though. As you say, it just doesn't come up. The religion clause of the 1st Amendment is in dire need of a rewrite, although the problem we have today isn't really that the 1st Amendment is hard to understand, it's that many Americans simply don't believe in the principles of freedom of religion or the separation of church and state, so just making the 1st Amendment clearer might not address the issue - it isn't that they don't understand it, it's that they disagree with it.

My impression of the first amendment is that it is working reasonably well in the United States. As in, there are aspects of it that other countries are quite willing to emulate. The common law and the courts are mucking through.

 

[EgonSpengler]

My impression of the first amendment is that it is working reasonably well in the United States. As in, there are aspects of it that other countries are quite willing to emulate. The common law and the courts are mucking through.

Erm. Well, I suppose for something that is under near-constant assault, holding up under the onslaught could be said to be "working reasonably well." Like I say, there are a lot of folks in this country who don't agree with the underlying principles of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

CBS News, 26 July 2019 - "South Dakota will require "In God We Trust" signs in all public schools"

A new law in South Dakota now requires all public schools across the state to feature the "In God We Trust" motto on display. Students returning to school this fall will be greeted by the message, which supporters say is meant to "inspire patriotism."

Gov. Kristi Noem signed the law in March, and it went into effect this month. The law requires that the message is prominently displayed in all 149 South Dakota school districts on the first day of classes this year.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, that's a clear breach of the First Amendment, right?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, that's a clear breach of the First Amendment, right?

As with many other religiously-driven laws, they know it's illegal but do it anyways to rally the base and in hopes they can erode everyone's civil rights at the margins. They know if they keep trying, eventually they will find a sympathetic judge who will save parts of their law and add to precedents to allow future laws to go further. This has been a primary tactic of the religious right over the last 20 years and part of why they focus so hard on the judiciary.

 

[Akka]

Also, Wal Mart is removing all advertisements for violent video games and movies from their stores but they are still selling guns.

Yeah, 9gag is having a field day with that.
I'm just left scratching my head at the weird way people think.

 

[El_Machinae]

Erm. Well, I suppose for something that is under near-constant assault, holding up under the onslaught could be said to be "working reasonably well." Like I say, there are a lot of folks in this country who don't agree with the underlying principles of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

CBS News, 26 July 2019 - "South Dakota will require "In God We Trust" signs in all public schools"

Yeah, it's under assault. That's always going to happen. I could be wrong, but I expect the common law and the courts to overturn this. It's not really the law's fault that it gets tested,

 

[Arwon]

Also, Wal Mart is removing all advertisements for violent video games and movies from their stores but they are still selling guns.

Which is silly, video games don't cause violence, they just cause fascism and libertarianism

 

[EgonSpengler]

As with many other religiously-driven laws, they know it's illegal but do it anyways to rally the base and in hopes they can erode everyone's civil rights at the margins. They know if they keep trying, eventually they will find a sympathetic judge who will save parts of their law and add to precedents to allow future laws to go further. This has been a primary tactic of the religious right over the last 20 years and part of why they focus so hard on the judiciary.

Yeah, it's under assault. That's always going to happen. I could be wrong, but I expect the common law and the courts to overturn this. It's not really the law's fault that it gets tested,

The Guardian, 10 March 2019 - "Trump's legacy: conservative judges who will dominate US law for decades"
FOX News, 15 July 2019 - "Trump has nominated over 125 judges, solidifying his judicial legacy"
The Heritage Foundation: Judicial Appointment Tracker
NPR, 5 August 2019 - "Trump's impact on federal courts: Judicial nominees by the numbers"

President Trump can be a master of distraction, but when it comes to judges, his administration has demonstrated steely discipline. In the 2 1/2 years that Trump has been in office, his administration has appointed nearly 1 in 4 of the nation's federal appeals court judges and 1 in 7 of its district court judges.

Even if we manage to get the guy out of office next year, he'll have shaped US courts for the next 30 years. A special thanks goes out to all of the eligible US citizens who chose not to vote in the last election.

 

[El_Machinae]

They will still be bound by common law. But you're making a good point. As someone set up thread, you might not want to create new constitutional language given that all the early case law around new law will be written by Trump's judges.

 

[Lexicus]

They will still be bound by common law.

Whence comes this assurance? Honestly, have the right-wing justices not already demonstrated sufficiently their willingness to completely ignore precedent when making decision that help accomplish conservative ideological goals or create partisan benefit for the Republican Party?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Whence comes this assurance? Honestly, have the right-wing justices not already demonstrated sufficiently their willingness to completely ignore precedent when making decision that help accomplish conservative ideological goals or create partisan benefit for the Republican Party?

Our system is not currently capable of handling bad-faith actors.

Hell the Supreme Court declared Obamacare legal only to have a district judge in Texas strike it down in entirety based on bad-faith moves by the GOP and disingenuous arguments. Precedent and evidence also didn't stop the voting rights act from being thrown out either.

 

[Lexicus]

The Supreme Court ruled on the census citizenship question case, basically, that the Trump Administration was too obviously lying about its justification for adding the question, but that adding the question would be fine if the Trump Administration took a little more care to lie plausibly.

 

[Mouthwash]

Even if we manage to get the guy out of office next year, he'll have shaped US courts for the next 30 years. A special thanks goes out to all of the eligible US citizens who chose not to vote in the last election.

If this is true:

 

[Zardnaar]

In theory they can increase the size of the court or use the threat of doing it.

It's a going nuclear type deal, if the Dems increased it to 12 the next GoP adminstration can increase it to 13 etc.

 

[Estebonrober]

In theory they can increase the size of the court or use the threat of doing it.

It's a going nuclear type deal, if the Dems increased it to 12 the next GoP adminstration can increase it to 13 etc.

Should be pealed back to like 7, and since this kind of thing was pretty typical for a lot of US history then I could see it coming back considering the atmosphere now. That is just the Supreme Court though and this administration has packed all the federal courts.

 

[El_Machinae]

If this is true:

It's neat what 'winning at all costs' looks like. Instead of working within the historical system of compromise, the decision was made to erode the legitimacy of the system in order to 'win'. We will see how it turns out.

You recognize that it's only grace and apathy that allows the court-stacking to be seen as legitimate, eh?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In theory they can increase the size of the court or use the threat of doing it.

It's a going nuclear type deal, if the Dems increased it to 12 the next GoP adminstration can increase it to 13 etc.

As @Estebonrober pointed out, the other problem is the wholesale replacement of the entire federal judiciary, not just the Supreme Court.

When Obama was the President, Moscow Mitch managed to hold up record numbers of his appointments to the bench at all levels of the federal court system - even when he was only the minority leader. This created a ton of vacancies which Moscow Mitch has moved to fill in record speed using questionable tactics like group interviews for judges, many of whom have piss-poor credentials. I believe they've caught more than one white nationalist just before confirmation.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Right, those links I posted aren't mainly about the Supreme Court, they're about the federal district courts and appellate courts. According to the Heritage Foundation, Trump has made as many appointments as George W. Bush did during his first three years (146), and is far ahead of the number of appointments made by Barack Obama in his first three years (91).

And Mitch McConnell, not even feeling any need to be evasive or deceptive any longer, recently admitted that he would support a Trump nomination to the Supreme Court in the final year of his administration, if it came up.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Yesterday, Dayton Police released security camera video of the street where the shooting took place. Skip ahead to 8:35 if you want to get to where the shooting begins. You can see the first police officer, in a light blue windbreaker, arrive with his gun drawn in what looks like about 25 seconds, followed by a second officer with a long gun of some sort, then 3 more about 7 seconds after that. The first two officers are offscreen at that point, but we see the trailing 3 officers starting to fire their handguns before they've even found cover.

The shooter was able to hit 26 people, killing 9 of them, in 32 seconds. The claim that the best solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun has, in my view, been laid firmly to rest. We had five here, reacting with speed and decisiveness, and still 26 people were shot.

 

[Commodore]

The claim that the best solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun has, in my view, been laid firmly to rest.

Except for all those stories your chosen media outlets don't run about bad guys with guns being stopped by good guys with guns.