The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[EgonSpengler]

Of course this would mean the type of armaments available in the late 1700's, right? Clearly the 2nd amendment grants us a right to flintlock pistols and muskets.

Don't ask me. I think 'textualism' is bull[stew].

 

[choxorn]

As for the Democrats, how to define, "fight back" is the operative issue, because its been my observation that they actually do engage in tactics to act against the goals of the Republicans, and in furtherance of their own Democratic party goals... they just don't seem like they want to act at any and all costs to accomplish the things that their most outspoken constituents are the most outspoken/passionate about... gun control being just one prominent example.

It's like Michelle Obama said, "They go low we go high"

Which is a great soundbite and all but if you're in a fist fight and your opponent pulls out a knife, maybe you should too for your own survival, and not just complain to bystanders who don't care much that your opponent cheated while you bleed to death from stab wounds.

Don't ask me. I think 'textualism' is bull[stew].

I'd respect textualist orginalism a bit more if the proponents of it stuck to "things the text actually says" and not "whatever tortured reading we can claim the text says based on this one legal ruling from a property dispute in Northumbria in 1639"

 

[Broken_Erika]

Actually.....

 

[Farm Boy]

how to define, "fight back"

Yeah, and that's still in they want territory.

 

[Broken_Erika]

These Democrats could lose their jobs for joining gun control protest at Tennessee Capitol​

3 state reps accused of 'disorderly behaviour' after leading crowd in chants following Nashville shooting​

Rep. Gloria Johnson says she has no regrets about joining protesters demanding gun control at the Tennessee House of Representatives — even though it might cost her her job.

Johnson is one of three Democratic state representatives who face expulsion from the Republican-controlled state legislature for "disorderly behaviour" during a protest at the Tennessee State Capitol Building on Thursday.

"We knew we were breaking a rule by speaking without permission," Johnson told As It Happens host Nil Köksal. "But we had … children and mothers and fathers out there screaming and begging us to take action on gun violence."

Republicans filed a resolution to expel Johnson, along with her colleagues Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, after they led chants from the House floor with supporters in the gallery last week.

All three have stood by their actions, with Jones tweeting: "There comes a time when you have to do something out of the ordinary. We occupied the House floor today after repeatedly being silenced from talking about the crisis of mass shootings. We could not go about business as usual as thousands were protesting outside demanding action."

The legislature will vote on the resolution to expel the trio on Thursday.

Move elicits jeers from the crowd​

On March 27, a shooter opened fire at the Covenant School in Nashville, killing three nine-year old students and three adult staff using legally purchased firearms.

The tragedy prompted hundreds of protesters to head to the Tennessee state capitol on Thursday to demand gun control legislation.

Johnson says her Republican colleagues refused to allow Democrats to acknowledge the protesters during the period traditionally reserved for welcoming and honouring constituents.

"When we were shut down multiple times trying to speak, we decided that, between bills, we would walk to the floor ... and acknowledge the protesters were there, and acknowledge their issue of gun violence and let them know that we support them," Johnson said.

The trio approached the front of the House chamber and joined the protesters gathered there. Jones held up a small bullhorn, and he and his two colleagues led the crowd in a chant of "No action, no peace!"

House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, immediately called for a recess and vowed the three Democrats would face consequences.

By Monday, Sexton confirmed that the three lawmakers had been stripped of their committee assignments and said more punishments could be on the way.

Republican Reps. Bud Hulsey, Gino Bulso, and Andrew Farmer filed resolutions to expel all three, saying they "did knowingly and intentionally bring disorder and dishonour to the House of Representatives."

CBC has reached out to all three Republicans for comment.

The move to expel the three lawmakers elicited loud jeers from the protesters in the gallery, and Sexton had some of them removed by state troopers.

Sexton did not respond to a CBC request for comment, but said on Twitter the Democrats' "actions are and will always be unacceptable, and they break several rules of decorum and procedure on the House floor.

"In effect, those actions took away the voices of the protestors, the focus on the six victims who lost their lives, and the families who lost their loved ones," he continued.

"We have heard the voices of the students, the protestors, and individuals from across the state. We cannot allow the actions of the three members to distract us from protecting our children. We will get through this together, and it will require talking about all solutions."

Amid the chaos, a conflict broke out between Jones and Republican Rep. Justin Lafferty. According to the daily newspaper, the Tennessean, Lafferty snatched Jones' phone, and Jones accused Lafferty of shoving him.

Lafferty has not addressed the allegation.

'I don't even feel like we have democracy'​

Expelling lawmakers is an extremely rare move. Acccording to The Associated Press, it has only happened twice in Tennessee since the Civil War.

"I know I broke a rule. I'm all for getting a consequence, "Johnson said. "But I think that expulsion, stripping committees and all of that is way too far compared to the people who have done criminal acts that sat on that floor all through their criminal investigations, and no one said a word."

Johnson did not name names during her interview with CBC Radio, but several Republican lawmakers have held onto their jobs in the face of criminal allegations, including former Rep. David Byrne, who was accused of sexual assault against teenage girls, and current Rep. Glen Casada, who is under federal indictment for fraud.

Johnson says the actions against her, Jones and Pearson are part of a pattern of Republicans using their super-majority to limit debate on key issues.

"I don't even feel like we have democracy at this point in Tennessee," Johnson said. "If they get away with expelling three of the most vocal members, it's going to have a chilling effect on our state and our nation when it comes to speaking out."
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/tennessee-democrats-expulsion-resolution-1.6801428

 

[Gorbles]

And this is why bipartisanship is a silly, fanciful myth. The US has two parties, both of whom are more than willing to advance themselves politically over serving their constituents a lot of the time, but for whom there are still key fundamental differences in how each party respects the other. The Republicans will absolutely gut the Democrats and fire them out of cannons towards the moon, given the chance. This is not an attitude that is held in the reverse, and why I'm just laughing every time someone insists that there needs to be some kind of mutual respect or governance.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yawp, that's it, right there. I knows it whens I sees it.

Precious little bipartisanship in a supermajority, ah reckon.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

loudly and belligerently chanting over a meeting will get you fired out of most workplaces.

The trio approached the front of the House chamber and joined the protesters gathered there. Jones held up a small bullhorn, and he and his two colleagues led the crowd in a chant of "No action, no peace!"

debate, discussion, and voting are parts of their job. they actively impeded others from doing it.

"I know I broke a rule. I'm all for getting a consequence, "Johnson said. "But I think that expulsion, stripping committees and all of that is way too far compared to the people who have done criminal acts that sat on that floor all through their criminal investigations, and no one said a word."

this person's ridiculous lol. criminal investigations are done first, so that the innocent are not punished (pelosi's absurd "prove innocence" line aside). these people left no doubt, since they openly took said actions right in front of everyone. i presume convictions would oust those charged with fraud/assault as well.

"we don't have a democracy", lol. the irony in that after yelling "no action, no peace" in what's supposed to be discussion. those children in adult bodies were rightly tossed.

 

[Gorbles]

Go figure that that's the take you turn up with, TMIT.

But the Capitol protestors were mostly peaceful, okay. Consistency for the logical masses

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, and that's still in they want territory.

That was my point. Did you miss that I said:

As for the Democrats, how to define, "fight back" is the operative issue, because its been my observation that they actually do engage in tactics to act against the goals of the Republicans, and in furtherance of their own Democratic party goals... they just don't seem like they want to act at any and all costs to accomplish the things that their most outspoken constituents are the most outspoken/passionate about... gun control being just one prominent example.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, yes I did!

 

[EgonSpengler]

I'm rereading Scalia's majority opinion of District of Columbia v Heller. There's some interesting stuff. Among other things, he says people who bring up the thing about the flintlock muskets are donkeys, then there's a couple of "yo mama" jokes and a photo of him sticking his tongue out at us.

 

[EgonSpengler]

One thing I don't get or understand is how or why trigger locks render a gun unusable by its owner. I thought the whole point to trigger locks was that the owner could unlock it, but if it was stolen or picked up by a child or whatever, it couldn't be fired.

EDIT: The reason I bring it up is because trigger locks seem like a sensible, moderate compromise, and the fact that they were challenged by a pro-gun person and then ruled un-Consitutional tells me that pro-gun people don't have the slightest interest in compromising, and that the 2nd Amendment prevents even sensible, moderate compromises, and therefore it should be launched into the Sun with the rest of the radioactive waste. But maybe there's something about these devices or how they work that I don't understand.

 

[Spidernova]

One thing I don't get or understand is how or why trigger locks render a gun unusable by its owner. I thought the whole point to trigger locks was that the owner could unlock it, but if it was stolen or picked up by a child or whatever, it couldn't be fired.

A trigger lock is pretty much a big metal cord running through the action of the gun. It keeps it from being physically able to chamber and fire.

For built in trigger locks like on some revolvers, they function by keeping the hammer from being able to drop. There are a very few number of cases where the lock messes with the internals even when its not engaged.
Hilariously enough, the manual for my revolver has cautions against both storing it locked AND unlocked.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hilariously enough, the manual for my revolver has cautions against both storing it locked AND unlocked.

to be fair, there are tradeoffs to consider where one or the other would be preferable

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

IMO, trigger locks are sort-of looked down upon as a novelty item. Like, what if you lose the key? Or what if the gun is moved, and you just can't find it? Whoops!

The best means of storage, I would say, is a safe and always has been. That's all I see advertised at the shows and my club and such. The least amount of obstacles that the proper owner needs to get at it, the better.

Which I guess leads back into the topic about gun deaths...I'm sure many of these instances, especially when a minor child is involved, revolve around a gun simply being left out or heaven forbid just thrown in a drawer!

 

[Arwon]

Secure storage in approved containers regulated by law, documented and verified by statutory declaration and potential inspection, is a key part of the licensing and regulation for the several million civilian firearms in Australia.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Some thoughts on the majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller. This isn't meant to be any kind of thoughtful or comprehensive reply to or analysis of Scalia's opinion. It's just things I thought of while I was reading. Also, I've removed the references and citations that are embedded in nearly every sentence.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

I mean, if you're a textualist or an originalist, does it? Do we know that the authors of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't feel differently about handguns that carry 12 rounds and can fire same in a couple of seconds? Anyway, Scalia's statement here seems to support the sentiment behind @choxorn's comment and others like it: That's right, we don't interpret the Constitution that way, because that would be stupid.

A couple of pages earlier, Scalia wrote,

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that "the Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

See, this is my problem with originalism and textualism. Even originalists admit that the authors of the Constitution couldn't have been writing about the 20th and 21st Centuries. It's just not possible. If the First Amendment applies to modern forms of communication, and the Fourth applies to modern forms of search - and I agree that they have to - then we are, by definition, not reading the 'plain text meaning', we're interpreting the document in the context of the modern world. Because what else could we possibly do? 'Originalism' just becomes an argument for ditching the Constitution any time it doesn't apply directly.

As I was reading this passage, I scribbled "..of the day" in, and I underlined the last few words, so that it would read,

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that "the Constitution was written to be understood by the voters of the day; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning of the day." Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning of the day, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

Indeed, it must exclude any meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation, including any meanings that would have required them to see the future. It just seems to me that a philosophy of originalism or textualism means that the Constitution can only be applied when the circumstances are functionally unchanged from the 18th Century. I don't see how a person with such an outlook could even be a SCOTUS justice in the first place. It's like a vegan getting a job as a chef at a steakhouse.

 

[Remorseless1]

I think it's impressive that originalists dismiss the whole "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the defense of the state" preamble of the Second Amendment. In interpretations of the other amendments, the entirety if the text is considered relevant.

Ah well, what's a few dead 9-year-olds when it comes to profits for gun manufacturers and dealers, not to mention massive donations and votes for politicians that support the Second. Heck, just because our very first president (who was, after all, THERE when the Constitution was WRITTEN) disarmed militias during the whiskey tax fracas, that doesn't mean the Framers weren't all in on private citizens owning six-pounder brass smoothbores...

Sheesh. gun fetishists

 

[Farm Boy]

Vice taxers, shooting ya dead to take your stuff since the first executive. yup.