2nd Amendment outside the home

[Billy the Great Khan]

while mcdonald certainly did deal with a chicago case, didn't alitos opinion hold that the 2nd applied against the states? not that this overruled all state laws. each one will have to be challenged for sure. thus the maryland case is bound to go against the state.

Yeah, I think we're agreeing on the same thing here but in different words. Certainly the 2A was incorporated.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

what about limits on felons and the insane

What about 'em?

 

[Rune]

Epic (mind if I call you galley?)
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=UNfGTYzQOMe_gQfqyaTMBA&ved=0CBwQ9QEwAQ

Do you beleive that somehow illicit gun use could be curtailed through regulation?

 

[WinterBorn]

So nice of you to post a pic of your Mom on Mother's Day.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Epic (mind if I call you galley?)
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=UNfGTYzQOMe_gQfqyaTMBA&ved=0CBwQ9QEwAQ

Do you beleive that somehow illicit gun use could be curtailed through regulation?

the same way that alcohol and marijuana have been?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Epic (mind if I call you galley?)
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=UNfGTYzQOMe_gQfqyaTMBA&ved=0CBwQ9QEwAQ

Do you beleive that somehow illicit gun use could be curtailed through regulation?

The same way that theft, rape and murder have been?

 

[WinterBorn]

The same way that theft, rape and murder have been?

Since the violent crime rate has been steadily declining for a couple of decades, it doesn't compare.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Since the violent crime rate has been steadily declining for a couple of decades, it doesn't compare.

Not too swift on the uptake, are you?

The logic being examined is that laws regulating theft, murder, rape, alcohol, marijuana or (insert behavior here) don't totally prevent violations.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not too swift on the uptake, are you?

The logic being examined is that laws regulating theft, murder, rape, alcohol, marijuana or (insert behavior here) don't totally prevent violations.

Apparently swifter than you. Where there are laws making guns harder to own the violent crime rate goes up. Less gun regulation leads to lower violent crime rates. More laws against marijuana has had no effect on its use. Laws against murder and rape have seen a drop in the rates of those crimes.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Apparently swifter than you. Where there are laws making guns harder to own the violent crime rate goes up. Less gun regulation leads to lower violent crime rates. More laws against marijuana has had no effect on its use. Laws against murder and rape have seen a drop in the rates of those crimes.

We're not debating causal effects, for instance whether or not easy access to guns reduces crime.

We're debating the legality and efficiacy of restricting second amendment rights.

Try to keep up.

 

[WinterBorn]

We're not debating causal effects, for instance whether or not easy access to guns reduces crime.

We're debating the legality and efficiacy of restricting second amendment rights.

Try to keep up.

One has worked and one has not. Is that simple enough for you?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

One has worked and one has not. Is that simple enough for you?

You really have lost your mind since you buried the hatchet with Dumb Yankee, haven't you?

This thread is about exercising second amendment rights outside the domicile.

If you want to hijack the thread and proclaim that easy access leads to reduced crime, just say so.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Not too swift on the uptake, are you?

The logic being examined is that laws regulating theft, murder, rape, alcohol, marijuana or (insert behavior here) don't totally prevent violations.

Umm you're apparently willfully ignorant. Those laws are designed to punish those offenses, not prevent them.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Umm you're apparently willfully ignorant. Those laws are designed to punish those offenses, not prevent them.

Um, you're apparently drunk again.

The purpose of legal punishment is deterrence, unless you think the law can cause time travel.

Since laws can't absolutely deter future behaviors by punishing past transgressors, they should be eliminated, right?

Bottoms up!

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Um, you're apparently drunk again.

The purpose of legal punishment is deterrence, unless you think the law can cause time travel.

Since laws can't absolutely deter future behaviors by punishing past transgressors, they should be eliminated, right?

Bottoms up!

Lovely Ad homs from someone who gets butt hurt about being called a troll. Uhh no, those laws are not in place to deter. They may have deterrence as a secondary effect, but those laws are to punish wrong doing primarily. Further there is no evidence that deterrent type laws like gun control have any deterrent effect. Thus the failure of the law is two fold. It firstly punishes those who are not harming society, and secondly does not deter criminal behavior.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Lovely Ad homs from someone who gets butt hurt about being called a troll. Uhh no, those laws are not in place to deter. They may have deterrence as a secondary effect, but those laws are to punish wrong doing primarily. Further there is no evidence that deterrent type laws like gun control have any deterrent effect. Thus the failure of the law is two fold. It firstly punishes those who are not harming society, and secondly does not deter criminal behavior.

Who said I'm butt-hurt? More misinformation from someone who call others names without a shred of evidence.

Laws aren't in effect to deter by punishing those convicted of proscribed behaviors, huh?

Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution. Jurisdictions differ on the value to be placed on each.

• Retribution - Criminals ought to suffer in some way. This is the most widely seen goal. Criminals have taken improper advantage, or inflicted unfair detriment, upon others and consequently, the criminal law will put criminals at some unpleasant disadvantage to "balance the scales." People submit to the law to receive the right not to be murdered and if people contravene these laws, they surrender the rights granted to them by the law. Thus, one who murders may be murdered himself. A related theory includes the idea of "righting the balance."

• Deterrence - Individual deterrence is aimed toward the specific offender. The aim is to impose a sufficient penalty to discourage the offender from criminal behavior. Generaldeterrence aims at society at large. By imposing a penalty on those who commit offenses, other individuals are discouraged from committing those offenses.
• Incapacitation - Designed simply to keep criminals away from society so that the public is protected from their misconduct. This is often achieved through prison sentences today. The death penalty or banishment have served the same purpose.
• Rehabilitation - Aims at transforming an offender into a valuable member of society. Its primary goal is to prevent further offense by convincing the offender that their conduct was wrong.
• Restitution - This is a victim-oriented theory of punishment. The goal is to repair, through state authority, any hurt inflicted on the victim by the offender. For example, one whoembezzles will be required to repay the amount improperly acquired. Restitution is commonly combined with other main goals of criminal justice and is closely related to concepts in the civil law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law

BTW, I'm actually in agreement with you on the issue of gun control laws, but not for the reason that they don't work. Just thought I'd point that out.

Cheers!

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Who said I'm butt-hurt? More misinformation from someone who call others names without a shred of evidence.

Well you'll pardon me for assuming so, as you act with all the indicators of being butt-hurt when you're called out as Legion.

Laws aren't in effect to deter by punishing those convicted of proscribed behaviors, huh?

Not in America no. Rehabilitation and punishment are the primary functions of American criminal justice. And with laws regarding rape and violent crime, it's pretty much universal.

As to the picture you posted earlier, I have to ask; Do you feel that as a human being the said person should be deprived of rights without committing an offense merely because they espouse a unpopular opinion in our specific society? That's very bigoted.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Well you'll pardon me for assuming so, as you act with all the indicators of being butt-hurt when you're called out as Legion.

I tend to challenge liars.

Not in America no. Rehabilitation and punishment are the primary functions of American criminal justice. And with laws regarding rape and violent crime, it's pretty much universal.

Partly. However, it's incorrect to say that deterrence is not an objective. If you have any proof that it's not, let's see the evidence for that assertion.

As to the picture you posted earlier, I have to ask; Do you feel that as a human being the said person should be deprived of rights without committing an offense merely because they espouse a unpopular opinion in our specific society? That's very bigoted.

LOL. Now who's acting butt-hurt? What are you talking about?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I tend to challenge liars.

Were I lying you might have a point. But I'm not. 2+2=4 and you=Legion.

Partly. However, it's incorrect to say that detrerrence is not an objective. If you have any proof that it's not, let's see the evidence for that assertion.

Of course it would be nice to see laws acting as a deterrent. It is not the stated objective of American criminal law however, and even if it were, it would not be accomplished by any gun control law on the books, nor any that have been proposed ever.

LOL. Now who's acting butt-hurt? What are you talking about?

Butt-hurt? You could say that. I fought for the rights of every American citizen, whether I espouse their beliefs or not. As such it is a bit angering that you would suggest restricting the rights of those who have done nothing to deserve it. You posting a alleged Klansman with a gun to try and support your idea of restricting rights (and I say alleged because all there is to base this off of is a picture, no supporting story or information) to those who aren't criminals (as again, you have shown no evidence that the posted person is a criminal or mentally unstable) is very bigoted. In essence you are saying that the minorities, whether they be minorities of opinion or otherwise, can have their rights removed without due process of law.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Were I lying you might have a point. But I'm not. 2+2=4 and you=Legion.

Since I'm not "legion", I have a point. You're lying.

Of course it would be nice to see laws acting as a deterrent. It is not the stated objective of American criminal law however, and even if it were, it would not be accomplished by any gun control law on the books, nor any that have been proposed ever.

It's not an objective of American law? Cite your source. Since the second amendment takes precedence over all other gun control laws, that's moot. Maybe you should pick another fight.

Butt-hurt? You could say that. I fought for the rights of every American citizen, whether I espouse their beliefs or not. As such it is a bit angering that you would suggest restricting the rights of those who have done nothing to deserve it. You posting a alleged Klansman with a gun to try and support your idea of restricting rights (and I say alleged because all there is to base this off of is a picture, no supporting story or information) to those who aren't criminals (as again, you have shown no evidence that the posted person is a criminal or mentally unstable) is very bigoted. In essence you are saying that the minorities, whether they be minorities of opinion or otherwise, can have their rights removed without due process of law.

So my picture of a cigar-smoking guy in a Klansman outfit, posted as a sarcastic response to Schadenfreude's question, hurt your feelings? I can live with that.