Mass Killings at Virginia Walmart

they should have struck it down on the commerce clause grounds. Roberts is enamored with the thought of the legal press-which leans far left-calling him "clever"

 

Again, that is not the point and stop deflecting here. And if you read my statement, I am not talking about disarming, just changing attitudes here. Geez, read a little before you start popping your mouth for not knowing what you are talking about,.

Yes, there are crimes, so are DUIs, driving 30 mph faster in a recognized school zone when it is enforced, and a whole bunch of other crimes.

 

Miller never did justify the actual power to enact the NFA-it merely said the second was not relevant to weapons that did not have militia use-and since there was only one side presented at the supreme court, the USSC essentially found false judicial notice. The entire case was a set up by the FDR DOJ and an anti gun federal judge. the Supreme court should have remanded the case for factual inquiry as to a sawn off shotgun but they did not. There is a great law review article written by a guy who was an associate at big league Wall Street Law firm-now a law professor showing how the Miller case was decided. I will find it and edit this post

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/265/

 

It met the commerce clause. The commerce clause is one of the most powerful clauses in the US Constitution and the Supreme Court has granted that expansion time and time again.

 

and that has caused most of our problems. the founders never intended it to grant the amount of powers that the FDR administration created. The good news is that the current court most likely will start rolling some back and not allow any more expansion

 

I would read the opinion and the Constititonal questions that were in play here.

This is the summary here:
"1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.

2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/

 

you mean like Right to Privacy, The United States Air Force, Executive Orders, absolute freedom of speech, God, Judicial Review, and a whole bunch of others.

The list is here.

 

Right up there with Roe V Wade.

 

Cargill v Garland is going for cert at Scotus from the 5th circuit bud. It will be the 3rd circuit deciding a different rule on this issue so far. That's ripe for Cert to Scotus, and that's basically balls deep in the appellate process.
You've really got to read the resources given if you want to represent yourself as an authority.

 

lots of that was not based on the commerce clause. USAF was originally part of the army so its merely semantic.

 

Its not inner liberalism on Robert's part. He likes being the decider and he likes playing solomon. There is no underlying principle other than that. He's not guided by a philosophy he's guided by what will this do and do I like that.

 

He wants to be the star in law review articles

 

Again. The ultimate goal of the UK's gun legislation was to not have mass shoutouts, specifically at schools.
The goal of that firearm legislation was not about trying to curb the total amount of violent crime.
And in the end, they show that the firearm violence dropped as a whole and not just mass shootouts.

What happened at Walmart was a mass shootout.
Americans do not want that.
There are examples out there what to do about it.
And all in all, you lot have no actual alternative that works.


Jails in the US are totally full with criminals, serving massive amounts of time.
No country is punishing people like the US. It really is nr1 by far.
At no point does this show that this is having the effect that Americans want.
So in case you think that being more tough on crime is the good alternative, is not based on anything.

 

Incorrect. It ended mass shootings and gun violence in general.
Exactly that is a massive problem in the US.

And you people have no alternative to tackle the problem
Your main goal is believing that punishing harder is going to be it.
While the US is by far the most violent nation among western nations.
It's also by far the country who got the most people locked up.
That's overal and %-wise. Nothing shows that such an idea works.

 

And you have more murdered people now than you did then.

 

They are not a similar western nation. The level of prosperity is much lower. And it goes hand in hand that it's government and police force is far more corrupt / level of law and order over the country is much lower. I find it weird that I need to explain this.

 

The entire policy was not aimed to bolster self defense or violent crime.
The policy was aimed to reduce gun violence, and most notable mass shootings.
And they hit a bullseye.

The US got a massive problem with gun violence and mass shootings. And you right wing lot do everything you can to let everybody in the US suffer with that problem. All you lot can think of is to punish tougher, while the US already is the country with the most people locked up in total and %wise. It's not working out.

 

The fact that you think the US is too hard on criminals is so funny I cannot believe you actually typed that. What we have is a massive problem of people with no education blathering on with no facts and a bucket full of feelings for fuel.

 

Because at that point it was a challenge to the regulation of short barrelled shotguns and since miller was dead and his lawyer on the payroll, no evidence or pleadings were provided to show the court that short barreled shotguns would be useful in military contexts which it held without real analysis was the standard for protection.
Since miller offered no evidence, no evidence was heard and the court stuck with the general presumption of lawfulness of a statute.

You're literally citing a case that was astroturfed and which had an incredibly narrow ruling.

 

Gun Free Zones = Safe Shooting Ranges for Mass Murderers.

 

2nd 3rd and 4th order effects still exist, even when you do not intend them to occur.
Want to know what happens if you hit the bullseye but overpenetrate and kill someone you weren't justified to shoot? You murdered them.
This is like that. Disarming the law abiding spiked violent crime. People were victimized by crime at a higher rate because they were disarmed and mostly prevented from legally defending themselves. That's not a win.

I'm not right wing dude. I'm libertarian (spelled with a lowercase L on purpose). There is more things on heaven and earth, dear Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Actually they mostly let people off with barely a slap on the wrist these days. There is a criminal in Houston who assaulted people, robbed people, attempted murder etc, got bond for each charge, violated same, and still got bond. We are rather lenient these days. Most states don't even have the death penalty anymore.
And you somehow think disarming the people who aren't the problem will protect them, and it only makes them subject to predation.

 

Exactly.

 

It is your position then that US law enforcement doesn't have a corruption issue? That our government doesn't likewise?

Are you saying that with a straight face?

 

And?

Nothing spiked. You're just inventing that people otherwise would have defended theirselves.
Where the stats about people who previously successfully defended themselves with a gun, and compare that with how it is now?

People out on a bond, aren't convicted criminals and it doesn't show some kind of leniency one bit.
And the "assault" was done with a vehicle and not a gun. These are reasons why a judge rules that a bond is justified.

Bottom line is that the US got the highest rate of people locked up.
The US also got the highest overall number of people locked up.
Your attempt to claim that the US isn't tough on crime, is just stupid.

 

I am saying it's nothing like how it is in Brasil. Hence the comparison with just similar western nations is how you can look at it in a honest way.

And all in all, the US is by far the most violent country of them all. Gun violence is out of control, where other western countries solved it with sane legal measurements. Right wingers are predominantly totally against this solution and think being tough on crime is the way out. It's been tried for decades. The jails are many, and the jails are full. It did not solve the violence. So... well well.