(05-27-2022, 08:43 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: The “constitutional right” argument is the cheapest one there is. We’re taking a document that was written just after electricity was discovered and black people were still being bought and sold into slavery and looking at it as if it’s infallible. The constitution needs to be treated as a living document much more than it is…things that made sense then, just don’t make sense anymore.
(05-27-2022, 08:56 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Even if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment were correct, which I would respectfully disagree with, the Constitution is a living, evolving document; not a stagnant, unchangeable dogma.
I don't disagree with either of you on this point. The Constitution is a living document that must be looked at through today's society. We do that with many of the amendments because there is a broadness to the wording in many of the amendments that allows us to look at them and adjust them necessarily. We don't always agree with these opinions on the Constitution, but until something happens to change them it's what you have to follow. It is the law until it gets changed.
Personally, even though I teach rifle, pistol, and shotgun shooting to young people and enjoy firearms a lot, I think the "collective right" interpretation of the 2A is the correct one and that Heller got it wrong. But I also know that there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of any gun control law that has been proposed save a waiting period (which has evidence to support a reduction in suicides).
The number of firearms in public hands is less of a correlating factor to violent crime than socioeconomic inequality is. We are facing a mental health crisis in this country and so many of these shooters present signs of mental illness but have slipped through the cracks because of a broken society. Those things are evidence of what we could be looking to fix that could reduce these horrendous acts. Why don't we start there? The answer is because those aren't the wedge issues our politicians are looking for. They don't drive the voters to the polls like gun control and they don't bring in the money of special interests like it, either.
Also, electricity was discovered roughly 2600 years ago.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-27-2022, 09:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, even though I teach rifle, pistol, and shotgun shooting to young people and enjoy firearms a lot, I think the "collective right" interpretation of the 2A is the correct one and that Heller got it wrong. But I also know that there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of any gun control law that has been proposed save a waiting period (which has evidence to support a reduction in suicides).
You keep saying that, and I know you have certainly good reason to. I want to ask though what the argument to dismiss the effects in Australia is. That's what I learned in my country, that Australia gave itself restrictive gun laws after a massacre in 1996 and that since then the number of gun deaths decreased significantly (it was halved from what I read). Folks make similar claims about Canada. Is that not true, was I duped.
Btw this is not to say that such laws would be the clear solution; socioeconomic factors, I suppose, indeed play a bigger part. Imho it's not an either or situation though, measures can be taken on more than just one prong.
(05-28-2022, 05:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: You keep saying that, and I know you have certainly good reason to. I want to ask though what the argument to dismiss the effects in Australia is. That's what I learned in my country, that Australia gave itself restrictive gun laws after a massacre in 1996 and that since then the number of gun deaths decreased significantly (it was halved from what I read). Folks make similar claims about Canada. Is that not true, was I duped.
Btw this is not to say that such laws would be the clear solution; socioeconomic factors, I suppose, indeed play a bigger part. Imho it's not an either or situation though, measures can be taken on more than just one prong.
The reason I ignore the effects of Australia's NFA is because the evidence isn't clear with them. There were observable declines in suicides and homicides by firearm, but they were not statistically significant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187796/
Because of other factors surrounding efforts to reduce suicide rates in Australia, plus an already existing decline in firearm homicide rates pre-NFA, there is no way to say with any confidence that the NFA had any causal effect on suicide or homicide rates in Australia.
For Canada it is much more difficult to do any sort of statistical analysis on the effects of their gun control laws. They have had so many different ones within a relatively short time that it would be extremely difficult to measure the effects of any one while eliminating confounding variables to come up with a causal determination.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-28-2022, 10:50 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So are we renaming the 'thin blue line' to the 'thick yellow belly?
Protect and serve my left nut.
I was just having this discussion with my wife. According to the law, the police have no obligation to protect you or anyone else. Based on Deshaney and Gonzales, if you get murdered because someone violated a protection order you had against them and the cops refused to arrest them, they still aren't liable. We saw this pop up in Parkland, as well.
And don't get me wrong with this. Cops are human and fallible. We all are. I just have an issue with a system that puts so much faith in them without accountability.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-28-2022, 11:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was just having this discussion with my wife. According to the law, the police have no obligation to protect you or anyone else. Based on Deshaney[/] and [i]Gonzales, if you get murdered because someone violated a protection order you had against them and the cops refused to arrest them, they still aren't liable. We saw this pop up in Parkland, as well.
And don't get me wrong with this. Cops are human and fallible. We all are. I just have an issue with a system that puts so much faith in them without accountability.
[/i]
So what is their purpose ?
Show off with their big cars, sirens and war weapons ?
What is this protect and serve propaganda ?
Are firefighters obliged to extinguish fires or they can tell you : Well I can't I have an aquaponey duty ?
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(05-28-2022, 11:17 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: So what is their purpose ?
Show off with their big cars, sirens and war weapons ?
What is this protect and serve propaganda ?
Are firefighters obliged to extinguish fires or they can tell you : Well I can't I have an aquaponey duty ?
In reality, firefighters aren't obliged to put out fires. But that is more about protecting surrounding property than anything else. The thing to keep in mind with all first responders is that their first priority is actually their own safety. If a situation is too risky, then they will not go in and they are not obligated to. Then intention is to prevent additional victims.
The reason for all the training and gear is to reduce the risk, but it will never be zero.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-28-2022, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In reality, firefighters aren't obliged to put out fires. But that is more about protecting surrounding property than anything else. The thing to keep in mind with all first responders is that their first priority is actually their own safety. If a situation is too risky, then they will not go in and they are not obligated to. Then intention is to prevent additional victims.
The reason for all the training and gear is to reduce the risk, but it will never be zero.
It's funny you say this....
So my daughter was in a wreck yesterday here in Dallas on one of the side streets outside downtown...i went over there after she called me and there were two fire engines and a ambulance. The ambulance left and the fire fighter dudes said they were there specifically to wait and keep the area safe until the police show up (since the car couldn't be moved). I never would've guessed they had a general emphasis on safety (though it makes sense). I always assume they have one job.
-The only bengals fan that has never set foot in Cincinnati 1-15-22
(05-28-2022, 03:50 PM)basballguy Wrote: It's funny you say this....
So my daughter was in a wreck yesterday here in Dallas on one of the side streets outside downtown...i went over there after she called me and there were two fire engines and a ambulance. The ambulance left and the fire fighter dudes said they were there specifically to wait and keep the area safe until the police show up (since the car couldn't be moved). I never would've guessed they had a general emphasis on safety (though it makes sense). I always assume they have one job.
This is something I am familiar with as a former medic.
For instance, when we responded to a hazardous materials incident, we EMS folks had a rule of thumb. That rule was that if we held up our thumb and could still see the incident scene we were too close and needed to back up. Our primary responsibility was our own safety. Then the ones with the hazmat gear would do their thing while we waited in case we were absolutely needed.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-28-2022, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In reality, firefighters aren't obliged to put out fires. But that is more about protecting surrounding property than anything else. The thing to keep in mind with all first responders is that their first priority is actually their own safety. If a situation is too risky, then they will not go in and they are not obligated to. Then intention is to prevent additional victims.
The reason for all the training and gear is to reduce the risk, but it will never be zero.
The risk didn't stop them from going in for their own kids, so that excuse can go right on and **** off.
(05-28-2022, 06:11 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: The risk didn't stop them from going in for their own kids, so that excuse can go right on and **** off.
Well, apparently they also violated departmental policy from what I gave seen. And don't think I am excusing their behavior. Again, I have issues with our society putting so much into our LEOs and not holding them accountable.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-28-2022, 08:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, apparently they also violated departmental policy from what I gave seen. And don't think I am excusing their behavior. Again, I have issues with our society putting so much into our LEOs and not holding them accountable.
I didn't mean to come off as accusing you of excusing them - I just wanted to point out that the cowards ran in to get their kids and then bailed without a second thought for the rest of them.
(05-25-2022, 11:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have a question, not meant to be controversial or stirring up anything, just for comprehension. If someone were to say or post "I want to shoot up lots of people at my school" (or that it would be good if that happened or something similar), what is the appropriate reaction by law enforcement?
(05-28-2022, 08:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, apparently they also violated departmental policy from what I gave seen. And don't think I am excusing their behavior. Again, I have issues with our society putting so much into our LEOs and not holding them accountable.
(05-27-2022, 08:56 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Even if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment were correct, which I would respectfully disagree with, the Constitution is a living, evolving document; not a stagnant, unchangeable dogma.
The Supreme Court stated as much so your disagreement isn’t based on anything.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(05-27-2022, 08:43 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: The “constitutional right” argument is the cheapest one there is. We’re taking a document that was written just after electricity was discovered and black people were still being bought and sold into slavery and looking at it as if it’s infallible. The constitution needs to be treated as a living document much more than it is…things that made sense then, just don’t make sense anymore.
It’s actually the only argument. Ok it was written over two hundred years ago. Do you say the same thing about your right to an attorney or your right against unlawful search and seizure? The Supreme Court ruled on this ten or fifteen years ago. Living and breathing. How do we decide which rights don’t really count? You either pass an amendment or rewrite the constitution.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(05-27-2022, 08:42 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Somethingsomething constitutional somethingsomething right etc.
Do you think that answer is incorrect? Is that the same answer you’d give if any other rights were violated?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 280x280_middle.jpg]](https://www.udrop.com/6H9c/IMG_2022-05-28-10-34-37-100.jpg)
![[Image: 54375633-10528709-image-a-47_1645213821995.jpg]](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/02/18/19/54375633-10528709-image-a-47_1645213821995.jpg)
