[Flem72]

barmar, on 2015-December-17, 10:25, said:

And don't forget that the FF were men of their time, and not everything they did or wrote/said should be enshrined for all time. Many of them owned slaves, for instance, and the Constitution allowed this.

Not exactly: The Constitution is a document of limited grants of power to the G. It didn't grant a right to own slaves, but neither did it prohibit slavery. I think the feature of modern Constitutional litigation that would most amaze the FF is that people nowdays routinely seek to apply it to social issues -- the FF, being very aware of the evolution of social mores over time, thought most of that stuff would work out socially, that is, extra-constitutionally,

[akwoo]

Flem72, on 2015-December-22, 17:13, said:

Not exactly: The Constitution is a document of limited grants of power to the G. It didn't grant a right to own slaves, but neither did it prohibit slavery. I think the feature of modern Constitutional litigation that would most amaze the FF is that people nowdays routinely seek to apply it to social issues -- the FF, being very aware of the evolution of social mores over time, thought most of that stuff would work out socially, that is, extra-constitutionally,

I think most historians would agree that the Constitution was intended to require the government to recognize some property rights over slaves. In particular, many of the FF would consider a government act freeing slaves, or a government act refusing to enforce contracts regarding slaves, as an unconstitutional seizure of property under the 4th amendment. I think that counts as granting a right to own slaves.

[kenberg]

So it comes to this. The Constitution, through the Second Amendment, took a strong position on whether people could own guns but took no position (or rather implicitly accepted it with the three-fifths rule) on whether people could own other people. The Constitution is a noble document but I don't think we have to see it as infallible. The part about owning other people was later corrected. and we might give at least some thought to the wisdom of people, with little regulation, owning firearms that possess a deadliness that could hardly have been foreseen in the late eighteenth century.

We will never entirely prevent crazy people from doing crazy tings. I gather some woman intentionally drove her car into a crowd of pedestrians the other day. That can happen, but we regulate driving in an attempt to make it less likely. Yes, I am far more likely to be killed by a car than by a gun, but that is because I spend far more time driving in intense traffic than I do in places where some nut is apt to be taking a shot at me. We could license and regulate gun ownership to the benefit of everyone.

I have no great problem with a person who is trained in the proper use of firearms, and who is knowledgeable about the responsibility of using weaponry, having some reasonable weapon for self-defense. I think of my excess weight as a far greater threat to my life than my lack of a owning a glock, and I am pretty sure that statistics would bear me out on this, But circumstances vary. Just license and regulate, and we will be fine.

[barmar]

Flem72, on 2015-December-22, 16:42, said:

If legislating for gun control worked, France would be one of the safest countries in the world. It clearly is not. What it is, is complicated.

From http://www.newsweek....ountries-379105

Quote

While mass shootings as well as gun homicides and suicides are not unknown in these countries [several countries with strong gun control, including France], the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these competitor nations.
...
Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since 1996 [when new gun control was passed in the wake of the Port Arthure massacre]

Perfect safety is not achievable, but we need to be realistic: stronger gun control correlates with increased safety. The NRA preaches the exact opposite.

[awm]

While the attacks in Paris were horrific and some 130 people were killed, it's a mistake to use that to conclude that France is dangerous or that gun laws don't prevent deaths. In the United States, 88 people per day are killed with guns on average; excluding suicides and accidents there are still some 31 gun homicides per day in the US. This means essentially every week, more people in the US are murdered with guns than died on Nov 13 in Paris.

We notice this less because most of the deaths are not in a single mass assault (although we seem to have a "mass shooting" every few months) and most of the deaths are not linked to "Islamic terrorism" (although the San Bernardino shootings were) and because we have become somewhat accustomed to them on the local level. But these shootings just don't happen in other countries! The US murder rate is roughly 3.8 times higher than France, and the uptick this year in France because of the Paris attacks still won't make it close.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2015-December-23, 09:56, said:

Just license and regulate, and we will be fine.

What I can't abide is the silliness of "gun control" laws. First, they don't work. Second, we ban "assault rifles" because they look scary. That's just stupid. Third, how easy or hard it is to get a permit allowing one to exercise her second amendment guaranteed right is all over the map. Third, the stuff one might really want to ban (crew served weapons, or true assault rifles, for example) isn't banned by law. In many cases all it requires is the appropriate tax stamp. So some bureaucrat effectively bans whatever it is by refusing to issue the stamp. We can do better.

[dwar0123]

Flem72, on 2015-December-22, 16:42, said:

If legislating for gun control worked, France would be one of the safest countries in the world. It clearly is not. What it is, is complicated.

What am I missing, France has a very high gun ownership rate. 31 guns for every 100 individuals, not quite up there with the 112 guns per 100 individuals that the US has, but still not exactly a poster child for effective gun control.

[hrothgar]

Flem72, on 2015-December-22, 16:42, said:

If legislating for gun control worked, France would be one of the safest countries in the world. It clearly is not. What it is, is complicated.

All the Paris attacks demonstrated is that gun control laws need to be comprehensive to be effective.

The weapons used in the Paris attacks were purchased in Belgium which has notoriously lax laws and then smuggled over the border.
This is the same reason that Chicago's laws wrt gun sales are ineffective. (Its easy for folks to cross the border into Indiana and buy whatever they damn well please)

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-23, 14:03, said:

Third, how easy or hard it is to get a permit allowing one to exercise her second amendment guaranteed right is all over the map.

Its remarkable how blackshoe favors states right but can't stand the inevitable consequences.

[mike777]

France is a smallish country. Lets compare to China where our murder rate is also about 3.8 times more and where China has very strong gun laws.

[cherdano]

Back to the original topic on the thread: The Great Republican Revolt by David Frum is by far the best and most interesting take I have read on the Trump phenomenon. Very much worth reading.
Edit: Here is another, on the appeal of Trump's immigration rhetoric. http://www.vox.com/2...migration-trump

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2015-December-23, 16:49, said:

France is a smallish country. Lets compare to China where our murder rate is also about 3.8 times more and where China has very strong gun laws.

You might want to refer to the relevant wiki page before using China as a model - sort the table by the Rate column. A better example from the opposite end would perhaps be Switzerland. In general though, I think you will find that there is a good correlation between gun availability in a country and the murder rate.

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on 2015-December-23, 14:25, said:

Its remarkable how blackshoe favors states right but can't stand the inevitable consequences.

It is remarkable how hrothgar attributes to me things that just aren't true.

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2015-December-23, 17:25, said:

You might want to refer to the relevant wiki page before using China as a model - sort the table by the Rate column. A better example from the opposite end would perhaps be Switzerland. In general though, I think you will find that there is a good correlation between gun availability in a country and the murder rate.

Again the Swiss is a very tiny country, China is a much better comparison. Much lower gun availability compared to the US and a much lower murder rate.

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

Back to the original topic on the thread: The Great Republican Revolt by David Frum is by far the best and most interesting take I have read on the Trump phenomenon. Very much worth reading.

Yes it seems it is the Dems who are going for "dynastic restoration in 2016" and the Republicans in open revolt.

[mike777]

I liked Bret Stephens article in the WSJ regarding the Republican race.

1) Many moderate Republicans don't bother to vote in the Primaries.

2) Many who do bother to vote want purity on the issues. No compromise when it comes to immigration or the border issue or pathway to citizenship. Must be pro life, no exceptions. Must destroy ObamaCare, no compromise. No compromise for moderate woman or Hispanic votes who may lean Republican but are not pure.

3) no tax increases for any reason.

4) deny climate change or discussion of such.

5) Better to lose rather than not be pure on the issues.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2015-December-23, 18:48, said:

I liked Bret Stephens article in the WSJ regarding the Republican race.

1) Many moderate Republicans don't bother to vote in the Primaries.

2) Many who do bother to vote want purity on the issues. No compromise when it comes to immigration or the border issue or pathway to citizenship. Must be pro life, no exceptions. Must destroy ObamaCare, no compromise. No compromise for moderate woman or Hispanic votes who may lean Republican but are not pure.

3) no tax increases for any reason.

4) deny climate change or discussion of such.

5) Better to lose rather than not be pure on the issues.

Considering point 5, "5) Better to lose rather than not be pure on the issues", I sense a decided religious undertone in this notion - (And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.)

Again I point out the it doesn't matter the religion, hard-line fundamentalists all have the same compromise-as-sin value system whether they be the Taliban or the Tea Party.

These fundamentalist hard-liners, both foreign and home-grown, both religious and political are the enemies of peace and progress - all are our enemies.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-23, 17:35, said:

> Its remarkable how blackshoe favors states right but can't stand the inevitable consequences.

It is remarkable how hrothgar attributes to me things that just aren't true.

I could have sworn that you favor devolving decision making down to the local level.
(You're a constant critic of having a strong central government trying to standardize regulations)

It's possible that you've transitioned into full blown anarchism, however, that would be even stronger support for my original assertion:

It is logically inconsistent to simultaneous favor devolving decision making down to a local level, but then complain that different locations adopt different laws. Or, as you put it,

"Third, how easy or hard it is to get a permit allowing one to exercise her second amendment guaranteed right is all over the map. "

[Flem72]

hrothgar, on 2015-December-23, 14:23, said:

All the Paris attacks demonstrated is that gun control laws need to be comprehensive to be effective.

The weapons used in the Paris attacks were purchased in Belgium which has notoriously lax laws and then smuggled over the border.
This is the same reason that Chicago's laws wrt gun sales are ineffective. (Its easy for folks to cross the border into Indiana and buy whatever they damn well please)

Now let's get into the "only criminals will have guns" part of it. How many US shootings involve unregistered guns bought on the streets? Complicated.

[Flem72]

akwoo, on 2015-December-23, 02:42, said:

I think most historians would agree that the Constitution was intended to require the government to recognize some property rights over slaves. In particular, many of the FF would consider a government act freeing slaves, or a government act refusing to enforce contracts regarding slaves, as an unconstitutional seizure of property under the 4th amendment. I think that counts as granting a right to own slaves.

I think the Constitution was written against the social backdrop of the times. Period. It was intended to establish a system of government, not to cure what later times would see as social injustices.

[hrothgar]

Flem72, on 2015-December-24, 08:16, said:

Now let's get into the "only criminals will have guns" part of it. How many US shootings involve unregistered guns bought on the streets? Complicated.

You seem to think that I care that "only criminals will have guns".
I consider this to be a goal, not a design flaw.

As I have stated in the past, I believe that that US should adopt a situation in which private citizens can own whatever type of gun they want, up to and including fully automatic weapons, however, the overwhelming majority of said weapons need to be stored at rifle ranges and can only be used at rifle ranges.

I think that it is reasonable to make the following exceptions:

1. If a private citizen wants a weapon for hunting, they can have shotguns (pump action, break action, and over and under) and bolt action rifles
2. If a private citizen wants a weapon for hunting, they can use the same.

Note that this does not provide any option for folks to carry around hand guns.

Arguably, this means that "only criminals will have guns". (If you a private citizen is carrying a handgun any place other than at a licensed range, they are a criminal).
I consider this to be a very good thing thing and I think that, on average, society would be a hell of a lot better with this sort of system in place.

I hope that some day we are able to get there.