Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Bfgrn]

All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
–John Adams, at the Constitutional Convention (1787)]

Sorry to but in Bfgrn, but being a history nerd I am compelled to point out that John Adams was never at the Constituional Convention. In 1787 Adams was in Europe. The quote you are employing was contained in a letter from Adams to Jefferson (who also was in Europe and did not attend the Constitutional Convention).

Does this sound like a man who intended to give corporations, a legal fiction whose life exists only on paper, the right to free and unfettered speech?

The founding fathers were not too keen on corporations. The rights associated with corporations arose by virtue of the 14th amend. And that did not give them freedom od speech either, but a major screwup by SCOTUS in a case entitled Slauterhouse Cases has sealed the deal. The Bill of Rights should be incorporated upon the states by virtue of the Privleges or Immunities Clause of the 14th which applies to citizens... and corporations are clearly not citizens. However, Slautherhouse said no and SCOTUS has stubbornly refused to overrule it. Instead they apply the due process clause to incorporate the BoRs. Due process applies to "persons" and it is pretty clear that corporations were considered persons for the purposes of the 14th... they intended that they could sue and be sued and pay taxes and have certain property rights protected.. but not such rights as freedom of speech.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision of 1886 is recognized as the seminal ruling. And it has been used as the precedent for all rulings about corporate personhood ever since. But corporate lawyers picked up on a point made in Justice Field’s Slaughterhouse dissent: that the amendment was broad enough to protect all of U.S society from the deprivation of fundamental, natural law rights, and that the Supreme Court had a duty to fashion decisions to protect those rights.

But the Robert's court's judicial activism and overreach to consistently pursues a political agenda that favors powerful corporate interests show Justices’ willingness to engage in judicial activism to fulfill their ideological goals.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision of 1886 is recognized as the seminal ruling. And it has been used as the precedent for all rulings about corporate personhood ever since. But corporate lawyers picked up on a point made in Justice Field’s Slaughterhouse dissent: that the amendment was broad enough to protect all of U.S society from the deprivation of fundamental, natural law rights, and that the Supreme Court had a duty to fashion decisions to protect those rights.

But the Robert's court's judicial activism and overreach to consistently pursues a political agenda that favors powerful corporate interests show Justices’ willingness to engage in judicial activism to fulfill their ideological goals.

It was the first judicial recognition that a corporation is a person under the 14th, and honestly I do not have a problem with that. Take a look at Sec 1 of the 14th:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It contains the natural born citizen clause which was clearly intended to overule the holding in the infamous Dred Scott decision. The rest of Sec 1 is described as the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal protection Clause.

Most scholars agree that the P or I clause was intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states... but its application only protects "citizens of the United States". Most scholars agree that the due process clause requires that certain legal procedures must be invoked before a person can be relieved of their life, liberty or property... what is referred to as "procedural due process". The equal protection clause is interpreted by most legal scholars to mean that people equally situated must be equally treated.

This relatively clear understanding was upset by the Slaughterhouse decision which basically made the P or I clause a nullity. Ever since then, the court has been trying to overrule Slaughterhouse without overruling Slaughterhouse by incorporating the Bill of Rights onto the states by using the Due Process Clause and a theory known as "substantive due process"... this would be ok EXCEPT that the due process clause is more expansive than the P or I clause in that it protects "PERSONS" while the P or I clause only protects "CITIZENS". It is also pretty clear that the framers of the 14th intended corporations to be "persons" but not "citizens".. thus the anomaly caused by Slaughterhouse.

 

[Antares]

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates...

I've had my damn 12 gauge locked and loaded on the kitchen table all moring..the damned thing hasn't tried to kill me yet.

 

[Bfgrn]

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision of 1886 is recognized as the seminal ruling. And it has been used as the precedent for all rulings about corporate personhood ever since. But corporate lawyers picked up on a point made in Justice Field’s Slaughterhouse dissent: that the amendment was broad enough to protect all of U.S society from the deprivation of fundamental, natural law rights, and that the Supreme Court had a duty to fashion decisions to protect those rights.

But the Robert's court's judicial activism and overreach to consistently pursues a political agenda that favors powerful corporate interests show Justices’ willingness to engage in judicial activism to fulfill their ideological goals.

It was the first judicial recognition that a corporation is a person under the 14th, and honestly I do not have a problem with that. Take a look at Sec 1 of the 14th:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It contains the natural born citizen clause which was clearly intended to overule the holding in the infamous Dred Scott decision. The rest of Sec 1 is described as the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal protection Clause.

Most scholars agree that the P or I clause was intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states... but its application only protects "citizens of the United States". Most scholars agree that the due process clause requires that certain legal procedures must be invoked before a person can be relieved of their life, liberty or property... what is referred to as "procedural due process". The equal protection clause is interpreted by most legal scholars to mean that people equally situated must be equally treated.

This relatively clear understanding was upset by the Slaughterhouse decision which basically made the P or I clause a nullity. Ever since then, the court has been trying to overrule Slaughterhouse without overruling Slaughterhouse by incorporating the Bill of Rights onto the states by using the Due Process Clause and a theory known as "substantive due process"... this would be ok EXCEPT that the due process clause is more expansive than the P or I clause in that it protects "PERSONS" while the P or I clause only protects "CITIZENS". It is also pretty clear that the framers of the 14th intended corporations to be "persons" but not "citizens".. thus the anomaly caused by Slaughterhouse.

I do have a problem with a corporation as a person. A corporation is a group of 'persons' who are entitled to every right you and I are entitled to. So there is absolutely no need to create a privileged right for that group.

The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

 

[The2ndAmendment]

When the Gun Grabbers acknowledge this post (since page 9), I will stop reminding them of its existence:


------------------------------------

2nd Amendement -

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no
resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Can we see a link for this study?

You are far more likely to survive
a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 60
Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey 61
U.S. Department of Justice 62
U.S. Department of Justice 63
British Home Office – no a pro-gun organization by any mean

From these same studies.

Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women
defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Fact:
When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes are
successful, compared to 32% when unarmed.

Fact:
The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no
resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the
benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than
resisting with a gun.

Fact:
27% of women keep a gun in the house.

Fact:
37.6 million women either own or have rapid access to guns.

Fact:
In 1966 the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms
training classes to women. The number of rapes dropped by nearly 90%.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/55878NCJRS.pdf

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question....................if a person should be allowed to own any gun they want (as someone said further up the thread talking about tanks, if it's man portable and goes bang, it's okay), then why is it that you can no longer own a fully automatic machine gun anymore?

When those were banned, was that an infringement of the Second Amendment?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The original .32 cal Derringer pistol was dubbed "The San Francisco Rape Abater."

Maybe that's why leftists hate guns? Interferes with their interests? Few things sway a man away from rape as fast as a .32 slug in the groin...

 

[legaleagle_45]

Quick question....................if a person should be allowed to own any gun they want (as someone said further up the thread talking about tanks, if it's man portable and goes bang, it's okay), then why is it that you can no longer own a fully automatic machine gun anymore?

When those were banned, was that an infringement of the Second Amendment?

Smart ass answer:

Because fully automatic weapons do not go "bang" they go "rat a tat tat".

Trying to sound impressively legal answer:

The primary distinction being made with single man portable weapons are between those that are primarily "area weapons" and those that are intended to be employed in man to man combat. A grenade is an area weapon which is employed to pacify whole areas even if it takes out only one person. You use one to take out a machine gun nest. Ordinarily, soldiers do not stand across from each other and lob grenades in an attemept to kill each other. A firearm which fires a single round with each pull of the trigger allows one to discretly target another individual without collateral damage. Conversely, a weapon which is oft described as "spray and pray" is more in the nature of an area weapon and thus not an arm as that term is used in the 2nd

Real answer:

There is no way we can sell machine guns to SCOTUS and to even attempt to do so would cause more harm to the 2nd amend than good

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question....................if a person should be allowed to own any gun they want (as someone said further up the thread talking about tanks, if it's man portable and goes bang, it's okay), then why is it that you can no longer own a fully automatic machine gun anymore?

When those were banned, was that an infringement of the Second Amendment?

Smart ass answer:

Because fully automatic weapons do not go "bang" they go "rat a tat tat".

Trying to sound impressively legal answer:

The primary distinction being made with single man portable weapons are between those that are primarily "area weapons" and those that are intended to be employed in man to man combat. A grenade is an area weapon which is employed to pacify whole areas even if it takes out only one person. You use one to take out a machine gun nest. Ordinarily, soldiers do not stand across from each other and lob grenades in an attemept to kill each other. A firearm which fires a single round with each pull of the trigger allows one to discretly target another individual without collateral damage. Conversely, a weapon which is oft described as "spray and pray" is more in the nature of an area weapon and thus not an arm as that term is used in the 2nd

Real answer:

There is no way we can sell machine guns to SCOTUS and to even attempt to do so would cause more harm to the 2nd amend than good

Then, a semi automatic rifle (or pistol) with a 30 round clip would be considered an "area weapon" as well.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Then, a semi automatic rifle (or pistol) with a 30 round clip would be considered an "area weapon" as well.

You might be able to convince a court about a hi cap mag, but it is quite unlikely that you would be able to do the same with a semi because it is only capable of firing one round with each pull of the trigger and thus each shot is capable of being discretly target... besides the firearm involved in McDonald was a semi, so you are not going to get anywhere with that... guaranteed.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Then, a semi automatic rifle (or pistol) with a 30 round clip would be considered an "area weapon" as well.

You might be able to convince a court about a hi cap mag, but it is quite unlikely that you would be able to do the same with a semi because it is only capable of firing one round with each pull of the trigger and thus each shot is capable of being discretly target... besides the firearm involved in McDonald was a semi, so you are not going to get anywhere with that... guaranteed.

Hey............if we could get rid of the hi cap mags, I'd be happy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You might be able to convince a court about a hi cap mag, but it is quite unlikely that you would be able to do the same with a semi because it is only capable of firing one round with each pull of the trigger and thus each shot is capable of being discretly target... besides the firearm involved in McDonald was a semi, so you are not going to get anywhere with that... guaranteed.

There is no rational reason to prohibit automatic rifles.

I've shot them, and personally find them useless, but there is no reason to outlaw them. The bad guys buy Chinese and Eastern European full-autos anyway,

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey............if we could get rid of the hi cap mags, I'd be happy.

That, and get rid of criticism of Obama.

Just a little infringement of civil rights, for the moment. More to come later....

 

[ABikerSailor]

You might be able to convince a court about a hi cap mag, but it is quite unlikely that you would be able to do the same with a semi because it is only capable of firing one round with each pull of the trigger and thus each shot is capable of being discretly target... besides the firearm involved in McDonald was a semi, so you are not going to get anywhere with that... guaranteed.

There is no rational reason to prohibit automatic rifles.

I've shot them, and personally find them useless, but there is no reason to outlaw them. The bad guys buy Chinese and Eastern European full-autos anyway,

The rational reason is because a full auto machine gun is designed to do one thing, and one thing only..........kill a large amount of people quickly. Why do you think they were the favored guns of the Mafia back in the 20's and 30's?

Full auto weapons should be the exclusive property of the military.

And...............speaking of which..................can you name me a single instance where a full auto weapon was used to kill people since they were outlawed for the general public? Has anyone gotten them from China or Russia to kill lots of Americans?

 

[legaleagle_45]

You might be able to convince a court about a hi cap mag, but it is quite unlikely that you would be able to do the same with a semi because it is only capable of firing one round with each pull of the trigger and thus each shot is capable of being discretly target... besides the firearm involved in McDonald was a semi, so you are not going to get anywhere with that... guaranteed.

There is no rational reason to prohibit automatic rifles.

I've shot them, and personally find them useless, but there is no reason to outlaw them. The bad guys buy Chinese and Eastern European full-autos anyway,

The law is not always about what is rational, uncensored. I guarantee you that Alan Gura will not file a lawsuit contesting the validity of of the NFA of 1934. The reason he will not do so is becuase he knows that he would not only lose the case but also lose credibility.

Did you happen to listen to oral arguments of Heller? If you had, you would have heard Gura toss full auto's under the bus.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The rational reason is because a full auto machine gun is designed to do one thing, and one thing only..........kill a large amount of people quickly.

Okay, so you don't have a hint of a clue what the words you type mean, you've never held, much less fired a gun. I understand.

But no, a full auto rifle is not a "machine gun." They are not belt-fed, mounted, or water cooled. An M4 is nothing like an M2 Browning or MG131.

A true machine gun is far more dangerous than an automatic rifle.

Why do you think they were the favored guns of the Mafia back in the 20's and 30's?

ROFL

Another moron thinking Hollywood is really real life.

Peter Pan ain't real, buddy. Al Capone didn't carry a gun, and his crew favored baseball bats. Dutch Schultz favored a 1911 Colt .45 - hand gun, which he was apparently insanely good with.

Full auto weapons should be the exclusive property of the military.

But don't you favor strict government regulation of steak knives?

And...............speaking of which..................can you name me a single instance where a full auto weapon was used to kill people since they were outlawed for the general public? Has anyone gotten them from China or Russia to kill lots of Americans?

Give it a rest;

{SAN FRANCISCO — Two federal undercover agents--one of them posing as a suave Mafia operative from Miami--negotiated with Chinese arms dealers for more than 16 months to bring about the largest seizure of smuggled automatic weapons in American history, federal officials said Thursday.

In releasing the first details of a sting operation that led to the arrests of seven suspects Wednesday in the San Francisco Bay Area, federal officials told a spy-thriller tale of arms-import deals gone wrong, money buried under a potted tree and the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to illegally import 2,000 AK-47 rifles with a street value estimated at $4 million.}

U.s. Foils Major Smuggling Operation - Chicago Tribune

Foreign full autos are used all the fucking time. Untraceable and cheap.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The rational reason is because a full auto machine gun is designed to do one thing, and one thing only..........kill a large amount of people quickly.

Okay, so you don't have a hint of a clue what the words you type mean, you've never held, much less fired a gun. I understand.

But no, a full auto rifle is not a "machine gun." They are not belt-fed, mounted, or water cooled. An M4 is nothing like an M2 Browning or MG131.

A true machine gun is far more dangerous than an automatic rifle.

Why do you think they were the favored guns of the Mafia back in the 20's and 30's?

ROFL

Another moron thinking Hollywood is really real life.

Peter Pan ain't real, buddy. Al Capone didn't carry a gun, and his crew favored baseball bats. Dutch Schultz favored a 1911 Colt .45 - hand gun, which he was apparently insanely good with.

Full auto weapons should be the exclusive property of the military.

But don't you favor strict government regulation of steak knives?

And...............speaking of which..................can you name me a single instance where a full auto weapon was used to kill people since they were outlawed for the general public? Has anyone gotten them from China or Russia to kill lots of Americans?

Give it a rest;

{SAN FRANCISCO — Two federal undercover agents--one of them posing as a suave Mafia operative from Miami--negotiated with Chinese arms dealers for more than 16 months to bring about the largest seizure of smuggled automatic weapons in American history, federal officials said Thursday.

In releasing the first details of a sting operation that led to the arrests of seven suspects Wednesday in the San Francisco Bay Area, federal officials told a spy-thriller tale of arms-import deals gone wrong, money buried under a potted tree and the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to illegally import 2,000 AK-47 rifles with a street value estimated at $4 million.}

U.s. Foils Major Smuggling Operation - Chicago Tribune

Foreign full autos are used all the fucking time. Untraceable and cheap.

Dodging the answer I see. I didn't ask about stings, I asked about the last time that full auto weapons (or machine guns) were used to kill lots of Americans in this country?

And...............if it did happen, did they get them from China or Russia?

Reading comprehension dude.................

 

[legaleagle_45]

I have been trying to locate a link to that specific story about the 2,000 AK-47s as it is a great counter to the claim that an AR-15 semi can be quickly and easily converted to a full auto.

If they were so easily convertable then there would be no need to risk smuggeling in AK-47s from China.

 

[legaleagle_45]

And...............speaking of which..................can you name me a single instance where a full auto weapon was used to kill people since they were outlawed for the general public?

Full auto weapons are availble to private individuals. One must pay a $200 transfer tax undergo a full FBI fingerprint check, get approval of your local sheriff and pay for the full auto weapon but there are about 150,000 of them in private hand in the USA. There have been only two instances where a legally owned full auto was used in a crime. There have been instances where illegaly owned full autos are ued in crime, but that is rare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates...

I've had my damn 12 gauge locked and loaded on the kitchen table all moring..the damned thing hasn't tried to kill me yet.

Don't turn your back on it.