Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,565 posts)
Wed May 25, 2016, 09:37 PM May 2016

Which group of gun owners are the control folk most afraid of?

Those who own...


9 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
...for self-defense.
7 (78%)
...to hunt.
0 (0%)
...for target shooting.
1 (11%)
...because they're preppers.
1 (11%)
...because they're collectors.
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Which group of gun owners are the control folk most afraid of? (Original Post) discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2016 OP
Who are the out of controllers safeinOhio May 2016 #1
a threat to one right is a threat to all. gejohnston May 2016 #2
A narrow decision safeinOhio May 2016 #3
I think the Bill of Rights and the "right of the people" are...ya know... Giggity May 2016 #6
Key Phrase - "Dissenting Opinion", as in legally irrelevant DonP May 2016 #7
Stevens was wrong gejohnston May 2016 #10
Perhaps you're thinking of... discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2016 #12
You all answered my question safeinOhio May 2016 #14
Who answered your question(s)? discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2016 #15
The ones that refuse to believe controller lies. ileus May 2016 #4
There is only one correct answer. Kang Colby May 2016 #5
I don't know. A thug with a gun might not bother some who get goo-goo eyes over that. Eleanors38 May 2016 #17
You got that right. Kang Colby May 2016 #18
They are afraid of all gun owners Lurks Often May 2016 #8
Had to vote for target shooting DonP May 2016 #9
This was the answer I contemplated when I posted the poll. discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2016 #13
It's the Grabber's favorite "Catch 22" DonP May 2016 #16
^^^^This. +1000. eom Kang Colby May 2016 #19
Those who own... sarisataka May 2016 #11

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
2. a threat to one right is a threat to all.
Wed May 25, 2016, 11:16 PM
May 2016
In addition to claiming the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the selective incorporation process, McDonald is unique among post-Heller gun cases in that it asked the court to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If it had been overturned, the Selective Incorporation process may have become unnecessary, since the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would arguably be applied to the states.

In attempting to overturn Slaughter-House, this case garnered the attention and support of both conservative and liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest was that if Slaughter-House had been overturned, it would have been possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would have been applied against the states automatically.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas alone supported overturning the Slaughter-House and Cruikshank decisions,[15] proposing that "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause."[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

safeinOhio

(33,957 posts)
3. A narrow decision
Thu May 26, 2016, 06:03 AM
May 2016

Justice Stevens wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion. Among his disagreements with the majority was the statement that incorporation was not at issue in this case. Citing Cruikshank, Stevens wrote, "The so-called incorporation question was squarely and, in my view, correctly resolved in the late 19th century." In addition, he argues against incorporation, taking issue with the methodology of the majority opinions.

Justice Breyer wrote, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental.'"[25]

Same article

Activist judges were in the majority

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
7. Key Phrase - "Dissenting Opinion", as in legally irrelevant
Thu May 26, 2016, 09:03 AM
May 2016

Dissenting opinions are not used as precedent.

But it's nice the gun control fans have something that keeps them all warm and fuzzy at night.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
10. Stevens was wrong
Thu May 26, 2016, 09:07 AM
May 2016

Last edited Thu May 26, 2016, 10:10 AM - Edit history (1)

Cruikshank also said that any state can take away the first amendment rights and also made the civil rights laws at the time unenforceable. Stevens was being an activist. Civil rights lawyers have been chipping away at Cruikshank for decades, McDonald finally smashed it. Cruikshank enabled the Klan's repression and Jim Crow laws.

The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting. As white Democrats dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a blind eye on the violence. They refused to allow African Americans any right to bear arms.

As constitutional commentator Leonard Levy later wrote in 1987, "Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt to protect black citizens by punishing violators of their Civil Rights and, in effect, shaped the Constitution to the advantage of the Ku Klux Klan." Federal civil rights enforcement was blocked by Cruikshank until 1966 (United States v. Price; United States v. Guest) when the Court vitiated Cruikshank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank#Aftermath

As to Breyer, the sponsors of the 14th amendment didn't write it in order to protect gay marriage or abortion either, what's his point?

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,565 posts)
12. Perhaps you're thinking of...
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:45 AM
May 2016

...the 1%ers. They're about the most out-of-control folks around.

If you mean the non-control pro 2A folks, why would they be afraid? They have guns.

safeinOhio

(33,957 posts)
14. You all answered my question
Thu May 26, 2016, 12:13 PM
May 2016

that's for sure.

I'm working as hard as I can to get a Democratic President elected so our SC will swing back from Citizens United, restrictions on a women's right to her and her doctors choice, racist voting rights laws and to limit the out of control gun rights as promoted by the Ted Nugents, Wayne Lapierres. We are just one Justice away from returning to sanity on those issues.

 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
18. You got that right.
Thu May 26, 2016, 06:34 PM
May 2016

In big cities gun charges are more often than not "nolle prosequi" in exchange for a plea deal on watered down charges. The idea being to avoid a trial and just keep the perps moving through the system due to a number of complex issues.

For example, guy gets busted for distribution of a controlled substance, carrying a gun with prior felony convictions. The gun charges get dropped and the guy pleads to possession of a controlled substance. The judge sentences the person to time served, which is usually under 60 days. Rinse and repeat until the individual is popped on a murder beef or is killed. That scenario plays out all day everyday around here.

In D.C. and Baltimore, what do a large percentage of homicide suspects have in common? Prior gun charges.

We beat this drum all the time in the statehouse, but nobody wants to do anything unless it involves banning "shoulder things that go up."

Interestingly, if you are a hunter who makes a wrong turn, drives into D.C., and are found to be in possession of brass casings or spent shotgun shells...you are going to jail.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
9. Had to vote for target shooting
Thu May 26, 2016, 09:05 AM
May 2016

In "honor" of a gun control fan we have on DU that used to insist all target shooting is just practicing to kill people since "all you use are human shaped targets".

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,565 posts)
13. This was the answer I contemplated when I posted the poll.
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:50 AM
May 2016

Having a gun for any purpose might be acceptable, if you are against private gun ownership. The act of shooting the gun and, even worse, shooting often and working to become proficient may be the scariest. We're all potential murder-snipers.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
16. It's the Grabber's favorite "Catch 22"
Thu May 26, 2016, 01:00 PM
May 2016

If you own a gun and don't practice; you're dangerous because you don't know what you're doing and will obviously kill innocent bystanders.

If you own a gun and do practice; then you're just practicing to kill people more effectively and are obviously are a mental case that shouldn't be allowed to own any gun.

It's right up there with their habit of celebrating every time some back bencher at the state or federal level "proposes" a new law that never makes it out of committee, then asks them for another donation to fight the evil NRA.

If only those politicians realized how cheap gun control supporters really are, once you get past Bloomberg.

Good news though, even the "Fudds" I've been meeting are starting to finally come around and realize they are just next on the gun control list, with their "scoped high powered sniper rifles".

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Which group of gun owners...