Constitutional Rights - asking for ID and/or open carry

[Yorkshire pud]

     Yorkie, I don't know about you uks, but here the gun grabbers self-identify as being of the left. Whether or not they meet your definition of "left", they meet their own.

Unfortunately I'm too late to edit my earlier post, but someting I'd like to add. It isn't my definition of 'left'..it's the universal definition of what the origins of 'left' is..The common man or woman being in control of the means of production and governance. In all cases of revolution, it's been the overthrow of the monarchy/ autocracy/ dictatorship by the people for the people (France, Russia, Spain to name but three).George Orwell is often cited as the visionary of Big Brother and anti establishment; he fought for the communists in the Spanish civil war in the 30's..as did the father of one of Britains most prominent Conservative former ministers. Isn't that what some Republicans advocate? The dismantling of a central autocracy, replaced by the governance/ control/ administration by the population? It could be argued that some Republicans are in fact communists in the true sense of the word.

Furthermore Democrats or whoever are wrong to say they're left, (The party is considerably right of our own Conservative party; considered by many to have evolved to be the most right wing in recent years).
I'm liberal minded, I believe in the basic principle that all humans are equal at birth; not because of some religious indoctrination, but because of what we are. I believe as a species, humankind should spend more on mutual help and support and less on the means to annihilate each other; the necessity to make basic human needs such as clean water,nourishing food and shelter as a human right; but sadly some see that as being a pinko, bleeding heart, commie bastard: right up to the point when they're in a similar position. It should in my opinion be less about politics and more about who we really are.

As Martin Niemöller, the pastor said:
  First they came for the communists ,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the jews
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Yorkshire pud]

The UK might have a more sedate society.  Australia had a severe spike in home invasions after banning public ownership of handguns.  I can imagine how one would feel if one week I had to turn over my gun to the government and the next week a gang of lunatics (with guns) invaded my house because they knew I would be defenseless.  If I owned one, I would happily give up a handgun to the government if they first take away all handguns from every existing and potential criminal.  Without this criteria it is sending sheep to the wolves.

Oddly we didn't have hordes of gangs rampaging through the towns the day after hand guns were banned. As I said before; it must be acceptable to have 11-12000 firearm related murders-not forgetting the 20 something thousend suicides from firearms..if it wasn't, something would be done about it. As I've also said previously, I learned to shoot as a boy, so I do know the loud end from the stock of a rifle. Which is why I have a deep mistrust of blanket allowance of firearms to anyone without deep and meaningful background checks.

[onan]

The UK might have a more sedate society.  Australia had a severe spike in home invasions after banning public ownership of handguns.  I can imagine how one would feel if one week I had to turn over my gun to the government and the next week a gang of lunatics (with guns) invaded my house because they knew I would be defenseless.  If I owned one, I would happily give up a handgun to the government if they first take away all handguns from every existing and potential criminal.  Without this criteria it is sending sheep to the wolves.

I have no doubt to what you state. But Australia's death by gun ration is about 10 percent of the US. Just to be clear however there are several countries' with much higher death-by-gun rates than the US. The US does by far have the highest gun per capita ratio. Canada has about 40 percent of the number of guns we do, per capita yet their death by gun is a much smaller number. Mexico has a higher gun to death ratio. So, imo, there is some other factor as to why we have the amount of deaths we do; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at all the options.

[Marc.Knight]

Oddly we didn't have hordes of gangs rampaging through the towns the day after hand guns were banned. As I said before; it must be acceptable to have 11-12000 firearm related murders-not forgetting the 20 something thousend suicides from firearms..if it wasn't, something would be done about it. As I've also said previously, I learned to shoot as a boy, so I do know the loud end from the stock of a rifle. Which is why I have a deep mistrust of blanket allowance of firearms to anyone without deep and meaningful background checks.

You have a very thoughtful and reasoned perspective.  However, millions of people in the US buy guns privately or criminally, and therefore have no screening process to be subjected to.  The number of deaths you cite would be considerably higher were it not for home protection in the form of a gun.  None of the statistics are acceptable.  But, criminal ownership of guns is the least acceptable of all.

[Juan]

So, imo, there is some other factor as to why we have the amount of deaths we do; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at all the options.

Agreed.  I heard some information last night (which I have not verified) that Chicago is 1/3 black, 1/3 white and 1/3 hispanic.  However 85% of gun deaths in the city are black on black.  There are similar statistics for New York City. The commenter, who is African-American himself, suggests the reason for this is the absence of fathers from so many African-American homes.  As a result, the young men grow up without a positive role model.

I'd suggest this may be an option that needs serious examination. 

[Marc.Knight]

I have no doubt to what you state. But Australia's death by gun ration is about 10 percent of the US. Just to be clear however there are several countries' with much higher death-by-gun rates than the US. The US does by far have the highest gun per capita ratio. Canada has about 40 percent of the number of guns we do, per capita yet their death by gun is a much smaller number. Mexico has a higher gun to death ratio. So, imo, there is some other factor as to why we have the amount of deaths we do; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at all the options.

You put your finger on the issue.  I posit that the US has a relatively new, non-homogeneous culture, generally poor education and widespread social inequity leading to more opportunities for violence by any means.  The causation you infer could be the topic of enlightening research.  Let's look at the issue holistically:  Let's also stop selling or "giving away" billions of dollars worth of death machines and guns to other countries, e.g., Egypt and Israel.


Unfortunately it is a constitutional issue, as it is being interpreted.  I think the next target will be steep taxes on ammunition, or banning types of ammunition. 

[stevesh]

I think the next target will be steep taxes on ammunition, or banning types of ammunition.

Those of us who load our own ammunition should probably be excused for hoping so. Banning or making it difficult to obtain any commodity = black market and the premium prices it demands.

[Marc.Knight]

Those of us who load our own ammunition should probably be excused for hoping so. Banning or making it difficult to obtain any commodity = black market and the premium prices it demands.

Interesting.  I wonder if liability could be imposed upon the illegal ammunition supplier, e.g, the bartender knowingly sending a customer home drunk who then kills someone while driving.  I think authorities will apply a chain of culpability which includes the source of illegal ammunition.  But this is just conjecture.

[PB the Deplorable]

I am actually pretty conservative on taxation and spending, and liberal on legal control by the police state.  That makes me a CONSISTENT small government person...

Perhaps we are not so far apart.  Assuning by liberal on the police state you means we have too much of that already.

...  You are all for big government, as long as they spend it on defense and control via the police state (eg modern conservationism has betrayed it's founders).

I am for the govt doing what individuals and businesses aren't so good at doing - roads and bridges, fire and police services, administering parks, issuing money, the court system, stuf like that.  A small safety net, letting charities do most of that work with their strings attached - not a massive wealth transfer operation with a huge bureaucracy administering it.  And yes, National Defense.

But this huge police state we are becoming, and the US constantly medling militarily around the world. - no I am not for this.  I don't know anyone who is, unfortunatley there is a lot of apathy and it seems to just grow.

[Yorkshire pud]

Interesting.  I wonder if liability could be imposed upon the illegal ammunition supplier, e.g, the bartender knowingly sending a customer home drunk who then kills someone while driving.  I think authorities will apply a chain of culpability which includes the source of illegal ammunition.  But this is just conjecture.

In the UK it has been illegal to serve alcohol to anyone who is drunk..Sort of begs the question how people get drunk then? In the USA (and regretably the same is happening here) ambulance chasers will follow the 'where there's a blame there's a claim' route.
C'mon, if Mc D can get dragged through court for a hot apple pie and the moron who bought it, not work out the basic premise that ovens and hot plates make food hot-and win, I think it highly probable that some lawyer will find a way of holding ammunition (and possibly firearms) manufacturer's to account for the damage done by same. "Tell the court please Mr (insert rifle/ammunition manufacturer of choice) do you concede your product contributed to the death of Mr and Mrs Smith, and do you further concede without your weapon/ ammunition, Mr and Mrs Smith would likely still be alive today?"...(looks imploringly at the jury). If that happens too many times (twice will do it), the NRA, and arms manufacturers will be demanding psychological testing and weapon restriction.

[Marc.Knight]

In the UK it has been illegal to serve alcohol to anyone who is drunk..Sort of begs the question how people get drunk then? In the USA (and regretably the same is happening here) ambulance chasers will follow the 'where there's a blame there's a claim' route.
C'mon, if Mc D can get dragged through court for a hot apple pie and the moron who bought it, not work out the basic premise that ovens and hot plates make food hot-and win, I think it highly probable that some lawyer will find a way of holding ammunition (and possibly firearms) manufacturer's to account for the damage done by same. "Tell the court please Mr (insert rifle/ammunition manufacturer of choice) do you concede your product contributed to the death of Mr and Mrs Smith, and do you further concede without your weapon/ ammunition, Mr and Mrs Smith would likely still be alive today?"...(looks imploringly at the jury). If that happens too many times (twice will do it), the NRA, and arms manufacturers will be demanding psychological testing and weapon restriction.

I agree.  I think the government will attempt to circumvent constitutional barriers by thinking outside the box. 


In addition to banning ammunition for targeted guns, why not consider banning the domestic manufacture and importation of gun triggers?  The object protected by the constitution is the gun itself, not its component parts.  But, this might be too logical.

[Yorkshire pud]

I agree.  I think the government will attempt to circumvent constitutional barriers by thinking outside the box. 

It won't be the government that starts it; it will be civil actions brought by Mr and Mrs Smith's family and similar. The ammunition manufacturers simply won't be able to afford to pay out multi billion dollars worth of lawsuits. Sure it will run on for years and years, go through several courts, up to and including the Supreme court..THEN...it will reach Congress (I'm looking at several years from now, Obama long since gone from the Whitehouse).

In addition to banning ammunition for targeted guns, why not consider banning the domestic manufacture and importation of gun triggers?  The object protected by the constitution is the gun itself, not its component parts.  But, this might be too logical.

Who knows? I suppose it's possible, but I think equally likely arms manufacturers simply won't want to be seen as the cause of the problem. They (the manufacturers) naturally support the 2nd amendment publically, but in reality couldn't give a shit; it's just a (very) convenient instrument to keep their vested interest afloat..Of course it won't be their downfall; there are enough wars around the world to keep them in business for many years to come.

[Sardondi]

It won't be the government that starts it; it will be civil actions brought by Mr and Mrs Smith's family and similar. The ammunition manufacturers simply won't be able to afford to pay out multi billion dollars worth of lawsuits. Sure it will run on for years and years, go through several courts, up to and including the Supreme court..THEN...it will reach Congress (I'm looking at several years from now, Obama long since gone from the Whitehouse).

Who knows? I suppose it's possible, but I think equally likely arms manufacturers simply won't want to be seen as the cause of the problem. They (the manufacturers) naturally support the 2nd amendment publically, but in reality couldn't give a shit; it's just a (very) convenient instrument to keep their vested interest afloat..Of course it won't be their downfall; there are enough wars around the world to keep them in business for many years to come.

An excellent explanation of the tactic of "lawfare" which the left has used for decades. And really quite a surprising admission. Missing from all of it of course is any recognition of personal responsibility. Because it's not about justice - that's a mere pretext. You resort to lawfare when you can't bring about the changes you want through the political process; so instead you seek to compel change in the very fabric of American life through legal jujitsu. Compulsion is the very life's blood of the left.

[Yorkshire pud]

An excellent explanation of the tactic of "lawfare" which the left has used for decades. And really quite a surprising admission. Missing from all of it of course is any recognition of personal responsibility. Because it's not about justice - that's a mere pretext. You resort to lawfare when you can't bring about the changes you want through the political process; so instead you seek to compel change in the very fabric of American life through legal jujitsu. Compulsion is the very life's blood of the left.

Yes yes...Incidentally what is an admission? It's just pointing out the possibilities. As I'm not an American citizen I have zero influence on it's political landscape, and even less on it's upper echelons. I am however aware what a litigious country it is (as too the UK is becoming-accidents are no longer allowed, someone has to be blamed); and like so many things in life, major changes and tweaking in common law come about by the minor and in some cases, not so minor civil actions brought by the Mr and Mrs Smiths and their dependents. The Ford Pinto started the ball rolling I believe, all those years ago.
Compulsion isn't the preserve of the 'left'; The Vatican is a prime example of the opposite political stance but loves rules, as too is any Arab state; if in doubt vent your feelings against a Gulf state monarch in the respective country; if that doesn't get your balls cut off, try the king of Thailand; over there merely mumbling disapproval gets an arrest. Until recently the same could be applied in Burma, but the bravest woman in the world Aung San Suu Kyi helped bring that to a close. 
I'm curious as to what defines the fabric of American life; Mc Donalds? Wendys? 67 Mustang? Disneyland? Marilyn Monroe? The litigious society is one aspect of the fabric I suppose.

[onan]

An excellent explanation of the tactic of "lawfare" which the left has used for decades. And really quite a surprising admission. Missing from all of it of course is any recognition of personal responsibility. Because it's not about justice - that's a mere pretext. You resort to lawfare when you can't bring about the changes you want through the political process; so instead you seek to compel change in the very fabric of American life through legal jujitsu. Compulsion is the very life's blood of the left.

I am not sure how anyone could present this as some kind of fact. The jujitsu you speak of is used by all factions of politics. Fuck me, wall street has 20 times the lawyers the justice department does. And do not even attempt to suggest that is a left leaning group.


No I don't have a great deal of experience in legal matters. But I do know suggesting legal maneuverings are only used to forward nefarious lefties is delusional and I expect much more rational thought from you, Sardoni.