Another School Massacre

[KCFlyer]

Interesting. So if any disagree with your viewpoint...then they're not really even "citizens" at all, but merely "right wing bloggers"? 😉

When it comes to spewing internet falsehoods, then yes, they are more likely than not right wing bloggers. The newspapers citied are the British equivalent of Fox News.

Quick question for you though. The gentleman is alive today because while the "socialized medicine" wouldn't pay for the treatment, but doctors in Britain still took cold hard cash,

My question to you is this...if the government tells a 78 year old that he is too old for chemotherapy, its a death panel, but in the land of the free and the home of the brave, if an insurance company tells a 50 year old that they won't pay for treatments because that drug is specifically designed to fight that cancer, even though in countries with socialized medicine it has been used successfully, they are considered to be exercising fiduciary responsibilities for the shareholders. And besides, the guy can still pay for the treatments himself. I guess I should feel better that someone is making a profit off one of the death panels.

 

[KCFlyer]

Interesting. So if any disagree with your viewpoint...then they're not really even "citizens" at all, but merely "right wing bloggers"? 😉

And if anyone disagrees with your viewpoint they are commie socialist liberals.

 

[Ms Tree]

Snap!!! lol

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Professor Randy E. Barnett, Director of Georgetown Center for the Constitution wrote an interesting letter to Senator Ted Cruz a few days before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights held hearing on proposals for new gun controls (12 Feb 13).


Dear Senator Cruz,
Within minutes of the Sandy Hook murders, gun control advocates began exploiting this horrific event to promote their favored policies. I know this because I was contacted by reporters to respond to these calls even before I had heard that the event had taken place moments before. This was far too early to know what had happened, much less how and why. Yet the drum beat had begun for long sought after measures that would not have prevented these murders. That drum beat continues.

I understand that you are having hearings on various gun control proposals on Tuesday, February 12th. In your deliberations, you may find useful the attached article entitled, “Gun control fails rationality test,” that appeared on January 29th in the Washington Examiner. In this article, I make the following points:

• The Supreme Court evaluates fundamental rights using a heightened standard of scrutiny;
• The Supreme Court has held that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right;
• Some of these measures – for example, laws prohibiting such popular rifles as the AR-15 and the normal capacity magazines for such rifles – are flatly precluded by the Supreme Court’s categorical protection of weapons “in common use” by ordinary citizens for lawful purposes, such as the protection of self and others;
• These and most other gun regulations currently under consideration would also fail the least demanding heightened scrutiny: rationality review;
• This is because most proposals either would not have prevented the incidents that are said to motivate their passage, they would keep legal weapons of identical lethality, or they are discriminatory in their treatment of the Second Amendment rights of American citizens;
• For this reason, these measures are irrational;
• This analysis is useful to identify such measures as pretextual efforts, the real purpose of which is to impose an undue burden on the exercise of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, or to improperly stigmatize its exercise;
• For all these reasons most, if not all, of the measures being proposed are unconstitutional.

To this analysis, I would add that the Congress has its own independent obligation to assess the constitutionality of the measures it enacts. When the courts defer in any way to Congress – as they do even when applying heightened scrutiny – it is on the assumption that Congress has already considered independently whether its legislation is within its enumerated powers, or has violated an express prohibition of the Constitution. For this reason, the types of “scrutiny” that courts will apply to enacted laws is irrelevant to Congress’s own assessment of whether any measure it may enact is irrational and, therefore, unconstitutional. In other words, although the courts have the last word on whether an enacted measure is unconstitutional, Congress has the first word. And a refusal by Congress to enact a measure because, in its judgment, the measure violates the Second Amendment will take precedence over any judicial or executive branch opinion on that question. Only if Congress concludes that a measure is constitutional, does the executive and judicial branches have the opportunity to disagree with this assessment.

Therefore, it falls to your subcommittee to inquire seriously into whether any given measure under consideration would actually violate the Second Amendment. To this end, you should ask:

• Would the proposed measure would have prevented the event, such as Sandy Hook, that is being used to justifies its enactment?
• Are firearms with equal if not greater lethality and rate of fire left legal while others are being prohibited?
• Will some citizens – such as current or retired members of law enforcement or government officials – be privileged in the means by which they can protect themselves over others?
• If an American citizen who is employed to protect the safety of others, or an active or retired police officer, requires a certain type of weapon, with a certain rate of fire or capacity, to protect him or herself or others, why does not a law abiding citizen of the United States require the same sort of weapon for the same lawful purpose?
• Will those who are willing to violate laws be affected in any manner by the existence of this measure, or will its burden largely be borne by law-abiding, and in many cases licenced, citizens who pose no threat to others?
• Will a gun control measure, such as the maintenance of a data base, facilitate future violations of the fundamental guarantees of the Second Amendment, for example, by making confiscation of weapons easier?

The rationality of gun control measures turn on the answers to these and other such questions. Yet most law professors who opine on the constitutionality of gun control measures simply do not know enough about firearms, or the realistic effects of gun regulations, to have a genuinely expert opinion on whether any particular proposal is constitutional. Instead, their opinions are typically based either on their predictions of how courts will rule, often based on how they hope the courts will rule, or their opinion of how deferential courts should be to the Congress. Unless they address questions such as those I listed, however, their opinions can provide little guidance to Congress in its independent assessment of the constitutionality of these proposals.

It is the job of Congress to ask these questions in order to ferret out efforts to violate the fundamental rights of Americans by those who dislike the rights protected by the Second Amendment, or who have an irrational fear of firearms. The answers provided by such an independent inquiry will reveal many of the current proposals to be pretextual efforts having little or nothing to do with preventing the incidents that have roused the emotions of the public, and everything to do with imposing an undue burden upon, and stigmatizing the exercise of a fundamental right.I hope this letter, and the accompanying article, helps inform the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights discussion.

Sincerely,
Professor Randy E. Barnett
Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory
Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution

 

[EastUS1]

And if anyone disagrees with your viewpoint they are commie socialist liberals.

By no means. When any willfully choose to eradicate individual Rights for no reason other than to "feel" safer...such people, however one wants to paint them, are merely complete and utter fools, and those come in all political flavors.

 

[KCFlyer]

By no means. When any willfully choose to eradicate individual Rights for no reason other than to "feel" safer...such people, however one wants to paint them, are merely complete and utter fools, and those come in all political flavors.

The funny thing is that in these discussions, the right wingers seem to feel that the ONE thing that makes America great...the ONE thing that defines us as "free" - is the right to own a gun. They like to argue the constitution, but they seem to feel that there is only a "bill of right" that our entire constitution was framed around.

By no means. When any willfully choose to eradicate individual Rights for no reason other than to "feel" safer...such people, however one wants to paint them, are merely complete and utter fools, and those come in all political flavors.

 

[EastUS1]

The funny thing is that in these discussions, the right wingers seem to feel that the ONE thing that makes America great...the ONE thing that defines us as "free" - is the right to own a gun. They like to argue the constitution, but they seem to feel that there is only a "bill of right" that our entire constitution was framed around.

"... the ONE thing that makes America great...the ONE thing that defines us as "free" - is the right to own a gun."...?

Oh hardly just the "right wingers", since, as a libertarion and "big government" despising type that finds the current polarization in US politics to be both childish and unproductive,...well...just suffice it to note the beliefs of a proven and rather extreme "left winger" that vehemently disagrees with your notions there:

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.".....Chairman Mao

I'd submit that above observation hardly qualifies that man as a "Liberal" or "Right Winger" of any kind...and yet?: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun." Chairman Mao.

Joseph frikkin' STALIN as well as Adolph HITLER both agreed that disarming their citizens was the only way to go for them to have the complete control over people they wished. Any who make "gun control" a Right or Left wing issue are COMPLETELY missing the point.

The crass, bottom line is that governments really consist of but a few people. In the USA?...A bit over a half thousand total sit in Congress, the Senate and the White House. The harsh, unpleasant, brutally honest and stark, cold truth is that people who've some reasonable concern that those they Rule, or supposedly "represent", as the case may be, could potentially kill them, are far more prone towards hearing the voices of that citizenry, versus any that can't.

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

On purely personal level, well...I'm not giving up the ability to defend my home and those within against violent intrusion as I see fit, and will NEVER do so....Period.

 

[EastUS1]

Snap!!! lol

Was that the sad sound effects of your last three (or perhaps even four) even marginally functional neural synapses shorting out? 😉

 

[KCFlyer]

On purely personal level, well...I'm not giving up the ability to defend my home and those within against violent intrusion as I see fit, and will NEVER do so....Period.

Don't move to Finland then....guns aren't banned, but they do restrict them...interesting part of thier law;

To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun (self defense is not considered "valid").

Lots of other sensible restrictions too, but ones that would apparently violate that bill of right in the states.

 

[EastUS1]

(self defense is not considered "valid").

Only within the lunatic asylums of the world. I think your heart's in the right place KC. I very much agree with General Thomas aka Stonewall Jackson in that "War is the sum of all evil" and killing human beings shouldn't ever be "sport". The taking of human life is a very costly thing for the soul, whether or not justified by war or, I'd imagine, any other circumstances. I'd love to see society and humankind evolve to any semblance of an actually sane level, but we've vastly different notions of the reality of this world we live in. People DO sometimes try to kill "you", at least in my experience, which is hardly unique in any way, and is NOT necessarily an issue limited to proper combat theaters, by any means. Witness the hideous murders of those innocent children that started this latest upheaval.

Here's the disgusting, direct, tragic and fatal results of some of your "sensible restrictions". Note how not ONE of the pathetic, spineless little politicans present can directly even look this lady in the eye:



I will NEVER make that same, as the lady so correctly noted "stupidest decision of my life" to obey arrogant, clueless little politicians with some sociopathic, meglomaniacal, power-seeking agenda, rather than keep arms to protect those I care for..Period...EVER! Make me into a "criminal" if it suits you.

 

[KCFlyer]

Because so many didn't seem to care about the other amendments being infringed, why don't we just call it "the amendment" It apparently is the only one that matters, or at least, it's the only one worth fighting for.

 

[southwind]

Don't move to Finland then....guns aren't banned, but they do restrict them...interesting part of thier law;

To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun (self defense is not considered "valid").

Lots of other sensible restrictions too, but ones that would apparently violate that bill of right in the states.

Better yet, instead of forcing your crap on us, why don't "YOU" move to Finland, where they have the restrictions you clamour for !

 

[KCFlyer]

Better yet, instead of forcing your crap on us, why don't "YOU" move to Finland, where they have the restrictions you clamour for !

YOu know south...I don't want to ban all guns. Heck...I don't even oppose owning them for self defense. But if we even TRIED to introduce regulations like in depth background checks or longer waiting periods....mental health evaluations...ending the ability for individuals to sell weapons to some nutcase at a gun show without checking so much as the weather, while "legitimate" gun dealers have to conduct even a cursory background check (and in many cases still could NOT sell the gun to the nut case)...the NRA and the gun nuts rise up in anger because it's an infringement of their rights.

I kind of look at it the way most gun righties looked at the blatant violation of our 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights and said "if you haven't done anything wrong you don't have to worry". Well....back at you - if you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't fear the results of a mental health evaluation or an in depth background check. But your God given right to own a gun might be delayed by a couple of more days. And according to the NRA and the Constitutionalists - this is a violation of their 2nd amendment rights because the commies might attack any minute.

 

[Ms Tree]

If a communist dictator views liberalism as a threat then I am quite proud to be a liberal. Since you enjoy painting with that broad brush I think I'll join in. When you look at the GOP you folks seem to be quite an obedient lot. You tend to fall in lock step with your leaders regardless. I believe that is why Mao saw liberals as a threat and not conservatives.

Secondly if you pick up a history book you will find that Hitler did not gain power by disarming people, he gained power in spite of disarmament. He did not disarm the Germans.

Thirdly, correlation does not note make causation. We are no less free than any western European nation that has all encompassing gun control. We are not less free than England, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Japan, New Zealand .....

 

[KCFlyer]

If a communist dictator views liberalism as a threat then I am quite proud to be a liberal. Since you enjoy painting with that broad brush I think I'll join in. When you look at the GOP you folks seem to be quite an obedient lot. You tend to fall in lock step with your leaders regardless. I believe that is why Mao saw liberals as a threat and not conservatives.

Secondly if you pick up a history book you will find that Hitler did not gain power by disarming people, he gained power in spite of disarmament. He did not disarm the Germans.

Thirdly, correlation does not note make causation. We are no less free than any western European nation that has all encompassing gun control. We are not less free than England, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Japan, New Zealand .....

Well...you're kind of correct...Germany was disarmed after WW1 because, well...they were the enemy in WW1. Hitler came to power and actually increased gun ownership, except for the Jews, but the gun folks only cite the gun restrictions on Jews when discussing Hitler disarming the people. If you press them on the matter, they will finally concede with a "well, it starts with a group".