Red Mosquito

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Looking at a law review for a better explanation than I've received so far it's incredibly frustrating how few 2nd Amendment cases have gone to the Supreme Court.

Current law exists based on the individual right and completely glosses over the "well regulated militia" statement. Breyer points this out in Heller (I think).

That seems like the a major "purpose" of the amendment and were enrollment in a state-regulated militia part of the process to keep ARs in home, I might be better persuaded. As is, the reading is saying the citizens have this individual right to protect themselves but then go completely unchecked beyond that.

And that is my problem with the current position. Yes, it is a right to have guns. It is not meant/intended to be unregulated.

You've come across Miller, I presume? That's kind of the extent of the relation between an individual right to keep and bear arms and the militia.

epilogue wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

epilogue wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

epilogue wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

epilogue wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

epilogue wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

epilogue wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:You sound really desperate to be governed

Oooooh sick burn!

It wasn't meant as a burn, just a simple observation.

Riiiiiight

When was the last time you fired a gun?

You?

Idk, when I was like 12

Great!

...are you going to answer or?

... what different does it make or?

Im just curious. Thanks for posting with me.

I don't believe you

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Looking at a law review for a better explanation than I've received so far it's incredibly frustrating how few 2nd Amendment cases have gone to the Supreme Court.

Current law exists based on the individual right and completely glosses over the "well regulated militia" statement. Breyer points this out in Heller (I think).

That seems like the a major "purpose" of the amendment and were enrollment in a state-regulated militia part of the process to keep ARs in home, I might be better persuaded. As is, the reading is saying the citizens have this individual right to protect themselves but then go completely unchecked beyond that.

And that is my problem with the current position. Yes, it is a right to have guns. It is not meant/intended to be unregulated.

You've come across Miller, I presume? That's kind of the extent of the relation between an individual right to keep and bear arms and the militia.

That's sort of my point.
1) Miller v US was 1939
2) The decision says (my words): only weapons that are militia-ready are free from regulation
3) It was 1939
4) Why wasn't every state then required to track ownership by state-militia membership?

simple schoolboy wrote:The right exists separate from state requirements that you join the formal militia. Everyone in a certain age range (18-55?) Is in the informal militia. This might mean that we can disarm the young and the old, but that is not readily apparent.

Notably, the announcement includes the support of 10 Republican senators, which would give the proposal enough support to overcome the Senate filibuster. The agreement is significant given how divided lawmakers have been over the gun issue, but the actual legislative text is not yet written.

The proposal includes support for state crisis intervention orders, funding for school safety resources, an enhanced review process for buyers under the age of 21 and penalties for straw purchasing.

Critically, the legislation includes a so-called red flag provision, with the government providing "resources to states and tribes to create and administer laws that help ensure deadly weapons are kept out of the hands of individuals whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others," according to the release. The proposal would also include "major investments to increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs; and other support services available in the community, including crisis and trauma intervention and recovery."

Additionally, the legislation would provide resources "to expand mental health and supportive services in schools, including: early identification and intervention programs and school based mental health and wrap-around services."

McParadigm wrote:All ten Republicans who signed off on this deal are either retiring or are not facing re-election for another two years. Seems like the A/B isn’t MAGA/non-MAGA…it’s “will acting against gun violence be a personal political risk for me at all?”

Bi_3 wrote:Hate all you want Mickey, this is a good start

Mickey wrote:Oh don't get me wrong, they're useful measures.

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Hate all you want Mickey, this is a good start

Mickey wrote:Oh don't get me wrong, they're useful measures.

But they haven't done shit yet. The text of the bill hasn't even been written, so who knows what happens to this little feel-good coalition. And you can support these useful steps without offering breathless hagiographies of centrist compromise. I love the idea of stricter enforcements for straw purchases, I think that will do a ton to help combat gun violence in my immediate community if it's successfully implemented. But it's not clear that any of these measures would have stopped the shootings in Uvalde or Buffalo, for just two recent examples. So I think you kinda deserve to be mocked for this goofy Maya Angelou "centrists get shit DONE" pablum that you're using to frame this legislation which, sure, maybe leads to positive change, and maybe just ends up as budget bloat that a lot of senators can point to and say "Well, we did all that we could."

Rob wrote:

Mickey wrote:I think that will do a ton to help combat gun violence in my immediate community if it's successfully implemented. But it's not clear that any of these measures would have stopped the shootings in Uvalde or Buffalo, for just two recent examples. So I think you kinda deserve to be mocked for this goofy Maya Angelou "centrists get shit DONE" pablum that you're using to frame this legislation which, sure, maybe leads to positive change, and maybe just ends up as budget bloat that a lot of senators can point to and say "Well, we did all that we could."

Well it probably is true that this wouldn’t have stopped these shooters. Probably true that no law will. If we set this as the standard, we are going to fail. …. I don’t think we can legislate against gun culture, but let’s at least get to some common sense stuff. These steps may be small, but 10 fucking years after Sandy Hook, and this may be the first one. Who knows tho.