The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

Another thought about Scalia's opinion: He spends time examining the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, almost word-by-word.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

He examines the phrase "well regulated", he examines the term "Militia", he examines the term "State", he examines the term "right", he examines the term "the people", he examines both "to keep" and "to bear", and he examines the word "Arms." So far he hasn't scrutinized the word "security", but I'm only halfway through.

Justice Scalia said:
The phrase "security of a free state" meant "security of a free polity", not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued. Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that "the word 'state' is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community." [...] It is true that the term "State" elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, the phrase "security of a free state" and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a "free country" or free polity.
I've always understood that use of the term state the same way. The 2nd Amendment appears to take the value and importance of the security of our polity - our organized society - as a given. In fact, the preamble of the Constitution - its "mission statement", if you will - includes "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare" as goals of the whole thing. It seems to me that guns, far from providing for our security in the US today, are among the greatest and gravest of threats to the security of our free state - our polity. Guns today promote injustice, compromise domestic tranquility, threaten the common defense, and encumber the general welfare. (I was about to close that sentence with "...to the tune of 40,000 lives a year", but of course the number of dead is only part of the story. The actual cost of gun violence to the security of our free state is much, much higher than that.)
 
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
Scalia doesn't dismiss it in Heller, he just says the right of individuals to own a gun for personal self-protection has to be part of it. It's perhaps analogous to readings of other Amendments that conclude that a Right to Privacy must be inferred, or they don't make sense. We don't actually have an explicit right to privacy in our Constitution, but there are other enumerated rights that can't really exist without presuming a right to privacy.
 

Tennessee statehouse expels Democrats for gun control protest​

The Tennessee statehouse has expelled two Democratic politicians who led a gun control protest that halted legislative proceedings last week.
In a rare move, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 72-25 to expel Justin Jones and 69-26 to remove Justin Pearson.
But an expulsion vote failed against a third Democratic lawmaker, Gloria Johnson, who joined the demonstration.
Crowds of protesters have flooded the State Capitol since a school shooting.

The 27 March attack at Nashville's Covenant School killed six, including three children.
US President Joe Biden, a Democrat, slammed the expulsions as "shocking, undemocratic, and without precedent".

Justin Jones told the BBC that the move had left 78,000 people in one of the state's most diverse districts without representation.
He said an "extreme republican supermajority, almost completely a white caucus" had expelled the "two youngest black lawmakers because we stood demanding action on gun violence".
"The nation and the world are surprised and should be shocked because what they said was that democracy does not matter in Tennessee," Mr Jones added.

The expulsions are the first such actions taken without the support of both parties in Tennessee's modern history.
A resolution to expel Ms Johnson fell one vote short of the required two-thirds majority. The margin was 65-30. Her supporters in the chamber cheered.
Mr Jones, 27, and Mr Pearson, 28, are both black. Ms Johnson, who is white, suggested Republicans didn't expel her because of the colour of her skin.Political analysts said it may have been because she did not use a megaphone during last week's protest, unlike her two colleagues.

Lawmakers had argued for hours on Thursday over the moves. Audible within the chamber were the shouts of protesters who still crowd the statehouse.
During the protest on Thursday of last week, as hundreds of pro-gun control demonstrators converged on the statehouse, the three Democrats took to the House floor, chanting: "No action, no peace."The chamber's proceedings were brought to a standstill for nearly an hour.
The three lawmakers acknowledged they broke House rules by speaking without being formally recognised, but insisted their actions did not warrant expulsion.
But Republicans said the trio had brought "disorder and dishonour to the House".

On Thursday, some Republican members said the Democrats' actions amounted to an insurrection, with House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, comparing the incident to the Capitol Riots.
"What they did today was equivalent, at least equivalent, maybe worse depending on how you look at it, to doing an insurrection in the State Capitol," he said.

Another Republican legislator, Gino Bulso, said the three Democrats had "effectively conducted a mutiny."Mr Bulso said of Mr Jones: "The gentleman shows no remorse. He does not even recognise that what he did was wrong."But the two ousted lawmakers could soon return to the House since expulsion does not disqualify an ex-representative from running for office. A county governing body also has the power to appoint an interim representative in the case of a vacancy.So the expelled lawmakers could be appointed to fill their empty seats in the interim, then run for re-election and be back in the General Assembly within months, according to the Tennessean newspaper.
Expulsion votes are exceptionally rare. In Tennessee, the House of Representatives has only twice voted to expel members. In 1980 it removed a sitting lawmaker who was convicted of soliciting a bribe and in 2016 a majority whip who was facing allegations of sexual misconduct was expelled.
But those expulsions had strong support from both parties.
Before Thursday's votes began, House members debated more than 20 bills, some relating to school safety.
Throughout the discussion, Mr Jones rose to speak several times, accusing his colleagues of passing "band-aid" legislation in response to mass shootings.
"It is not action that will make our students safe," Mr Jones said. "I think we, as elected officials, have a moral responsibility to listen to these young people who are on the frontlines who are terrified, who are here, crying and pleading for their lives."
In response, Republican Mark White - visibly aggravated - told Mr Jones: "Look at me. Look at the other 97 [lawmakers]. This is exactly what we're trying to do."
Mr White continued: "I have been up here for 14 years, you have been in this assembly for two months, three months."
Tennessee has some of the most relaxed gun control laws in the country. In 2021, the state passed a measure that allows residents over the age of 21 to carry handguns - concealed and unconcealed - without a permit.
Lawmakers and gun rights groups are working to lower that age to 18.
There is no system of universal background checks and no "red flag" laws, which are designed to allow authorities to temporarily seize legally owned guns from those found to be a danger to themselves or others.
Police said the Nashville shooter, who opened fire last week at the privately run Christian school, had legally purchased seven firearms on separate occasions.
Three of the weapons were used to kill three nine-year-old children and three members of the school staff.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65206459
 
So "states as the laboratory of democracy" seem to change into the "laboratory of autocracy". I read about that on european polisci twitter, just for your information on how big a breach of democratic rule it is to expel members of parliament you don't like.

As for the gun issue: I propose to make a law that all new guns manufactured need to be of a bright pink colour, and all existing ones that get repaired get pink colouring as well. It will not make them safe, but it will make them mad. And it wil make them visible. It does not enhance safety, but it does not Violate the second amendment either. And apparently, that one is rock solid in the US.
 
So "states as the laboratory of democracy" seem to change into the "laboratory of autocracy". I read about that on european polisci twitter, just for your information on how big a breach of democratic rule it is to expel members of parliament you don't like.

As for the gun issue: I propose to make a law that all new guns manufactured need to be of a bright pink colour, and all existing ones that get repaired get pink colouring as well. It will not make them safe, but it will make them mad. And it wil make them visible. It does not enhance safety, but it does not Violate the second amendment either. And apparently, that one is rock solid in the US.

I love that proposal. I've been mulling getting one of my pistols Cerakoted in royal purple, but more generally after all I'm a member of an org called Pink Pistols. Though it won't make them much more visible than they already are - I can (and do) carry a concealed pistol and it doesn't matter what color it is in terms of other people being able to see it.
To the larger Tennessee legislature thing, it's just disgusting. Imagine how badly those TN GOP legislators would be wigging out if the three Dems had actually made vague threats toward them.
 
On Thursday, some Republican members said the Democrats' actions amounted to an insurrection, with House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, comparing the incident to the Capitol Riots.
"What they did today was equivalent, at least equivalent, maybe worse depending on how you look at it, to doing an insurrection in the State Capitol," he said.
Depending how you look at it ....
 
Depending how you look at it ....

Kinda can't believe they got so explicit about it. I guess this is a litmus test: whoever actually believes this is probably too far gone to be dealt with through parliamentary politics.
 
This news from a couple of days ago touches on a lot of the issues related to gun control including better background checks, good guys with a gun, guns in places of worship, etc.

"(CNN)The US Department of Justice on Wednesday announced it had reached an "agreement in principle" to settle claims from the November 2017 mass shooting at a Sutherland Springs, Texas, church for $144.5 million, according to a news release.
A federal court in 2021 ruled the US government was liable for damages caused by the shooting, in which 26 people were killed and 22 others wounded. The US Air Force, a judge concluded, failed to exercise reasonable care when it didn't submit the shooter's criminal history to the FBI's background check system, which increased the risk of physical harm to the general public."

In case you have forgotten about the case, here is a quick summary.

"The Sutherland Springs church shooting occurred on November 5, 2017, when Devin Patrick Kelley, of New Braunfels, Texas, perpetrated a mass shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Kelley killed 26 people, including an unborn child and wounded 22 others, before killing himself.

Kelley was prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition due to a domestic violence conviction in a court-martial while in the United States Air Force. The Air Force failed to record the conviction in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Crime Information Center database, which is used by the National Instant Check System to flag prohibited purchases.

Kelkey was vocally anti-religious, posting about atheism online. In social media posts, Kelley often tried to preach his atheism, described people who believe in God as "stupid."

His wife and her mother were not at the church when the attack occurred, but he killed his wife's grandmother at the church.

Kelley yelled, "Everybody dies, motherfudgers", as he proceeded up and down the center aisle and shot at people in the pews.[8][9] Police found 15 empty magazines capable of holding 30 rounds each. Authorities stated Kelley fired approximately 700 rounds during the estimated 11-minute long shooting.

Kelley was then confronted by and traded fire with Stephen Willeford, a local resident and former firearms instructor[14] who was armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Willeford had taken cover behind a truck across the street from the church and shot Kelley twice, once in the leg and once in the upper left torso under his tactical gear."

Wikipedia
 
Is there any video of what they did to get expelled?
During the protest on Thursday of last week, as hundreds of pro-gun control demonstrators converged on the statehouse, the three Democrats took to the House floor, chanting: "No action, no peace."The chamber's proceedings were brought to a standstill for nearly an hour.
sounds like "obstructing an official proceeding" to me. i recall this being a familiar charge somewhere else, hmm. i think some people were held w/o bail under a similar charge.

in this case, they had a job to do, and instead of doing it they not only didn't do that job, but they shouted down other people trying to do that job. try that at work as anything but being self-employed and see how well it goes.

"no action on peace" sounds vaguely threatening too lololol. if we're to be legally consistent, off to jail with them lol. but expulsion is obvious just from what they were directly observed doing.
 
sounds like "obstructing an official proceeding" to me. i recall this being a familiar charge somewhere else, hmm. i think some people were held w/o bail under a similar charge.

in this case, they had a job to do, and instead of doing it they not only didn't do that job, but they shouted down other people trying to do that job. try that at work as anything but being self-employed and see how well it goes.

"no action on peace" sounds vaguely threatening too lololol. if we're to be legally consistent, off to jail with them lol. but expulsion is obvious just from what they were directly observed doing.
I'm guessing that most Democratic leaning folks, given the option, would reject clemency or release of the Jan 6 insurrectionists, in order to save these 3 rando Democratic Congress-people, even putting aside the fact that they who would likely be quickly replaced in special elections by similarly voting Congress reps.

So... "burn all the Jan 6 folks at the figurative stake... and if these three Congress members are the tradeoff, so be it"... is what I imagine the consensus would be... so I don't think your observation has quite the teeth you seem to think it has.
 
Kinda can't believe they got so explicit about it. I guess this is a litmus test: whoever actually believes this is probably too far gone to be dealt with through parliamentary politics.
Whoever actually believes this is probably too far gone to be dealt with through discussion as well :)
 
I'm guessing that most Democratic leaning folks, given the option, would reject clemency or release of the Jan 6 insurrectionists, in order to save these 3 rando Democratic Congress-people, even putting aside the fact that they who would likely be quickly replaced in special elections by similarly voting Congress reps.

So... "burn all the Jan 6 folks at the figurative stake... and if these three Congress members are the tradeoff, so be it"... is what I imagine the consensus would be... so I don't think your observation has quite the teeth you seem to think it has.
that says more about the "democratic-leaning" folks than me. but these 3 aren't going to be doing non-trivial jail time before a case is even heard, either.
 
that says more about the "democratic-leaning" folks than me. but these 3 aren't going to be doing non-trivial jail time before a case is even heard, either.
Who it "says more about" is irrelevant. Your argument/point seems to be invalid, to the extent that your point is what I've surmised, ie., that "Democratic -leaning" folk are applying some sort of double standard here. The problematic/inconsistent issue isn't their their outlook, its your own repeated, predictable, ongoing intellectual dishonestly/ bad faith argumentation on this specific topic, and the consequent lack of credibility on this specific issue that it causes.
 
Who it "says more about" is irrelevant. Your argument/point seems to be invalid, to the extent that your point is what I've surmised, ie., that "Democratic -leaning" folk are applying some sort of double standard here.
they are though, unless we actually observe the same standard applied, which we do not observe.
 
they are though, unless we actually observe the same standard applied, which we do not observe.
Your "we" in this context is ironic... you've engaged in way too much blatant goalpost switching, double-standard-applying, intellectual inconsistency and overall display of rampant, deep-seated cognitive dissonance on this topic, to be able to accuse anyone else of double standards, in any meaningful sense. That is part of my point. Your accusation of "double standards" here is ironic at best, and mostly meaningless.
 
As long as some Americans are willing to accepts hundreds of dead American school kids every single year as a price paid for the integrity of the Second Amendment, nothing will change. No one will make such a statement in public of course, but it is the untold truth that no one dares to point out.
 
As long as some Americans are willing to accepts hundreds of dead American school kids every single year as a price paid for the integrity of the Second Amendment, nothing will change. No one will make such a statement in public of course, but it is the untold truth that no one dares to point out.

I've not only been pointing out but asking what might happen when enough parents start to realize it's effectively a choice between gun freaks and their kids' safety
 
Your "we" in this context is ironic... you've engaged in way too much blatant goalpost switching, double-standard-applying, intellectual inconsistency and overall display of rampant, deep-seated cognitive dissonance on this topic
i can say this about people who disagree with me too, but it doesn't contribute to the discussion.

That is part of my point. Your accusation of "double standards" here is ironic at best, and mostly meaningless.
double standards are happening, and thus they are called out.

speaking of calling out, you're acting as if you believe i'm the topic of this thread, considering your post has no substance beyond insulting my credibility lol.

As long as some Americans are willing to accepts hundreds of dead American school kids every single year as a price paid for the integrity of the Second Amendment, nothing will change. No one will make such a statement in public of course, but it is the untold truth that no one dares to point out.
it's not an honest way to argue for gun control, because you'd have to demonstrate that gun control is a "but for" policy that would result in actually reducing those numbers by a lot. why are mass shootings that maximize killing random people at a public site more common per capita now, when it's harder on average to get a weapon sufficient to carry it out than it was for many-decades stretches in the past?

more importantly, what is your estimated marginal difference in "dead school kids" for each policy choice wrt gun control, and what makes you believe that estimate is reasonably accurate?
 
Back
Top Bottom