Justice Thomas: 2a Won't be Touched

Discussion in 'Politics' started by machinist, Apr 6, 2018.

  1. machinist

    machinist Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Kyle Kashuv, Parkland High shooting survivor, pro gun, pro 2nd amendment, conservative, non tide pod eating condom snorting student meets with sitting justice Clarence Thomas who assured him the 2nd amendment wont be touched.

    Kashuv met with Thomas and says he assured him as much.

    Repealing the 2nd is another pipe dream in progressives agenda to destroy America.

    Kyle Kashuv, Parkland student, says Clarence Thomas assured him 2nd Amendment safe
     
  2. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Well that should give you confidence. Clarence has your back. But what does he know? He's only one of nine justices, and the Court wouldn't be involved at all in repealing or changing an amendment to the Constitution. I agree repeal of the Second Amendment is a pipe dream, but it's possible that the interpretation will change. Heller was a 5-4 decision. That would. of course, take one or more Democrat Presidents making new appointments. That isn't a pipe dream. I personally think that a reasonable application of Heller would be sufficient to support effective regulation to reduce the extent of gun violence without depriving people of guns for hunting and self-defense.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2018
  3. machinist

    machinist Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Well the left seemed to think a 97 year old retired justice's opinion mattered a week or two ago when he thought the 2a should be repealed. Thats all.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2018
  4. machinist

    machinist Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    And for the umpteenth time. The 2nd A is not about hunting and self defense. Its about tyrannical gov't.
     
  5. machinist

    machinist Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Also the media has blasted David Hogg's face everywhere, but nobody knows this Kyle Kashuv kid who is a fellow student at Parkland. But he's pro gun.
     
  6. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Saying that often doesn't make it so. It was originally about well-regulated militias as an alternative to standing armies.
     
  7. machinist

    machinist Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Yeah according to Ruth Bader Ginsberg tide pod extraordinaire
     
  8. unfocusedanakin

    unfocusedanakin The Archaic Revival Lifetime Supporter

    It's unlikely that there will be any federal law that repeals the second amendment flat out. Maybe something that better defines what "arms" are. Any gun bans laws will come from the state level like marijuana has. There is already a town that has banned assault weapons. Slowly states and towns will outlaw them and if the gun owner wants to keep them they will move. Places in the south for example that still hate pot will probably the last to ban if ever. But the California's and New Yorks will be quicker.
     
  9. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Tsk, tsk. Name calling will never settle a legal argument.
     
  10. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Maybe it's because he doesn't have much of a following--among the students.
     
  11. GeorgeJetStoned

    GeorgeJetStoned Free Psychotic Readings

    A rock or a stick can be used to assault someone. The term "assault weapon" is arbitrary. The term "assault rifle" is just as trite since all of them can be used to assault someone. It's a term credited to Hitler, though he was talking about automatic short rifled machine guns, something they produced in massive quantities. While everyone else was still using bolt-action rifles.

    My son has an antique Russian sniper rifle (7.62) that he bought largely as a collector. He has only fired it once to verify integrity (20 rounds actually). Then he cleaned it and hung it on the wall where it has been for years now. While it would surely bring a deer down, there aren't many ranges that will allow him to fire it. Apparently the rounds can penetrate an engine block.

    I'm personally of the opinion that there is a goal to ultimately strip gun rights down to the point they become meaningless. Since our criminal population is so low already, the argument that "only criminals will have guns", while true, won't amount to much of the population. Unfortunately, the disarmed public will be more vulnerable in a country the size of the US, particularly during a mass shooting event with an armed maniac.

    But if you think about it, we're already there. Most of the maniacs we have seen in the last couple of decades specifically seek out victims who can't possibly fight back.
     
    storch likes this.
  12. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    While a dictionary definition might lead one to believe that it could include a rock or a stick, "assault weapon" has become a technical term or term of art. According to the Department of Justice back in 1994 under the (then) Federal Assault Weapons Ban Act, "assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." Federal parlance uses the term to denote a military-style weapon capable of firing multiple rounds, either semi-automatic or a fully automatic firearm. http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pu...ub/complete.htm The NRA regards it as a pejorative term.

    We've made impressive progress in reducing crime, but I think you're a bit optimistic in thinking criminals in the forseeable future "won't amount to much of a population". It's also somewhat optimistic to envision a "disarmed" population in this country, although lots of industrial democracies severely restrict gun use and seem to get by with lower crime rates than ours. Japan has the most stringent gun laws in the democratic world, and one of the lowest homicide rates. Fewer than one person is murdered for every 100,000 in the population, compared to 4.8 for the United States. The yakuza crime syndicats, of course, do get guns, but resulting crime and violence is still comparatively low. Since the gun ban in the U.K. in 1996, there has been only one mass shooting in the UK – in 2010. While the ban initially seemed to have little impact, the number of crimes involving guns has dropped in recent years. In 2010/2011, there were 11,227 offenses, 53 percent below the peak number. Crimes involving handguns also dropped 44 percent between 2002/2003 and 2010/2011. Violent crime seems to have been be a particular problem in Scotland, though dropping off dramatically in the past decade. After, 2010-11 the ban resulted in 55% drop of homicides in Scotland because of more stringent enforcement. Australia's gun buyback program in the same year reduced firearm suicides by 74 percent and gun-related homicides by 59 percent by 2010. Four countries with gun control – and what America could learn from them Gun Control Around the World: A Primer http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14340378.Twenty_years_on__the_truth_about_Dunblane_and_gun_laws/ Maybe tougher gun laws would reduce the incidence of armed maniacs in the U.S..
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2018
  13. GeorgeJetStoned

    GeorgeJetStoned Free Psychotic Readings

    I think the massive population aspect skews the comparison of rates, particularly in western industrialized nations. Which is why a healthcare system for Canada can't just be multiplied by 10 and expected to work in the US. Percentages are fine when the data is closer to parity, particularly when dealing with human beings. But when you get into hundreds of millions, can the percentage comparisons be trusted? With so many minds at work, I'm less inclined to trust simple statistics.

    What I think should happen in the US is a better plan to punish anyone who uses a gun in a crime. Sure, it's almost a guaranteed jail sentence, but it's clearly not enough to deter those on the fence. On the west side of Atlanta in Georgia's smallest county a bunch of drunken white people drove around a park displaying confederate flags near a birthday for a 6 year old black kid. Naturally the group of black folks were not amused and a verbal altercation looked like it was on the verge of escalating. Then a white guy in a pickup named Torres brandished a gun.

    Ultimately he was sentenced to 20 years for this and the passenger was sentenced to 15. The effect was amazing actually. It's as if there are no more confederate flags in that county and the old state flags are gone as well. Even though it wasn't about the flag, it was about the weapon. The chill it created for anyone thinking about white supremacy was instant and total. We stop in Douglas county every so often. It has the last mall on I-20 until you're well into Alabummer.

    I also think we treat too many criminals way too well. The US used to execute rapists and they were particularly swift with the execution of child rapists. Now they go to mental hospitals or spend their prison time in solitary. And far too many killers are still warehoused and breathing. Some get out after a portion of their sentence for "good behavior". Their victims rights are just a fleeting memory.
     
  14. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Enhanced penalties work on rational people. I doubt they'd have any effect on people like Nikolas Cruz, Adam Lanza, etc. Also, obviously, on suicide jihadists. We need better ways to keep the guns out of their hands.

    You may have a rosy view of solitary and mental hospitals. Warehoused and breathing might seem worse to some, and most mass murderers aren't long-term planners. A debate over the pros and cons of capital punishment would open a whole new can of worms. Maybe if we brought back crucifixion or drawing and quartering it would get the perps attention, but society has moved on from that.
     
    Balbus and unfocusedanakin like this.
  15. Most don't think before they act.
     
  16. GeorgeJetStoned

    GeorgeJetStoned Free Psychotic Readings

    Society has moved on from that, but human depravity has not. Consider the demons who tortured that couple in Knoxville some years ago. Really primitive shit. Today's criminals know that they will never see the kind of punishment for the hideous torture they deliver.
     
  17. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Hey, I'm willing to go back to the code of Hammurabi, but I don't think that would make a dent in the mass shooter problem. Psychos aren't deterable.
     
    GeorgeJetStoned likes this.
  18. GeorgeJetStoned

    GeorgeJetStoned Free Psychotic Readings

    Oh I don't know about that. Plenty of them don't want to be locked in a cage or executed. So they ply their craft in other ways and bide their time. I think we have a lot of psychopaths who prefer the long game as opposed to the brief thrill of a mass killing. Still, I have to wonder what it is that ultimately triggers them to cross the line.
     
  19. The right to have guns for private self defense was part of the original meaning as well.


    When the Supreme Court begins enforcing the Second Amendment, these unconstitutional laws will be struck down.
     
  20. unfocusedanakin

    unfocusedanakin The Archaic Revival Lifetime Supporter

    "Struck down" by who? State rights are respected. That's why even tough the 18th amendment was struck down but there are still places where alcohols sales are illegal in America. The people do not think alcohol is a good influence on the community. The same thing can happen to guns. It could be illegal to own them someplace and it's likely it would remain illegal. Amendments change that is why they have that name. If the local goverment and people don't want guns they will not be there. Eventually if enough states want this it could be some sort of national law.

    Gun owners will have domestic terrorism or the ability to adapt to changes in law. It's up to them. But if it gets the point the Supreme Court discusses gun laws it's going to change in some way despite what the NRA wants.
     

Share This Page