Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

**Walter Oobleck** · 3 Weeks Ago

My guess at this point is that they pass some sort of backgrounds check and most of the rhetoric by many is simply posturing. Will any side be noted for compromise if that happens? Probably be greeted w/someone saying, "That depends on what compromise means."

Haven't looked at whatever proposals regarding checks is currently on the table. I assume they will write into law a manner to finance and to enforce the law. In Printz/Mack v. United States, sometimes called the Brady-law case (decided June 27, 1997) the question is answered: Does the 10th Amendment prohibit the federal government from commanding local police authorities to implement federal police mandates, and conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers? Yes. 5-4 The problem was resolved...somewhat...w/the passage of a law that allowed the feds to simply use state resources as long as the cost of each program was under a $50 million threshold.
--Supreme Court Gun Cases, Kopel, Halbrook, Korwin

Here's one from the same volume: Cummings v. Missouri (1866) Is deprivation or suspension of a person's civil rights, including the right to bear arms, a form of punishment. Yes.

Or this one, Cruikshank, United States v., * 1875
Does the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose depend on the Constitution for its existence. NO. Does the 2nd Amendment have no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, and prevent Congress from infringing on the right to bear arms. YES.

This one: DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services 1989, Does the 14th Amendment guarantee that a state must protect its citizens from private violations of life, liberty or property. NO

And this one: Logan v. United States, 1980, Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution. YES; Is a prisoner in legal custody entitled to protection "while he is deprived of ordinary means of defending and protecting himself" YES

Although judging by news reports about the New Orleans jail system, at least one inmate there has his very own private semi-automatic...while still incarcerated...to protect himself...and whatnot. In prison, the most regimental system we have, people find a way to arm themselves. Not recognizing that fact will provide little comfort to those parents whose children are harmed in the future because lawmakers refuse to look at the possibility of protecting those children where they are mandated to attend school. If a prisoner in legal custody is entitled to protection, how much more our children, who are mandated to attend school?

**Shasta** · 3 Weeks Ago

Originally Posted by Tery

Canadians? Nothing against Canadians but using a foreign item to try to prove your point is sheer nonsense.

Nobody is saying that there wasn't some pretty nasty anti-Bush stuff going around. But it was not approved by the majority of those of the left or by the Party itself, unlike all of the anti-Obama rubbish. Here you have leaders of the opposition party saying terrible things, trying to ruin the country's economy, spreading rumors and disinformation about policy.... it's never-ending and it's pervasive. There simply is no comparison.

I couldn't agree more. I remember when 9/11 happened and everyone got on President Bush for just sitting there, then continuing to read to the kids.

Now, I greatly dislike Bush. Hugely. But I defended him in that situation every time I could. I mean, what was the man supposed to do? Jump up and tell the kids a terrorist attack was happening, then jump into a fighter jet and go blow people up? But I digress.

My point is that a lot of people attacked Bush but they attacked him on things that actually happened. That's not so much happening with Obama.

And I agree. Using something a foreign body puts out is like rioting over a movie some weird people in America put out that no one sees.........

**jimson2** · 3 Weeks Ago

Originally Posted by Shasta

I couldn't agree more. I remember when 9/11 happened and everyone got on President Bush for just sitting there, then continuing to read to the kids.

Now, I greatly dislike Bush. Hugely. But I defended him in that situation every time I could. I mean, what was the man supposed to do? Jump up and tell the kids a terrorist attack was happening, then jump into a fighter jet and go blow people up? But I digress.

My point is that a lot of people attacked Bush but they attacked him on things that actually happened. That's not so much happening with Obama.

And I agree. Using something a foreign body puts out is like rioting over a movie some weird people in America put out that no one sees.........

What the hell damn difference does it make that it was a Canadian source? I skipped over American sources saying the exact same thing so you wouldn't scream about right wing propaganda.

What BS about the "not our president" crap, the other side was calling him illegitimate from the very get-go over the Florida elections fiasco.

Hell, that side never needed a grass roots nut party, you pretty much had that covered with the vast majority of the media and the entirety of the entertainment industry.

Talk about parroting talking points. I haven't heard one original thing here out of the progressive mouth. "The truth has a liberal bias" yeah, in a liberals mind it does.

I've only heard that repeated a thousand times on other boards and I can pretty much get the exact same thing I hear here from Chris Mathews.

What a friggin joke.

**jimson2** · 3 Weeks Ago

Here's a good example of "Liberal honesty". Reminds me of another time the left starting attacking over "something that really happened" when before the blood even stopped flowing in the Giffords shooting, they started pushing the "right wing extremism is responsible" angle.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/04/4697...thon-bombings/

By the end of the day, will they have connected Sarah Palin to this one as well?

**Shasta** · 3 Weeks Ago

I'm not going to further discuss anything with you, jimson2, because you assume, put words in people's mouth, and ignore anything that makes a point.

And you also cry about people being rude to you but then you're just as rude to others. Not once have I said anything condescending or disrespectful to you.

But I will say one thing - you make my point again. People called Bush illigetimate because he lost the popular vote. Which means that more people in America wanted Gore to be our president. Again, that's something that's actually based in reason. When you can bring up a concern about Obama that's based in reason we can potentially start talking again.

**jimson2** · 3 Weeks Ago

Originally Posted by Shasta

I'm not going to further discuss anything with you, jimson2, because you assume, put words in people's mouth, and ignore anything that makes a point.

And you also cry about people being rude to you but then you're just as rude to others. Not once have I said anything condescending or disrespectful to you.

But I will say one thing - you make my point again. People called Bush illigetimate because he lost the popular vote. Which means that more people in America wanted Gore to be our president. Again, that's something that's actually based in reason. When you can bring up a concern about Obama that's based in reason we can potentially start talking again.

Shasta, we elect presidents based on the electoral college. That's not illegitimate and I imagine you would have been fine if Gore had won the presidency while losing the popular vote, but I don't know that for sure, so I don't want to put words in your mouth.

You have a point about rudeness, but my posts aren't really directed at you in particular.

It's pretty simple really. If folks will stop making off topic attacks on Republicans and Conservatives, I will stop calling them out on it and giving examples of why I think they are no better.

I will finish by saying that my biases cause me to see things through a particular prism, but unlike so many others, at least I am willing to admit that.