Gun control vs Entrpreneurialism

I am not asking you, anything.
I am making statements of fact.
Google it.

 

Speaking of 'straws'- this is the US, not Australia, Sweden or England.

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

 

I must have got the wrong meaning from the question mark. My bad

 

It is a rhetorical question, one everyone should ask, when did things change ?
And why ?

 

OK Understood. Societies evolve, otherwise we would all be living in caves

 

So why ask how Rights vanish ?
We are creating an underclass of disenfranchised denizens.

 

I didn't ask how rights vanish, must have been someone else. I tried to show how rights change. We have more rights now then we did 200 years ago.

Yes and a lot of them carry guns

 

Wrong. Look at the history of mass shootings, some shooters were as young as 14 and used handguns. You cannot control access to guns or all the tools of violence.

You cannot control want, you can direct the development of people and help channel their actions and emotions into productive areas. Its called psychology. Get an education.

 

You can control access. How many mass shootings happen with automatic weapons? Case closed you lose

 

The only reason such a standard applies is because congress was quick to act with regard to automatic firearm, ensuring restrictions and regulations were in place long before they could ever become commonly available, due in no small part to the great depression occurring at the time. The same cannot be said with regard to semi-automatic firearms, which number in the hundreds of millions currently, are commonly owned throughout the nation, and are not subject to any particular restrictions that resemble fully-automatic firearms.

 

Disarming poor minorities was the name of that game. Cheap means of self-defense in a crime-ridden neighborhood? Not a chance in the face of liberal fears of a black man with a gun.

 

Probably around the time the Harrison Narcotics Act was passed and people could no longer walk into a drugstore and buy the medicine of their choice.

 

Then explain, precisely what is the question that is being presented for consideration?

 

Yes they need to be quick to act now

 

It is far too late for anything to be done with regard to semi-automatic firearms being freely owned. They are as common as any other firearm on the open market, and based on a technology that has been around and available to the public since the nineteenth century.

 

Its never too late

 

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

https://qz.com/714884/we-should-come-for-american-guns/


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 178

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

 

There are indeed numerous times when it is far too late to do anything. The time for congress to act was when the technology first came into existence. Since they did not, nothing can be done now.

 

Nope. Its never too late

 

It is if someone has already ended their own existence, thus putting them beyond the reach of help.

 

Yeah lets help them not to do that

 

Then it is being freely admitted by yourself that there are indeed times when it is too late to act.

 

Honestly, you are out of your depth.

The homicide rate which measures both murder and manslaughter is here.

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

This measures both murder and manslaughter.

Just because people plead guilty to manslaughter more often then not in some year, uping the manslaughter from 35 cases nationwide from 30 the previous year (and then back down again) is not relevant when looking at the crime rate trying to measure how much people have been killing other people. It reeks of your desperation to prove that gun control makes crime worse.

Which if anything is a concession that gun control has an effect just not the one argued by gun control advocates, when very clearly the homicide rate just followed the same trend as it had been prior to the laws.

For the record the homicide rate is now down below 1, which with a population of 20 M leaves us at about 200 Homicides per year.

I would invite you to have a look at our statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/crime-and-justice

You can download excel tables showing all the recording crime prosecutions going back to 2008, well after the gun bans.

Oddly enough you cant see armed robbery. I imagine it is just under theft, also the term isnt "armed robbery".

Suffice to say it shows some crimes going up some crimes going down. IMO the biggest indicator of recorded crime and prosecutions is the amount of police / prosecutors you have. The more resources they have, the more they are going to follow **** up and record more crimes.

Oddly enough sexual assualt is sky rocketting very recently, nothing to do with guns I suspect but more to do with the education of the populas and people actually going through with telling police etc etc whereas before they may not have.

Again going on to a cultural thing, if crime became so much worse after the gun ban, where were all the calls to get rid of this shitty nanny state law? There were no calls, because it did not have that effect.

 

This is a good post.

If the american people want to change their position on guns (or any nation on any item) it is not about seizures, they are all for show (perhaps a necessary show to set the tone for the public mood, but a show nonetheless), it is about how easy to obtain and how popular that item is.

 

Nope sorry