I propose a new second amendment law

[Donald H]

I suspect you are alluding an outright gun ban. Unfortunately, when you are up to your ass in alligators, you'll have a tough time trying to drain the swamp. In other words, not a realistic possibility in a country so entrenched in a gun culture as America is.

You don't have the courage to accept the culture of war and murder in America.

 

[Rumpole]

again a flawed idea,,

SCOTUS doesnt make laws,,,

No, but Scotus rulings can have the force of law on specific cases which impacts laws in states.

For example, Scotus, in Dobbs, repealed Roe, thus allowing states the freedom to ban abortions, or regulate them more severely than would have been allowed under Roe. Scotus rulings can repeal federal laws, prior court rulings, impact state laws, paving the way for states to enact, alter, or repeal laws aligned with their rulings.

 

[Rumpole]

You don't have the courage to accept the culture of war and murder in America.

I have written, elsewhere, perhaps, on the culture of gun worshipping, especially on gun fetishing, which I believe is driving the murders. However, since those writings, I have realized that 'feelings' are not necessarily facts (though they could very well be), which as prompted me to study subject more, and I'm learning more, every day, on this important topic,

However, please understand that I am definitely mindful of the scope of the problem, and possible causes.

What did I write which prompted you to render this false conclusion?

 

[okfine]

I suspect you are alluding an outright gun ban. Unfortunately, when you are up to your ass in alligators, you'll have a tough time trying to drain the swamp. In other words, not a realistic possibility in a country so entrenched in a gun culture as America is.

Yes, and specific.

 

[postman]

Shooting targets, and making sure we never have to give a shit ever again about what Canada or England has to say.

I always laugh when people say the 2nd amendment is to protect them from the tyranny of the government.
When everybody knows that an AR-15 or an AK-47 is at best going to slow the government momentarily, until they can bring in the heavy artillery, drones, and a military style strike force that no civilian, or civilian militia could stand up to.

 

[postman]

All this would do is ensure no legal gun owner facing mental health issues ever again sought treatment for them

My solution would be a good compromise. That someone either seeking mental health issue help, or who is reported to have mental health issues (red flag laws), not have ALL his guns confiscated, but they be allowed to keep 1-2 guns, and enough ammunition for "personal protection", while taking away the rest of their arsenal of guns and ammunition. Until their mental health issues are either resolved, or they are adjudicated one way or the other.

This isn't a 100% solution, but more of an 80-20.

 

[postman]

again a flawed idea,,

SCOTUS doesnt make laws,,,

Actually they do. Or should I say they modify laws, adding or subtracting from existing law, to allow it to comport with the Constitution.

In fact, there is a case before the court right now, where they will either rewrite the laws (place new constraints and requirements) in order to allow the rest of the law to stand.

 

[Donald H]

I have written, elsewhere, perhaps, on the culture of gun worshipping, especially on gun fetishing, which I believe is driving the murders. However, since those writings, I have realized that 'feelings' are not necessarily facts (though they could very well be), which as prompted me to study subject more, and I'm learning more, every day, on this important topic,

However, please understand that I am definitely mindful of the scope of the problem, and possible causes.

What did I write which prompted you to render this false conclusion?

You're still avoiding the question on the 'culture' of war and killing that is the reason for America's abnormally high number of shootings.

I'll offer withdrawing my accusation and I'll leave the offer open for at least a month!

 

[Ralph Norton]

Actually they do. Or should I say they modify laws, adding or subtracting from existing law, to allow it to comport with the Constitution.

In fact, there is a case before the court right now, where they will either rewrite the laws (place new constraints and requirements) in order to allow the rest of the law to stand.

This is completely false. Congress makes laws. Period.
You should have paid more attention in Civics class.

 

[Rumpole]

I always laugh when people say the 2nd amendment is to protect them from the tyranny of the government.
When everybody knows that an AR-15 or an AK-47 is at best going to slow the government momentarily, until they can bring in the heavy artillery, drones, and a military style strike force that no civilian, or civilian militia could stand up to.

Thank you and I, too, have made this very point. What was relevant in 1787 (when the constitution was ratified), on that particular score, is a silly argument, today. Moreover, with millions enlisted in our fighting forces, employing tanks, howitzers, anti-tank weaponry, fully automatic machine guns, bombs, F-16s, elite fighting forces and other assorted artillery, I doubt the government will be delayed by a bunch of paint ball warriors (no offense to my paint ball brethren) with a few guns and 1776 fantasies for hardly a moment or two.

 

[Donald H]

My solution would be a good compromise. That someone either seeking mental health issue help, or who is reported to have mental health issues (red flag laws), not have ALL his guns confiscated, but they be allowed to keep 1-2 guns, and enough ammunition for "personal protection", while taking away the rest of their arsenal of guns and ammunition. Until their mental health issues are either resolved, or they are adjudicated one way or the other.

This isn't a 100% solution, but more of an 80-20.

There is no solution and there shouldn't be. No limitations on an American's right to bear arms should be considered.

Moving on from America's 'culture' of continuous wars and killing with guns is the answer that will bring its own solution.

our 'Progressive hunter's' screen name says it all!

I guess Conservative hunters keep it to themselves.

 

[progressive hunter]

Neither have 200 million other gun owners.

However, we can agree that thousands of others didn't resist the impulse. They would have started with human silouette targets that should have signalled their intention of being able to kill people.

Some in one of the many US wars that were always available, and some would become mass shooters.

Would you like to go hunting for a progressive?

A good answer could get you that attention you're needing!

figures you would say a bunch of crap that makes no sense and then get personal with it,,,

 

[postman]

This is completely false. Congress makes laws. Period.
You should have paid more attention in Civics class.

Congress write laws, but "case law" rewrites them.

 

[progressive hunter]

Congress write laws, but "case law" rewrites them.

case law doesnt apply to constitutional issues,,

 

[Rumpole]

This is completely false. Congress makes laws. Period.

True, Congress/house and senate, with the Prez's sig, make the laws (or via overriding a veto).

but I do believe you should qualify that statement with this addition:

Scotus rulings can have the force of law on specific cases which impacts laws in states.
For example, Scotus, in Dobbs, repealed Roe, thus allowing states the freedom to ban abortions, or regulate them more severely than would have been allowed under Roe. Scotus rulings can repeal federal laws on constitutional grounds, prior court rulings, impact state laws, paving the way for states to enact, alter, or repeal laws aligned with their rulings. Scotus Rulings can establish constitutional constraints, via constitutional interpretation, which Congress and state legislatures will have to align their legislation with.
And then there are constitutional amendments, which require participation by congress and states, combined.

Anything in the above with which you disagree?

 

[Rumpole]

case law doesnt apply to constitutional issues,,

As I understand it, as a layperson, case law must conform to the Constitution, where applicable. If a court decision conflicts with the Constitution, it can be challenged and potentially struck down by the Supreme Court, assuming that the case is taken up by the Supreme Court and they agree with the challenge.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all other laws, including case law, must be consistent with it. This principle is known as the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. When a court decision conflicts with the Constitution, it can be challenged through the appeals process, ultimately leading to review by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees that the decision conflicts with the Constitution, it may be overturned.

It's worth noting, however, that the Supreme Court does not always strike down case law that conflicts with the Constitution. In some cases, the Court may choose to reinterpret the Constitution in light of the case law, or it may leave the case law in place for various reasons, such as stare decisis (the principle of following precedent).

 

[LibertyKid]

It seems that the NRA folks, et al. won't be happy until everyone, in bars, churches, classrooms, sunday school, beaches, parades, halls of congress, parks, restaurants, bingo games and PTA meets adorn their bodies with AR-15s with two 200 round affixed to their mid regions. Now, some will see that as an exaggeration, but it's the gist of it that's my message i.e, the direction that the gun guys and gals seem to be heading.

Yep, there's some hyperbole there, that's okay at times. I don't think the NRA wants everyone to move to that direction. And I don't think every 2A supporter feels that way as well. And there are some that do love their guns, like many other hobbies, they invest in gear, ammo, equipment, training, etc., That's okay, but that's not what the NRA or 2A proponents want EVERYONE to do. But it is your RIGHT if you choose to do so.

In fact, good gun ownership means that many of your friends, probably don't know you own one or many. Only a few of my family and friends know I own a few firearms. I do CCW. But responsible gun ownership isn't something that owners wear on their vest or have parades for. Most gun owners hope to never use their firearm, and many won't ever need to in a time of need. And what I'm saying is probably how the majority of gun owner feel and treat the responsibility of gun ownership. Were not some hyperbolic meme of "God, Guns and Country" truck driving red neck. Most of us are pretty normal, live pretty normal lives, and want to keep it that way no matter where the threat comes from.

 

[LibertyKid]

You don't have the courage to accept the culture of war and murder in America.

I've seen you use the term a few times. Can you define "Culture War", because I think you maybe correct if there is further details.

 

[progressive hunter]

As I understand it, as a layperson, case law must conform to the Constitution, where applicable. If a court decision conflicts with the Constitution, it can be challenged and potentially struck down by the Supreme Court, assuming that the case is taken up by the Supreme Court and they agree with the challenge.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all other laws, including case law, must be consistent with it. This principle is known as the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. When a court decision conflicts with the Constitution, it can be challenged through the appeals process, ultimately leading to review by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees that the decision conflicts with the Constitution, it may be overturned.

It's worth noting, however, that the Supreme Court does not always strike down case law that conflicts with the Constitution. In some cases, the Court may choose to reinterpret the Constitution in light of the case law, or it may leave the case law in place for various reasons, such as stare decisis (the principle of following precedent).

your almost right but mostly wrong,,

nothing over rides the constitution and case law isnt a law but a clarification of existing laws,,

SCOTUS is more wrong than they ever were right,,

example,
the 2nd A specifically says military grade arms but they see it different,,

 

[Ralph Norton]

Congress write laws, but "case law" rewrites them.

The SC's only duty is to decide if a given law is, or is not, Constitutional. If not, the SC will state why but it is up to Congress to "rewrite" it to comply.