Chicago AR ban lifted

[Racer X]

Acer wrote:
Speaking for myself with regard to "9 people who currently decide these things" I don't have near the money I would need to get Thomas, Alito or Kavanaugh's vote. What's Gorsuch' going rate?

That is an issue you need to take up with your elected officials for their part in the confirmation hearings, and any votes they cast.

[Acer]

Smote wrote:
[quote=Acer]
Speaking for myself with regard to "9 people who currently decide these things" I don't have near the money I would need to get Thomas, Alito or Kavanaugh's vote. What's Gorsuch' going rate?

That is an issue you need to take up with your elected officials for their part in the confirmation hearings, and any votes they cast.
Hiding behind that old saw, are we? Corruption is corruption, and should be rooted out upon its first appearance, otherwise the system may be ruined such that the hearings are a sham and the results of the vote decided a priori.

[Racer X]

couldn't agree more.

But right now, today, with our reality as it is, what can we do that doesn't violate civil rights?

better mental/emotional care, enforce the laws already on the books 100% every time, better accuracy on background checks. This means Hunter Biden behind bars for lying on a federal form 4473. He falsified it and signed it. Litterally a signed confession. Every time this happens and nothing is done, it erodes the authority of the law, and law enforcement. I'd say the exact same thing if his dad were a Republican sitting president too.

I think Red Flag laws would be more acceptable if the subject were in the courtroom representing themself before the decision was made. That really is the foundation of our legal systen, innocent until proven guilty. Not that a Red Flag decision decides guilt, but it does assess risk. Shouldn't the subject have the right to deffend themself before their property is taken away, even temporarily? It is temporarily removing their right to self defense with a firearm. (lets not run down a rabbit hole saying his AKM isn't for self defense, ok?) Right now, today, we have that Right. Might change tomorrow, might not.

[Acer]

Smote wrote:
couldn't agree more.

But right now, today, with our reality as it is, what can we do that doesn't violate civil rights?

better mental/emotional care, enforce the laws already on the books 100% every time, better accuracy on background checks. This means Hunter Biden behind bars for lying on a federal form 4473. He falsified it and signed it. Litterally a signed confession. Every time this happens and nothing is done, it erodes the authority of the law, and law enforcement. I'd say the exact same thing if his dad were a Republican sitting president too.

I think Red Flag laws would be more acceptable if the subject were in the courtroom representing themself before the decision was made. That really is the foundation of our legal systen, innocent until proven guilty. Not that a Red Flag decision decides guilt, but it does assess risk. Shouldn't the subject have the right to deffend themself before their property is taken away, even temporarily? It is temporarily removing their right to self defense with a firearm. (lets not run down a rabbit hole saying his AKM isn't for self defense, ok?) Right now, today, we have that Right. Might change tomorrow, might not.

And I don't disagree with these points. But they highlight the problem with relying on laws to prevent a crime of passion. These laws try to attenuate the demand for firearms but putting up checks and barriers. And they have to be part of the answer. But those barriers can't stop illegal acquisition, as we all know criminals don't follow laws. And, sadly, seldom do the angry or insane. But reducing the numbers and types of weapons from general circulation address the issue of supply, to make less likely someone in the throws of emotion or derangement will have a dangerous weapon at hand. But the gun lobby never wants to talks about supply.

[DeusxMac]

As the 2nd Amendment is invoked as the fundamental, ultimate "justification" used by the gun-enamored to vindicate the carnage, it needs to be predominant in all debate about gun violence in the U.S.; regardless of its ability to yield immediate results.

[Racer X]

Acer wrote:
[quote=Smote]
couldn't agree more.

But right now, today, with our reality as it is, what can we do that doesn't violate civil rights?

better mental/emotional care, enforce the laws already on the books 100% every time, better accuracy on background checks. This means Hunter Biden behind bars for lying on a federal form 4473. He falsified it and signed it. Litterally a signed confession. Every time this happens and nothing is done, it erodes the authority of the law, and law enforcement. I'd say the exact same thing if his dad were a Republican sitting president too.

I think Red Flag laws would be more acceptable if the subject were in the courtroom representing themself before the decision was made. That really is the foundation of our legal systen, innocent until proven guilty. Not that a Red Flag decision decides guilt, but it does assess risk. Shouldn't the subject have the right to deffend themself before their property is taken away, even temporarily? It is temporarily removing their right to self defense with a firearm. (lets not run down a rabbit hole saying his AKM isn't for self defense, ok?) Right now, today, we have that Right. Might change tomorrow, might not.

And I don't disagree with these points. But they highlight the problem with relying on laws to prevent a crime of passion. These laws try to attenuate the demand for firearms but putting up checks and barriers. And they have to be part of the answer. But those barriers can't stop illegal acquisition, as we all know criminals don't follow laws. And, sadly, seldom do the angry or insane. But reducing the numbers and types of weapons from general circulation address the issue of supply, to make less likely someone in the throws of emotion or derangement will have a dangerous weapon at hand. But the gun lobby never wants to talks about supply.
How about not allowing violent felons having the chance to offend again? That sure is a legal solution. How many people running around with manslaughter convictions doing it again right after they get out? How about commiting another crime while waiting on the first trial to start? That's a legal solution. Armed robbery, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, no bail. You use a firearm like that, you get a time out until it is settled. You are guilty, you serve a lot of time. You do it again, you are done. 3 strikes was supposed to be a real meaningfull thing. People make mistakes, sure. But if you don't learn from them and fix your life, it shouldn't be putting everyone at risk.

"But the gun lobby never wants to talks about supply."

Unless you outlaw and confiscate 3D printers and CNC machines, that ship has sailed. But for that matter, you can build a pistol from parts at Home Depot and Lowe's. Lets outlaw pipes and hand tools.

[Racer X]

DeusxMac wrote:
As the 2nd Amendment is invoked as the fundamental, ultimate "justification" used by the gun-enamored to vindicate the carnage, it needs to be predominant in all debate about gun violence in the U.S.; regardless of its ability to yield immediate results.

Oh heck no. My Right to firearm ownership and self defense makes me no more responsible for the actions of the veteran begging for treatment in Atlanta, than the pastor of the church the next block over is in any way responsible for the actions of a man in priestly robes buggering a child in Boston. Does that bottle of tequila you are drinking tonight make you rresponsible for all the drunken driver kills this weekend? That isn't even a Right. There is no justification for the illegal deadly use of a firearm. I can see the logic of a father executing the rapist of his 5 year old daughter. Not saying it is justified, but understandible.

Sometimes there are unfortunate consequences to the Rights we have.

If, for sake of arguement, it could be proven that the individual Right to self protection with a firearm saved 60,000 lives a year, would the conversation change? Would a net +40K change things? There is currently no way to generate a firm statistic. Where is that tipping point? 20K of innocent lives lost, sure, a horrific number. What about deaths to excessive salt and sugar in our foods? Tobacco is still being sold. Thats not protected or guaranteed. That's a simple fix. Any idea the number of deaths to medical mistakes? Those people are completely innocent, and betrayed by those they trusted to help them.

Life is messy, no one gets out alive.

[Racer X]

One of the at least 2 lawsuits over the Illinois ban has officially drawn the attention of the Supreme Court. Justice Barrett, who overseas that federal district court, has demanded that the government in Illinois brief her on their justification, and explain exactly how it doesn't violate the 2nd Ammendment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzsQfgk3aI The ultimate outcome in Illinois will be binding on every other state. This case also encompasses magazine capacity bans.

[Racer X]

And a second court has ruled against the Bump Stock ban in a different lawsuit. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government...023-04-25/

for the record, although the Las Vegas shooter had rifles equiped with bump stocks, none were proven to have been used, and audio recording bear that out as the cadence and firing characteristics are different. The idea that a stock is a "machine gun" is ludicris. I also think that bump stocks are a waste, and you can get the same result with a piece of string. Is string a "machine gun"?

[DeusxMac]

Not to interrupt this discussion you’re having with yourself, but…

Nirvana fallacy – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.

Reductio ad absurdum - argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.

Logic chopping fallacy - Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation.

No True Scotsman - an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.