High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report

[xbuzzerx]

Wrong. For an example, read the Constitution and try to find something which can be interpreted to say that the states mat not legislate to prohibit abortion.

It is absolutely within the purview of the courts to rule that certain universal aspects of human rights or the equal protection of human rights cannot be individually decided by states.

What you're implying would imply something like States should be able to individually decide which items on the Bill of Rights to observe.

You're making the same argument that people who advocated keeping slavery made.

 

[bankside]

The people who think Scalia is doing a sublime job of constitutional interpretation are clinging to an incoherent notion of congressional authority.

Law begins with a congress, parliament or other legislature.

If the legislature passes an incoherent law, the president or prime minister or other member of the executive in cabinet, is still obliged to be the sole point of implementing the law as well as possible.

Thus, if Congress passes a law stating "that sandsnarples shall always be blarkzatroped," they have done their job, and made the law of the land, which the President is obliged to implement to the extent possible. Any incoherence or inconsistency in the law passed by the legislature does not excuse the president from doing his job. If his understanding of how to blarkzatrope a sandsnarple is different from some congressman's, too bad for the congressman; he should have run for president.

It is a bit simpler in Parliamentary systems where the executive is really a servant of the legislature, is accountable to it, and can be dismissed or replaced with a basic majority vote. Parliamentary systems bind executive and legislative functions together to ensure accountability; presidential systems set them against each other for the same reason. The President is not the servant of the Congress. His judgment regarding the implementation of laws, other than in impeachment proceedings, is subject only to review by the electorate. To defer to congressional complaining about his interpretations or implementations of the law would be a dereliction of his democratic responsibility to act as a check on congress. If the president backed off, he would be leaving the congress unchecked and failing in his basic constitutional purpose: to exercise judgment independent of congress in how to operate the law.

And of course the "activist judges" with their own oath to a democratic and constitutional system of governance, are also obliged to give honest answers when in their own reasoned view, a law or its execution fails to pass constitutional muster.

A constitution does not admit of gaps. If a case is brought before it, the court must use the only constitution it has to decide. "I dunno" is an answer not permitted to them. When a case comes forward which seems an awkward fit for a given section of the constitution, it tells us not that the constitution is a failure, not that the judges were inept, but that no other section of the constitution was a better fit.

Those who find that sufficiently unsatisfactory should propose amending it rather than whining about judges doing their jobs.

 

[Benvolio]

And the laws came after reductions in crime. do you not understand cause and effect? (Why even as at this point?)
not proof of anything. Just pointing out that enforcement requires police action.

Uniform? Why? The US is a union of many different states. Not everyone lives in urban areas (you probably hate people who do not). The realities of life in Alaska as not the same as they are in New York City, child. you may not know what Alaska is, but that is not my problem.

No, let us not just institute laws to appease the stupid and those who do not understand math and science.

I never insult (except when I refer to someone as an "American", which likely the worst insult possible). I merely point out poster's lack of logic. Is that really a bad thing?

I am a logical person. I do not believe in emotions (psychopaths ftw! it is funny because we are generally more successful). I want things that work and make sense.

It is absolutely within the purview of the courts to rule that certain universal aspects of human rights or the equal protection of human rights cannot be individually decided by states.

What you're implying would imply something like States should be able to individually decide which items on the Bill of Rights to observe.

You're making the same argument that people who advocated keeping slavery made.

Nonsense the court has no authority to invent new rights and claim they are in the a constitution. Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Nonsense the court has no authority to invent new rights and claim they are in the a constitution. Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You're the only one saying the courts do that. And Republicans claim it about any judicial ruling they don't happen to like.

 

[Benvolio]

No, and no.Republicans have been objecting to the Courts invention of new Rights for decades. Roe v Wade was sheer invention.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The continued refusal to look at the facts is why republicans have failed in this forum. Right wingers don't like the courts when the courts don't rule in their favor. It's just obvious.

I would love to see their outrage get directed against Citizens United. But they're still talking about Roe v. Wade decades after the fact.

 

[tigerfan482]

Wrong. For an example, read the Constitution and try to find something which can be interpreted to say that the states mat not legislate to prohibit abortion.

Article 6, Clause 2.
Article 2, Section 2.

Federal law can be passed prohibiting the prohibition of abortion via the supremacy clause.
The Supreme Court can rule state laws against abortion unconstitutional, setting precedent for any future laws.
States can legislate whatever they want. Whether that legislation stands the test of constitutionality is what is in question, and the Constitution clearly provides means of preventing states from legislating whatever they want from the federal level.

 

[Benvolio]

And the laws came after reductions in crime. do you not understand cause and effect? (Why even as at this point?)
not proof of anything. Just pointing out that enforcement requires police action.

Uniform? Why? The US is a union of many different states. Not everyone lives in urban areas (you probably hate people who do not). The realities of life in Alaska as not the same as they are in New York City, child. you may not know what Alaska is, but that is not my problem.

No, let us not just institute laws to appease the stupid and those who do not understand math and science.

I never insult (except when I refer to someone as an "American", which likely the worst insult possible). I merely point out poster's lack of logic. Is that really a bad thing?

I am a logical person. I do not believe in emotions (psychopaths ftw! it is funny because we are generally more successful). I want things that work and make sense.

Article 6, Clause 2.
Article 2, Section 2.

Federal law can be passed prohibiting the prohibition of abortion via the supremacy clause.
The Supreme Court can rule state laws against abortion unconstitutional, setting precedent for any future laws.
States can legislate whatever they want. Whether that legislation stands the test of constitutionality is what is in question, and the Constitution clearly provides means of preventing states from legislating whatever they want from the federal level.

Clearly wrong. The Constitution delegates specific powers to the Federal government. But , Amendment X provides: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively , or to the people." No power to govern abortion is delegated to the Federal government. The Supreme Court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional unless the law is contrary to something in the Constitution. That was my challenge.

 

[Rolyo85]

Will you give it up with abortion? It was 40 years ago! And I know you're not informed enough to know this, but the entire civilized world has legalized abortion. Join the rest of us at modern day morality.

 

[HenryReardon]

Will you give it up with abortion? It was 40 years ago! And I know you're not informed enough to know this, but the entire civilized world has legalized abortion. Join the rest of us at modern day morality.

At last, an area of agreement. I don't give a rat's behind about abortion. Never have, never will. The Republicans (and I am not now, nor have I ever been one) need to get off this topic, once and for all. Even my partner agrees with that, despite having strong feelings on the subject, largely due to his RC upbringing.

Frankly, abortion is nobody's business, except the woman involved.

 

[Sausy]

All those who will never get the chance to live( and if atheists are right there's only one life) because of abortion...fuck them, they were never worth consideration? Modern day morality? I understand and support the rights of women to take control over their bodies, and to fight against being treated as property of the male. But a lot of females have been aborted, too...they will never get to make the choice their mothers made to throw them away, prevent their existence. It's sad.... the power of life and death over another, even one only potentially a life(but destined to be nothing less than a human being) is an awful weapon to wield, and a woman of true conscirence would be loathe to ever use that weapon except in the most dire of circumstances.

Unfortunately though Henry's partner though pro life may be right...Republicans should have a policy of free conscience on abortion, as should the Democrats. Shouldn't be emphasized in the political party structure. Sorry to have vented steam here off subject but I get so damn angry when progressives go off about how civilized and wonderful their politics are but while the protest even the guiltiest person from being put to death for murder. I'm very conflicted on the death penalty myself, but it seems most on the left (and most socially libertarian conservatives like Henry) have no moral difficulty with abortion...well, at least your moms did not exercise that "oh so civilized" option on you. EVERYONE stats from a single fertilized egg, and while one can debate when the new life becomes human, should a potential human life be denied existence merely for inconvenience?

I'm not going to interrupt this subject again... but Rolyo's condescending self-righteousness in his declarations do not make his viewpoint the only correct perspective.

 

[Rolyo85]

It's a matter of choice. Choice for living, breathing, conscious people. Fetuses are not people any more than the drying jizm on the towel you just threw in the laundry basket. I'm sick to death of fake sanctimonious "caring" republicans who can't be bothered about human life in any OTHER instance but when it's that of the unborn.

And spare me the "I'm not a republican" mantra. Nobody's buying it at this point.

 

[xbuzzerx]

All those who will never get the chance to live( and if atheists are right there's only one life) because of abortion...fuck them, they were never worth consideration? Modern day morality? I understand and support the rights of women to take control over their bodies, and to fight against being treated as property of the male. But a lot of females have been aborted, too...they will never get to make the choice their mothers made to throw them away, prevent their existence. It's sad.... the power of life and death over another, even one only potentially a life(but destined to be nothing less than a human being) is an awful weapon to wield, and a woman of true conscirence would be loathe to ever use that weapon except in the most dire of circumstances.

Unfortunately though Henry's partner though pro life may be right...Republicans should have a policy of free conscience on abortion, as should the Democrats. Shouldn't be emphasized in the political party structure. Sorry to have vented steam here off subject but I get so damn angry when progressives go off about how civilized and wonderful their politics are but while the protest even the guiltiest person from being put to death for murder. I'm very conflicted on the death penalty myself, but it seems most on the left (and most socially libertarian conservatives like Henry) have no moral difficulty with abortion...well, at least your moms did not exercise that "oh so civilized" option on you. EVERYONE stats from a single fertilized egg, and while one can debate when the new life becomes human, should a potential human life be denied existence merely for inconvenience?

I'm not going to interrupt this subject again... but Rolyo's condescending self-righteousness in his declarations do not make his viewpoint the only correct perspective.

This is all off topic from Benvolio going off about purported "activist judges" and bringing up the tired old conservative refrain of "Roe vs. Wade."

It's law of the land and this thread isn't an abortion debate.

 

[HenryReardon]

And spare me the "I'm not a republican" mantra. Nobody's buying it at this point.

Nobody is asking you to 'buy' anything. The fact remains that I am not a member of the Republican party. I've been registered either independent or libertarian for many, many years because I do not wish to be counted with either party. I do this every year even though it prohibits me from participating in local primaries.

Many people feel this way. In fact, our county has over 95,000 registered Republicans; about 85,000 registered democrats, and 45,000registered independent/other.

Both of the major parties have reached a point where they don't stand for much of anything.

And the sad fact remains, that like many people, I seldom vote "for" any candidate. Through the last several election cycles it has always come down to voting against a really horrible choice by casting a vote for a slightly less horrible choice. A sad commentary on the state of politics.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, I'm the one with the barbecue, remember? And a beer. Minding my own business on a summer's day, when, according to your most recent theory, no one will ever leap over my fence with a gun, and to suggest it is just fear-mongering.

As Churchill observed, having tried everything else, I knew you would eventually come up with the right answer. Remind me why I would need a gun to protect me from my harmless neighbours again?

Yes, you were the one with the barbecue -- standing there suspicious and terrified, by your own account.

BTW, if you think you have "harmless neighbors", I have to wonder which cemetery you live in.

Last here, I like the way you constantly change the question to try to stir emotion than use reason.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, it really isn't.

You from the PsiCorps?

 

[Kulindahr]

Me and half the country. Apparently new definitions are needed.

The way to do that is to amend the document.

Not that doing so would change the reality that human beings have the right to keep and bear arms; the Amendment is just there to remind the government that this is something they're not supposed to tamper with. If the despisers of individual liberty on the left do get their way, you can be certain that Americans will no more comply with the law than have those in many European countries and elsewhere, who on the whole turned in fewer than twenty percent of the weapons in private hands (see study already posted in this forum).

 

[Kulindahr]

Ultimately, someone is accountable for any law. So it falls to them to direct their writing regardless of who actually does it.

This agrees with my point that government does not belong to the people. The "someone" making the law in the US in most cases will or even can never be known.

Which is to point out that claiming anyone is accountable is ludicrous. Even Congress, with an approval rating threatening to descend into single digits, mostly gets re-elected despite the way they continuously damage the country.

 

[Kulindahr]

So was the 2nd Amendment amended through nationwide ratification for every piece of gear beyond conventional 1776 equipment that State reserves & The Guard maintain today?

According to your interpretation, they were never allowed to have GPS or any post-musket firearm or modern vehicles.

In Christian terms, you fall in with Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson: you refuse to read language as it was meant to be read, and insist on pretending it was written only by idiots for idiots.

According to the Framers, to "keep and bear arms" meant to have and keep ready for use the arms of the standard individual soldier. If you can find me an army today that still uses muskets and sabers and such, then in that army's country the Second would mean that was what they are protected in having. Here, however, it means what the Framers wrote: the people are supposed to be allowed to have M16s, AK47s, and/or whatever longarm and sidearm they choose.

 

[Kulindahr]

The gun debate often relies on invented statistics, but Henry is now inventing words as well.

Someone has to do it, or the language would stagnate.