rickyp wrote:fate

You don't know that. No one knows until the USSC rules

.
ricky

Which of the laws I listed are being challenged in court?

fate

Which of them have been upheld?

If a law hasn't been challenged constitutionally , it is being upheld every day.

Right, until it is challenged. If I had the money and inclination to be famous/infamous, I would challenge MA's gun restrictions, which are so Byzantine the cops don't even understand them.

For example, do you suppose this law would withstand USSC scrutiny?

In a case that had drawn attention from the Gun Owners Action League and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Supreme Judicial Court today upheld a state law requiring trigger locks on guns kept in people's homes.

In a victory for law enforcement and advocates of gun control, the state's highest court ruled that the Second Amendment does not currently apply to states and therefore Massachusetts has the power to regulate gun ownership.

You might. No one to the right of Bernie Sanders would.

A law that has been around since 1934, Have you considered why no no has bothered going to the time and expense of challenging the law?

Because they're busy fighting other laws? Because their Mom has cancer?

Hypothetical do not prove anything. You don't know that it will be upheld.

You actually imagine this law s just waiting to be declared unconstitutional? If only someone would challenge it? Why?

I'm not playing that game. I didn't say that and I'm not going down that road.

Liberals want to know how many restrictions can be placed on a freedom specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, yet they vigorously fight against restrictions placed on alleged freedoms enumerated nowhere. That tells me a lot about their view of the Constitution.

fate

You don't know that it will be upheld.

The only reasonable assumption that can be made about an 85 year old law, is that , after 85 years standing uncontested ... its constitutional.
You say that

Hypothetical do not prove anything

And yet your own argument is based on the hypothesis that IF challenged they would be declared unconstitutional.
As you correctly say: You prove nothing...

But the laws exist.

rickyp wrote:fate

You don't know that it will be upheld.

The only reasonable assumption that can be made about an 85 year old law, is that , after 85 years standing uncontested ... its constitutional.
You say that

Hypothetical do not prove anything

And yet your own argument is based on the hypothesis that IF challenged they would be declared unconstitutional.
As you correctly say: You prove nothing...

But the laws exist.

And, if one law restricting guns is constitutional, then . . .

The good news is Canadians have no say in our gun laws.

Care to cite some 1806 case law?

Since rickyp just listed some acts without links or explanation, but with plenty of childish "whattabout" statements, I include the links.

rickyp wrote:If this is true than why are these laws on the books?
National Firearms Act (1934) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Cr ... ct_of_1968

Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Ow ... ection_Act

Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) (ruled unconstitutional as originally written; has been upheld repeatedly after minor edits were made by Congress)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Hand ... ention_Act

The NFA is hardly some kind of death blow to the 2nd Amendment. Machine guns have to be registered? Ouch!

The Omnibus Crime bill was restrictive, but mostly on the commercial side (interstate commerce).

With the Omnibus and Gun Control Act, I suspect the USSC probably did what they usually do--defer to the legislature unless a specific challenge is brought.

However, the FOPA (1986) is interesting. From the link:

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) was given wide latitude on the enforcement of regulations pertaining to Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders. Allegations of abuse by ATF inspectors soon arose from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and certain targeted Federal firearms licensees.

In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.[1]

It concluded that seventy-five percent of ATF prosecutions were "constitutionally improper", especially on Second Amendment issues.

So, the 1986 law was crafted to correct unconstitutional aspects of the 1968 law.

See what happens when you blindly list bills without bothering to do a modicum of investigation? One of the bills you listed was found to be unconstitutional by a Congressional study.

I'm really tired of your vacuous argumentation. If you want to cut and paste a laundry list from who knows where, then you ought to provide some kind of summary or indication that you know what the bleep you're talking about. You couldn't even be bothered to tell us where that list came from. Do some work.

Is that too high a standard?

Fate, here's what the quotation from ruffhaus that I originally responded to with my list.

Registration and licensing is infringment. Owenrship of weapons is a specific and fundemental right provided for by the Constitution. It is not a privilege like operating an automobile that the state can provide permission for

.

I listed the laws, because their very existence refutes Ruffhaus statement.

And nothing you've discovered, since abandoning your line of hypothetical argument, contradicts the point I've made. There are restrictions in existing laws. Therefore Tte 2nd Amendment right can be limited

Fate
So, the 1986 law was crafted to correct unconstitutional aspects of the 1968 law.

So what. That means that the 86 law , which is a limitation on the 2nd Amendment, is constitutional. Refuting your previous hypothtical argument that "If challenged..."
If the 86 is challenged it would be constitutional.

Try thinking some things through.

rickyp wrote:Fate, here's what the quotation from ruffhaus that I originally responded to with my list.

Registration and licensing is infringment. Owenrship of weapons is a specific and fundemental right provided for by the Constitution. It is not a privilege like operating an automobile that the state can provide permission for

.

I listed the laws, because their very existence refutes Ruffhaus statement.

And nothing you've discovered, since abandoning your line of hypothetical argument, contradicts the point I've made. There are restrictions in existing laws. Therefore Tte 2nd Amendment right can be limited

Wow!

You refuted an argument no one made. Great work!

Ruffhaus never said, "There are no limitations on our ability to be armed."

Next thing you know you'll list:

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

SALT II

The Treaty of Versailles

Fate
So, the 1986 law was crafted to correct unconstitutional aspects of the 1968 law.

So what. That means that the 86 law , which is a limitation on the 2nd Amendment, is constitutional. Refuting your previous hypothtical argument that "If challenged..."
If the 86 is challenged it would be constitutional.

Um, you're the one who provided a list. You did no work, provided no analysis, and acted like your list was an argument about something. In fact, you challenged me to prove any of them were unconstitutional.

I did.

Try thinking some things through.

If you were capable of introspection, you'd realize that is a very funny statement.

bbauska

Unfortunately the great many deaths we must endure due to a proliferation of guns is the price we will continue to pay for the freedom we enjoy to carry weapons."

It is not simple, but it is one of the many costs for freedom

.
According to AP:
27 dead today in Connecticut. Including 18 children .
Are you sure the freedom to carry guns is worth this cost Bbauska?

Anyone in the American media who brings up the issue of gun control over the next two or three days will be accused of exploiting the Connecticut shootings. That its too soon to have a discussion about gun control....
When really, its too late.

It's now become a ritual. It used to be that the first thing that happened after a mass killing was that there would be calls for gun control. Now the first thing that happens is pre-emptive closing down of any discussion on gun control.

When Dunblane happened (which seems similar, a man going into a school and killing a shockingly high number of young kids), it led a national soul searching. All those poor families. All those wasted lives.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Unfortunately the great many deaths we must endure due to a proliferation of guns is the price we will continue to pay for the freedom we enjoy to carry weapons."

It is not simple, but it is one of the many costs for freedom

.
According to AP:
27 dead today in Connecticut. Including 18 children .
Are you sure the freedom to carry guns is worth this cost Bbauska?

Anyone in the American media who brings up the issue of gun control over the next two or three days will be accused of exploiting the Connecticut shootings. That its too soon to have a discussion about gun control....
When really, its too late.

So, guns are the problem?

BEIJING (Reuters) - A knife-wielding man slashed 22 children and an adult at an elementary school in central China on Friday, state media reported, the latest in a series of attacks on schoolchildren in the country.

The man attacked the children at the gate of a school in Chenpeng village in Henan province, the Xinhua news agency reported.

Police arrested a 36-year-old man, identified as villager Min Yingjun, Xinhua said. It did not give further details of the extent of the injuries.

There have been a series of attacks on schools and schoolchildren around China in recent years, some by people who have lost their jobs or felt left out of the country's economic boom.

The rash of violence has prompted public calls for more measures to protect the young in a country where many couples only have one child.

In 2010, a man slashed 28 children, two teachers and a security guard in a kindergarten in eastern China.

The problem is . . . people.

they are similar, except that in CT the kids died and in China it appears that they were injured, but not killed.

Ray Jay wrote:they are similar, except that in CT the kids died and in China it appears that they were injured, but not killed.

No report on the injuries in China. And, it's happened before.

Is it part of the "knife culture" in China?

I'm a little sick of the reflexive "guns are the problem" response by some. I found out about it two hours ago. I still can't even process it and some here are all about the guns mantra.

What about the kids who survived?

What about the parents who sent their little ones off to school, never thinking it would be the last time they would see them?

The first response here: let's get rid of guns.

Sick.

and if guns were illegal, would this not have happened? Drugs are illegal, Prostitution is illegal, banning guns is a band aid at best and I hear NOTHING about solving the problem. Single parent households and people raising kids that should not have kids... government programs that simply encourage such situations, freedom of speech problems when anything is suggested about violence in music TV and movies, immoral attitudes, these are "conservative" issues, the real problem is the gun not the sick person behind that trigger. Guns are too easy to get a hold of, legal, illegal or whatever, but the REAL problem is the person behind the gun, it's like putting a bandage on a wound that is both bleeding and infected, the bleeding is unsightly but not critical, if you simply bandage the wound so it LOOKS better, you did absolutely nothing to address the real problem and that person is going to die from infection. We have an infection in our society and it is not guns!

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:

“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... s/?hpid=z3

tom

banning guns is a band aid at best and I hear NOTHING about solving the problem.

In countries that have effectively banned guns, gun deaths are virtually unheard of. say Japan.
I'm not saying an effective ban of guns could be accomplished in the US. But where guns have been banned, the problem goes away.


tom

but the REAL problem is the person behind the gun

,

Your right. Its not guns that kill people.
Its people who kill people
Its just that its people with guns who kill the most people...

rickyp wrote:8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

On the other hand, no guns means you can't protect yourself in your own home. You're welcome to live in that country. Not me.

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Does Oregon have strict gun control? Connecticut?

I suspect they do.

Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... s/?hpid=z3

Think about those "mandates." Trigger locks and safe storage--how would that have helped in the Colorado, Oregon, and Connecticut shootings?

How would they have helped any of the kids in China?