High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report

[youfiad]

The US isn't Switzerland. Stop trying to compare apples and oranges. Switzerland has a different structure. And it's interesting from your citation... that ammunition is NOT kept at home (at least until 2007). So the guns are basically empty at home? This is a VERY different situation. And what elements are ignored? Pay attention to your own sources.

Switzerland apparently is tightening up its own laws in recent years.

No, the US isn't Switzerland, that's part of the point. People keep saying that high gun ownage = higher murder rates, when it simple isn't and doesn't have to be the case.

The law that you're stating actually required them to keep MILITARY amunition at home until 2007. If I understand correctly, they can just get their own at home.

[youfiad]

Gun safety training probably wouldn't stop a psychopath; true. That's where the mental health part comes in. It would however stop this utterly retarded crap like 8 people being shot 'accidentally' on Gun Appreciation Day, or at least minimize gun accidents and accidental shootings, which would certainly be a start. Everyone's quick to point out that Lanza's mother was incompetent for not having properly secured her guns but what reason do we even have to believe she would have known how to do so? No training or certification is required in the U.S. in order to get some firearms.

I'd say 99 times out of 100, gun related deaths aren't accidental, and that's being highly generous. And I'm sure that if you look at numbers, there are still most likely accidental deaths there too. Once again, not a specialist, nor do I care to be, I'm merely scepitical of overly dramaticized arguments that are more emotionally appealing that logically sound (the types of arguments I commonly hear surrounding many issues).

I think that point about Lanza's mother is far reaching. Sure it's entirely possible that she was retarded, but to assume that it's probably or even the most likely scenario is just bologna in my opinion.

I do think that you did raise a valid point, and it's a point that I tend to resort to in most of my arguments. That is that our country is lacking in general education and that learning to think isn't stressed enough in our classes. People can only see what's directly in front of their eyes, and tome, tat's quite scary, moreso than the guns. But as far as the no training or certification being required in the USA, that's the same rule in Switzerland, and the're not suffering the same problem.

Nap time, again...

[Rolyo85]

Actually, you are incorrect. What people are saying is that EASY ACCESSIBILITY of guns = higher murder rates. Be it guns that are given away at gun shows with no background checks, or weapons insecurely stored and stolen. The number of guns - while also relevant - isn't the major factor in this problem.

[Apollo]

A active duty swiss commented on gun laws in Switzerland.

"The bottom left is a fake and not from Switzerland, because the only rifle you're able to own here is your military service weapon, with full auto disabled. People who didn't serve in the army can hardly get any kind of weapon. The ammunition is distributed only on official government licenced shooting ranges and you're not allowed to have any ammo at home, the military police can come to your home unanounced any day and check for illegal ammunition and take your rifle away. In public you will see many former servicemen and women with their rifle on their way to their annual official shooting test to make sure they still have military standards!! Outside of the range and the army you can only move around withe the bolt taken out of your rifle and stored seperately!
Greetings from a currently active Swiss infantryman!"

[GiancarloC]

No, the US isn't Switzerland, that's part of the point. People keep saying that high gun ownage = higher murder rates, when it simple isn't and doesn't have to be the case.

The law that you're stating actually required them to keep MILITARY amunition at home until 2007. If I understand correctly, they can just get their own at home.

Actually it's true. More guns do equal higher murder rates. Just look at the US. And Switzerland doesn't have that low crime rates...

They are tightening their laws and wouldn't surprise me if they continue to tighten them.

- - - Updated - - -

A active duty swiss commented on gun laws in Switzerland.

Thanks, apollo. That clears up a lot of things. The average person who isn't in the military can't really get any weapon.

[youfiad]

The US isn't Switzerland. Stop trying to compare apples and oranges. Switzerland has a different structure. And it's interesting from your citation... that ammunition is NOT kept at home (at least until 2007). So the guns are basically empty at home? This is a VERY different situation. And what elements are ignored? Pay attention to your own sources.

Switzerland apparently is tightening up its own laws in recent years.

It's not an apples and orange argument, stop resorting to it as though claiming so is actually changing anything. I'm not claiming that they are equal in every way, quite to the contrary.

[youfiad]

Actually, you are incorrect. What people are saying is that EASY ACCESSIBILITY of guns = higher murder rates. Be it guns that are given away at gun shows with no background checks, or weapons insecurely stored and stolen. The number of guns - while also relevant - isn't the major factor in this problem.

The name of the thread is "High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report "

[youfiad]

A active duty swiss commented on gun laws in Switzerland.

Seems inconsistent from other things I've been reading

Only if you are in the military. however every male is required to undergo mandatory military service when they hit 18 , they are required to take the gun home. Also when they complete their service they have the option to keep their service rifle (but the automatic mechanism is removed)

Its easy to get a gun if you are a citizen there are even huge shooting festivals, even youth competitions as a result Swiss are excellent marksmen. Bullets are subsidized by the government in switzerland (they are very cheap) and there is a very strong gun culture and has been this way since guns were invented. Switzerland is famous for its citizen militia in fact the swiss militia system inspired the US 2nd amendment.

Kaiser Wilhelm once asked 'what can a quarter million swiss militia do to a half million german soldiers?" when he planned to invade switzerland, to which a swiss man replied 'shoot twice and go home'.

An interesting thing is that crime in Switzerland is very low so more guns= less crime?

[GiancarloC]

It's not an apples and orange argument, stop resorting to it as though claiming so is actually changing anything. I'm not claiming that they are equal in every way, quite to the contrary.

it's absolutely apples and oranges. Total apples and oranges. They are two different countries and two different cultures. Stop trying to compare the two.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems inconsistent from other things I've been reading

An interesting thing is that crime in Switzerland is very low so more guns= less crime?

Wikipedia isn't the most accurate.

And Switzerland doesn't have that low crime rates.

[Rolyo85]

The name of the thread is "High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report "

What the name of the thread is, isn't very relevant for what the overarching discussion - that has now spanned over 30 threads on CE&P - is actually about. Yes, the fact that there are too many guns IS a problem. But not THE biggest gun problem.

As for the Switzerland comparison, there are just too many glaring differences for it to be of any use.

[Apollo]

Seems inconsistent from other things I've been reading

Only if you are in the military. however every male is required to undergo mandatory military service when they hit 18 , they are required to take the gun home. Also when they complete their service they have the option to keep their service rifle (but the automatic mechanism is removed)

Its easy to get a gun if you are a citizen there are even huge shooting festivals, even youth competitions as a result Swiss are excellent marksmen. Bullets are subsidized by the government in switzerland (they are very cheap) and there is a very strong gun culture and has been this way since guns were invented. Switzerland is famous for its citizen militia in fact the swiss militia system inspired the US 2nd amendment.

Kaiser Wilhelm once asked 'what can a quarter million swiss militia do to a half million german soldiers?" when he planned to invade switzerland, to which a swiss man replied 'shoot twice and go home'.

An interesting thing is that crime in Switzerland is very low so more guns= less crime?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

This website has everything you need to know on gun ownership in Switzerland or any country and the impact it has on society in statistics and references laws.

[youfiad]

it's absolutely apples and oranges. Total apples and oranges. They are two different countries and two different cultures. Stop trying to compare the two.

- - - Updated - - -




Wikipedia isn't the most accurate.

And Switzerland doesn't have that low crime rates.

So then what you're saying in essence is that it it's our culture that's at fault and not guns at all, since we both have that in common. The only outlying variable is culture?

By the way, that wasn't a wiki quote. And i will refute that wikipedia isn't most accurate. Most of wikipedia has heavily secured sources.

[xbuzzerx]

I think that point about Lanza's mother is far reaching. Sure it's entirely possible that she was retarded, but to assume that it's probably or even the most likely scenario is just bologna in my opinion.

You think this because you have a hard reason to believe it, or just hand on your hip "you don't think so"?

Everything I've read indicated that she had guns pretty much all over the house and Lanza didn't have to go to any great trouble to pick them up.

[xbuzzerx]

The name of the thread is "High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report "

With anything as non static / non uniform as crime youre' going to find outliers.

Presenting Switzerland as one country that appears to be more of an outlier undermines the general trend of data is what's the stretch here.

[GiancarloC]

So then what you're saying in essence is that it it's our culture that's at fault and not guns at all, since we both have that in common. The only outlying variable is culture?

No. Switzerland isn't a gun culture no matter whether reservists have guns at home. The gun ownership is much lower than it is in the United States. More guns are the problem. Not culture. Stop trying to deflect.

[Rolyo85]

So then what you're saying in essence is that it it's our culture that's at fault and not guns at all, since we both have that in common. The only outlying variable is culture?

That is not what he is saying. Make the distinction between "there are a lot of guns" = risk factor, and "gun laws are limp and barely-existent" = MAJOR RISK AND HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM.

[Apollo]

That is not what he is saying. Make the distinction between "there are a lot of guns" = risk factor, and "gun laws are limp and barely-existent" = MAJOR RISK AND HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM.

It really isnt about the guns, it is about the lack of laws. Reading over the actual laws in Switzerland and Canada, they have no problem with open carry of hand guns in everyday life or the private use of guns. Neither countries have insane crime rates. Neither countries are as confrontational and violent as America either.

The answer is proper legislation and tracking on guns so people who aren't mentally ill can legally own a gun and move on to the next major issue.

[itsmejeff]

And Switzerland doesn't have that low crime rates.

Swtzrlnd's crm nd ncrcrtn rts r mch lwr thn th S. hwvr, mch f tht s lkly d t th fflnc f Swss scty nd th mr hmgns ntr f th ntn (mmgrtn s nt sy; vn ntnls mst mt rthr

No. Switzerland isn't a gun culture no matter whether reservists have guns at home. The gun ownership is much lower than it is in the United States. More guns are the problem. Not culture. Stop trying to deflect.

Scnc pls, chld.

Thr s rltnshp btwn nmbr f frrms nd hmcds, bt t s nt knwn hw thy r rltd. r mr ppl prchsng frrms bcs f crm? r gns csng ppl t kll? nknwn. nythng ls s spcltn (mndlss spcltn n yr cs).

The ultimate libertarian paradise. Mogadishu... gun laws? Nope. Central government? Not really one worth talking about. And guns, guns, guns everywhere right in open air markets... did I mention that tens if not hundreds of thousands people have died in this "country" in the past 20 years?

Chld, Mgdsh ds hv gvrnmnt. t s th lctn f th fdrl Sml gvrnmnt. t s nrly cmpltly cntrlld by th N rcgnzd trnstnl gvrnmnt.

lv whn stpd ppl brng p Sml. Nthng mks m lgh mr.

ddtnlly, Sml n gnrl cnnt b lbrtrn prds s lbrtrn stts rqr rghts. lnd cntrlld by vrs wrrng grps s nt xctly stt whr rghts hv ny vl. Bt y wld nt ndrstnd tht. (Why ds ths nt srprs m?)

It has, and the answer to that is that unlike the ignorant armed to the teeth masses in the US, Switzerland has mandatory military training.

Wld tht b gd thng fr th S?

Y my nt ndrstnd scnc, bt th dt hs shwn tht S mltry mmbrs r nt mr lkly t cmmt crms, bt r mr lkly t cmmt vlnt crms f thy ffnd. ths s prbbly bcs th S mltry s nhrntly vl nd thrt t pc thgh. Ths qlts fck ppl p.

[GiancarloC]

I was going to respond, but it appears the Code of Conduct has not been read. Insulting people is not how things operate on here. It may fly on Hot Topics, but there are rules on CE&P.

And I never said Somalia didn't have a government. All I said it was "not really one worth talking about".

[bankside]

It really isnt about the guns, it is about the lack of laws. Reading over the actual laws in Switzerland and Canada, they have no problem with open carry of hand guns in everyday life or the private use of guns. Neither countries have insane crime rates. Neither countries are as confrontational and violent as America either.

The answer is proper legislation and tracking on guns so people who aren't mentally ill can legally own a gun and move on to the next major issue.

Canadians don't carry guns around unless they are going out to the woods to hunt moose. I have never seen anyone with a gun outside a shooting club or a forest. We don't take them to the mall. We don't keep them in the glove compartment. We don't walk around with them strapped to our hips.

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, I don't think I will be responding posts that address others in that way. I hope the mods take some measure.

[tigerfan482]

They specifically said that they meant the ordinary arms of the common soldier.

I don't understand this liberal penchant for ignoring standard procedures of scholarship and assuming blithely that the people who wrote the Constitution were both intellectually dim and totally disconnected from their society. It's fundamentalism at its worst: the assumption that an older document was written for you, to you, in your terms.

The SCOTUS has already acknowledged that the Framers weren't a bunch of dims, when they took pains to examine whether a shotgun was of military use: they didn't ask whether the Framers knew of such a weapon, but whether it fit the Framers intent of the standard weapons of a common soldier; in fact they were generous by considering whether it had any military use at all, with the implication that if it did, it was protected under the Second Amendment.

No one is assuming that the Framers were a bunch of "dims." Most people assume that the Framers knew that times changed and purposely made use of vague words and then established a court dedicated to interpreting these terms and applying them to the times. The Supreme Court has ruled that banning certain types of weapons is constitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can place restrictions on the purchase, ownership, transportation, and operation of firearms. The Supreme Court has ruled that the rights provided for in the Constitution can and should be limited in various cases. These are all facts. This is why the ordinary arms of soldiers today include fully automatic assault rifles which are not available to the general public. The Supreme Court has ruled that Constitutional. Your argument that the Constitution affords people uninhibited and unencumbered access to whatever firearms they want has been shown to not be the case historically.

Of course I mentioned military -- it's kind of hard to point out that you dragged the military into a subject that didn't include it without using the word.

Please go back and read. Try to comprehend. You mentioned people and countries getting arms from their militaries way before I said anything about them. You are either being purposefully ignorant because you know you're wrong or you are failing to read and comprehend what I am talking about.

No, it doesn't. I'll try again: the Second Amendment means the standard weapons of the common soldier. That means -- to go worldwide -- something like the AK-47, a 9mm sidearm, and a knife. Or are you seriously claiming that the Founding Fathers and the Framers were so dim that they didn't realize there would be advances in weaponry (which they had witnessed in their lifetimes!)?

I believe that the Founding Fathers did not realize the extent to which weapons would be commercialized and made available. I do not think they realized the lethality to which we could develop firearms. I do not believe they envisioned automatic weapons capable of emptying over-sized magazines in seconds. I group this along the same process as me not seeing them ever predicting a personal computer or handheld cellular phone. You can foresee advances, but you can't foresee the scope of such. I would bet the Founding Fathers never envisioned the United States extending beyond the 13 colonies, much less getting up to the 50 states it has today.

Either way, the Founding Fathers realized that times will outgrow the language and intent of the Constitution, which is why they both provided a way to amend it as well as a court set up specifically to interpret the Constitution against the current times. That court has ruled that there can be limitations and encumbrances placed on firearms ownership. That is why in many parts of the country it is illegal to manufacture, purchase, or own an AK-47 or other fully automatic weapon, despite those types of weapon being the standard weapon of the common soldier today. That is why the military issued hand grenades for combat that ordinary citizens could not manufacture or just go out and buy.

One thing is certain, that they weren't so dim as to confuse a standing army with the militia; they believed that the militia was the proper counter to the standing army, which they saw as an instrument of tyranny. They knew the difference between the general militia, an organized or formal militia, and a standing army -- for that matter, so does US law, which makes clear that the standing army is NOT militia, and that the National Guard is formal militia up to the point when it is called up by the federal government, at which point it ceases to be militia. Just read the writings of the time, and you'll see that they held that the mere existence of a standing army was sufficient cause for the citizenry to be active and training and well-armed (part of being well-regulated) and on the alert.

Of course they didn't confuse the two, because they never set up a standing army. However, with the introduction of the standing army (a power that was relegated to Congress), the need for militias was eliminated. Also, the Militia Act of 1902 provided dual status for all militia personnel, ensuring that their ultimate reporting authority, whether called into federal service or not, was to the President of the United States. I would say this pretty much federalized the local militias and created them as the National Guard.

I would challenge them viewing the standing army as a form of tyranny, since they made no attempt to eliminate the formation of one. I think instead what they did was, given the state of transportation, geographical layout, and challenges facing the colonies at the time, set up the ability of each state to have it's own standing group of trained and armed individuals to provide local level protection as a primary function and to provide national level protection when called into action. As police forces and the standing military of the nation developed, as well as the changes in societal provisions, such as rapid transportation between states, the need for local militias became obsolete. Either way, the Second Amendment, if taken very literally, still only provides for the possession of firearms for the application in a well-regulated militia in defense of a free state. It mentions nothing of being available for personal protection.

Advocated for legislation? Of course not -- they're not fools. But every one of them who is pals with the likes of the Brady campaign (or whatever they call themselves these days) is aiming at disarmament of "mister and misses America".

Ahhh, the good ole' association fallacy. You're definitely good at breaking out the fallacies, but they do nothing to support your position. So you admit they have never spoken or taken action in favor of full disarmament, but that just because you say so, they are all aiming for that goal? Your argument is severely flawed. So much so that you have failed to prove any premise you have presented. Thus, I can only conclude that your argument is flawed and unsubstantiated.

George Washington was commander of the combined militias of the colonies. If anyone knew what the term meant, he did. Since he wrote in those terms to the Continental Congress, he knew that they understood it in the same way he did.

As for regulations, now that the Court has finally gotten around to tackling the Second head on, they're affirming exactly what numerous decisions before have set out: that the right to keep and bear arms is individual, that it applies in private and public, that its exercise cannot be made burdensome, and most importantly that its being a right supersedes any detrimental effects.

The Supreme Court has actually not provided any of that. In fact, while their recent decisions have said outright gun bans aren't Constitutional, their sale and possession can be well regulated. Washington, DC and Chicago have some of the most onerous regulations on purchasing and possessing firearms in the country. While their possession bans wer struck down, their control measures have been upheld.

I also have no doubt that George Washington may have understood what was meant by the term militia. I also have no doubt George Washington had no idea that our country would be what it is today militarily, socially, technologically, geographically, or economically. I also have no doubt that George Washington would make no attempt today to impose his ideas of a militia from 240+ years ago to the composition of our country and its military forces today. It's funny how people today attempt to defend their unwavering stance by pointing to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, yet ignore the fact that the same wisdom they attempt to take comfort in would actually play out against them in the fact that the Founding Fathers would (and did) understand that change happens and thus the applications and interpretations of the Constitution would change from how they saw it almost 250 years ago.

[Apollo]

Canadians don't carry guns around unless they are going out to the woods to hunt moose. I have never seen anyone with a gun outside a shooting club or a forest. We don't take them to the mall. We don't keep them in the glove compartment. We don't walk around with them strapped to our hips.

Can you say that for all of Canada? I have never seen it either, and mind you I was born and raised in Texas and am currently living in California. I do hear it is common in Arizona, but having visited Arizona for a month, I didn't see it there. I was only in Yuma though.

[bankside]

Can you say that for all of Canada? I have never seen it either, and mind you I was born and raised in Texas and am currently living in California. I do hear it is common in Arizona, but having visited Arizona for a month, I didn't see it there. I was only in Yuma though.

You'd see rifles up north for bear protection. And yep, illegal in all of Canada. If you're a private citizen walking around with a handgun, it's during work hours as a security guard or as a wildlife wrangler or something, and only if you're already licensed to own a weapon, and granted a permit to carry it outside of a lockbox because of a legitimate employment requirement.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/f...fs/680-eng.pdf

[bankside]

More on guns in Canada:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/im-ex-eng.htm
FAQ for visitors:

Q. Is my carry permit valid in Canada?

No. As a general rule, individuals are not allowed to carry handguns for self-protection in Canada.

[itsmejeff]

Either way, the Founding Fathers realized that times will outgrow the language and intent of the Constitution, which is why they both provided a way to amend it as well as a court set up specifically to interpret the Constitution against the current times. That court has ruled that there can be limitations and encumbrances placed on firearms ownership. That is why in many parts of the country it is illegal to manufacture, purchase, or own an AK-47 or other fully automatic weapon, despite those types of weapon being the standard weapon of the common soldier today. That is why the military issued hand grenades for combat that ordinary citizens could not manufacture or just go out and buy.

Military weapons are illegal to own. The military uses automatic weapons (anything that fires more than one bullet per actuation of the trigger mechanism is classified as an automatic). Military used weapons (older variants, let's say) are heavily regulated. No automatic made after 1986 can be purchased. Buying an older one is very expensive. Not that it would make much difference. Automatics are terrible for doing anything. Recoil and amount of ammunition required makes them only useful for armies or well financed subnational groups. Large magazines suck too. They jam more frequently. And they are big. Smaller mags are more reliable.

Grenades are explosives (classified as destructive devices.) Not exactly a great example.

You also fail in your assessment of the founders of the country. They were not geniuses. They were not even consistent. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798. That is rather close to the "founding," no? Odd that principles for some would change so much in such a short time.

I was going to respond, but it appears the Code of Conduct has not been read. Insulting people is not how things operate on here. It may fly on Hot Topics, but there are rules on CE&P.

And I never said Somalia didn't have a government. All I said it was "not really one worth talking about".

Code of conduct has seen a cursory reading. Nothing I wrote is profane or insulting. I responded to your "thoughts" on the issue with the utmost amount of discretion and tact.

You made claims about a specific city in a specific country, no? I responded to those with the facts of reality.

[Rolyo85]

Nothing I wrote is profane or insulting.

That is incorrect.

[tigerfan482]

Military weapons are illegal to own. The military uses automatic weapons (anything that fires more than one bullet per actuation of the trigger mechanism is classified as an automatic). Military used weapons (older variants, let's say) are heavily regulated. No automatic made after 1986 can be purchased. Buying an older one is very expensive. Not that it would make much difference. Automatics are terrible for doing anything. Recoil and amount of ammunition required makes them only useful for armies or well financed subnational groups. Large magazines suck too. They jam more frequently. And they are big. Smaller mags are more reliable.

Grenades are explosives (classified as destructive devices.) Not exactly a great example.

On the contrary, I think both my statements and what you said proved my point well. I'm thinking what has actually happened here is that you missed my point.

You also fail in your assessment of the founders of the country. They were not geniuses. They were not even consistent. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798. That is rather close to the "founding," no? Odd that principles for some would change so much in such a short time.

Well, first off, I would say that it wasn't my assessment of the founders. It was Kulindahr's. However, I would agree that the founders were indeed very bright men. I'm sure they would have been able to, at the very least, identify the point I was making that was addressed previously in the post. However, I would say that 11 years is a good time for many of those involved in writing and implementing the Constitution to move on from government. A good number of those left in politics from the group of the Founding Fathers opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts. I don't see what point you're trying to make or even how you're trying to make it.

[GiancarloC]

Calling someone a child is insulting them, especially when that person is an adult. Period. That's all I will say regarding that. Read it again and stop trying to make things personal. And your posts are absolutely not factual, jeff. That's all I will say regarding this matter. I will employ my restraint and ignore.

And one other thing about factual postings (in general)... this requires sources and proof... none of which I have seen. I have only seen personal attacks. That is all.

[Benvolio]

Judges and Presidents are part of the process... and the judicial system was put in place to balance the other branches of government. I suppose republicans just want to count out the courts because the courts don't rule on their side lately.

No, Article I Section 1 of our Constitution says: "All legislative Powers herein grant shall be vesting in a Congresss of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The President and Courts have no authority to make laws or change the Constitution.

[Benvolio]

1. Guns are gross and breed violence. That's an OPINION, and as such, immune to the label "lying". Unless one is a zealot, which your posts paint you as on this subject.

2. However many times you repeat that yours is the True Interpretation, it remains just as open for debate as before.

3. Ownership of any kind is a social construct. Ideology and agreement with others. Most of the world - even the first world - has differing ideas on what rights people have. Your habit of stating ideology as fact is tiring and kills discussion. Fanaticism is off-putting.

The background ideology of the Constitution was stated in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government."
Other countries may have differing views of rights, but we Americans have always regarded it them as something more than a social contract, something unalienable.

[HenryReardon]

.. I have only seen personal attacks. That is all.

Well of course you have. People who are infected with the cancer that is political correctness seldom look for anything else.

[xbuzzerx]

No, Article I Section 1 of our Constitution says: "All legislative Powers herein grant shall be vesting in a Congresss of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The President and Courts have no authority to make laws or change the Constitution.

Makes laws or change the constitution. Ruling on the constitutionality of a law (or vetoing) are, however, part of the process and part of checks and balances. So when you say something like "these judges shouldn't be making laws" all I can immediately think of is the fact that Republicans so often tend to call judges doing what they're supposed to do under the Constitution as "activist judging" or "legislating from the bench."

[Benvolio]

And the laws came after reductions in crime. do you not understand cause and effect? (Why even as at this point?)
not proof of anything. Just pointing out that enforcement requires police action.

Uniform? Why? The US is a union of many different states. Not everyone lives in urban areas (you probably hate people who do not). The realities of life in Alaska as not the same as they are in New York City, child. you may not know what Alaska is, but that is not my problem.

No, let us not just institute laws to appease the stupid and those who do not understand math and science.

I never insult (except when I refer to someone as an "American", which likely the worst insult possible). I merely point out poster's lack of logic. Is that really a bad thing?

I am a logical person. I do not believe in emotions (psychopaths ftw! it is funny because we are generally more successful). I want things that work and make sense.

Makes laws or change the constitution. Ruling on the constitutionality of a law (or vetoing) are, however, part of the process and part of checks and balances. So when you say something like "these judges shouldn't be making laws" all I can immediately think of is the fact that Republicans so often tend to call judges doing what they're supposed to do under the Constitution as "activist judging" or "legislating from the bench."

Wrong. For an example, read the Constitution and try to find something which can be interpreted to say that the states mat not legislate to prohibit abortion.

[Rolyo85]

The background ideology of the Constitution was stated in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government."
Other countries may have differing views of rights, but we Americans have always regarded it them as something more than a social contract, something unalienable.

The key phrase here is "we Americans". I do believe in those rights. But I am not blind enough to think they are something come from above. If the US was to lose its military dominance and China was to conquer it, the people living here would have vastly different rights, whatever the Constitution says, and whatever "we Americans" think.

Which is all I have been talking about. Claiming those are natural facts of existence is laughable. They are only as strong as the system built to defend them.

[Rolyo85]

Wrong. For an example, read the Constitution and try to find something which can be interpreted to say that the states mat not legislate to prohibit abortion.

There is also nothing in the constitution about internet or gay marriage. The constitution is not precognitive of new developments in society.

[GiancarloC]

Well of course you have. People who are infected with the cancer that is political correctness seldom look for anything else.

Oh please. There are rules on this forum and the right wingers here need to start following it.

Benvolio, absolutely wrong but keep on with the historical revisionism.

[xbuzzerx]

Wrong. For an example, read the Constitution and try to find something which can be interpreted to say that the states mat not legislate to prohibit abortion.

It is absolutely within the purview of the courts to rule that certain universal aspects of human rights or the equal protection of human rights cannot be individually decided by states.

What you're implying would imply something like States should be able to individually decide which items on the Bill of Rights to observe.

You're making the same argument that people who advocated keeping slavery made.

[GiancarloC]

His argument is more based on the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution. It's completely wrong. By the way, I said the President and Courts were two parts of the 3 branches of government. It's called checks and balances. Maybe he ought to read my posts a bit more clearly.

[bankside]

The people who think Scalia is doing a sublime job of constitutional interpretation are clinging to an incoherent notion of congressional authority.

Law begins with a congress, parliament or other legislature.

If the legislature passes an incoherent law, the president or prime minister or other member of the executive in cabinet, is still obliged to be the sole point of implementing the law as well as possible.

Thus, if Congress passes a law stating "that sandsnarples shall always be blarkzatroped," they have done their job, and made the law of the land, which the President is obliged to implement to the extent possible. Any incoherence or inconsistency in the law passed by the legislature does not excuse the president from doing his job. If his understanding of how to blarkzatrope a sandsnarple is different from some congressman's, too bad for the congressman; he should have run for president.

It is a bit simpler in Parliamentary systems where the executive is really a servant of the legislature, is accountable to it, and can be dismissed or replaced with a basic majority vote. Parliamentary systems bind executive and legislative functions together to ensure accountability; presidential systems set them against each other for the same reason. The President is not the servant of the Congress. His judgment regarding the implementation of laws, other than in impeachment proceedings, is subject only to review by the electorate. To defer to congressional complaining about his interpretations or implementations of the law would be a dereliction of his democratic responsibility to act as a check on congress. If the president backed off, he would be leaving the congress unchecked and failing in his basic constitutional purpose: to exercise judgment independent of congress in how to operate the law.

And of course the "activist judges" with their own oath to a democratic and constitutional system of governance, are also obliged to give honest answers when in their own reasoned view, a law or its execution fails to pass constitutional muster.

A constitution does not admit of gaps. If a case is brought before it, the court must use the only constitution it has to decide. "I dunno" is an answer not permitted to them. When a case comes forward which seems an awkward fit for a given section of the constitution, it tells us not that the constitution is a failure, not that the judges were inept, but that no other section of the constitution was a better fit.

Those who find that sufficiently unsatisfactory should propose amending it rather than whining about judges doing their jobs.

[Benvolio]

And the laws came after reductions in crime. do you not understand cause and effect? (Why even as at this point?)
not proof of anything. Just pointing out that enforcement requires police action.

Uniform? Why? The US is a union of many different states. Not everyone lives in urban areas (you probably hate people who do not). The realities of life in Alaska as not the same as they are in New York City, child. you may not know what Alaska is, but that is not my problem.

No, let us not just institute laws to appease the stupid and those who do not understand math and science.

I never insult (except when I refer to someone as an "American", which likely the worst insult possible). I merely point out poster's lack of logic. Is that really a bad thing?

I am a logical person. I do not believe in emotions (psychopaths ftw! it is funny because we are generally more successful). I want things that work and make sense.

It is absolutely within the purview of the courts to rule that certain universal aspects of human rights or the equal protection of human rights cannot be individually decided by states.

What you're implying would imply something like States should be able to individually decide which items on the Bill of Rights to observe.

You're making the same argument that people who advocated keeping slavery made.

Nonsense the court has no authority to invent new rights and claim they are in the a constitution. Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[xbuzzerx]

Nonsense the court has no authority to invent new rights and claim they are in the a constitution. Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You're the only one saying the courts do that. And Republicans claim it about any judicial ruling they don't happen to like.

[Benvolio]

No, and no.Republicans have been objecting to the Courts invention of new Rights for decades. Roe v Wade was sheer invention.

[GiancarloC]

The continued refusal to look at the facts is why republicans have failed in this forum. Right wingers don't like the courts when the courts don't rule in their favor. It's just obvious.

[xbuzzerx]

The continued refusal to look at the facts is why republicans have failed in this forum. Right wingers don't like the courts when the courts don't rule in their favor. It's just obvious.

I would love to see their outrage get directed against Citizens United. But they're still talking about Roe v. Wade decades after the fact.

[tigerfan482]

Wrong. For an example, read the Constitution and try to find something which can be interpreted to say that the states mat not legislate to prohibit abortion.

Article 6, Clause 2.
Article 2, Section 2.

Federal law can be passed prohibiting the prohibition of abortion via the supremacy clause.
The Supreme Court can rule state laws against abortion unconstitutional, setting precedent for any future laws.
States can legislate whatever they want. Whether that legislation stands the test of constitutionality is what is in question, and the Constitution clearly provides means of preventing states from legislating whatever they want from the federal level.

[Benvolio]

And the laws came after reductions in crime. do you not understand cause and effect? (Why even as at this point?)
not proof of anything. Just pointing out that enforcement requires police action.

Uniform? Why? The US is a union of many different states. Not everyone lives in urban areas (you probably hate people who do not). The realities of life in Alaska as not the same as they are in New York City, child. you may not know what Alaska is, but that is not my problem.

No, let us not just institute laws to appease the stupid and those who do not understand math and science.

I never insult (except when I refer to someone as an "American", which likely the worst insult possible). I merely point out poster's lack of logic. Is that really a bad thing?

I am a logical person. I do not believe in emotions (psychopaths ftw! it is funny because we are generally more successful). I want things that work and make sense.

Article 6, Clause 2.
Article 2, Section 2.

Federal law can be passed prohibiting the prohibition of abortion via the supremacy clause.
The Supreme Court can rule state laws against abortion unconstitutional, setting precedent for any future laws.
States can legislate whatever they want. Whether that legislation stands the test of constitutionality is what is in question, and the Constitution clearly provides means of preventing states from legislating whatever they want from the federal level.

Clearly wrong. The Constitution delegates specific powers to the Federal government. But , Amendment X provides: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively , or to the people." No power to govern abortion is delegated to the Federal government. The Supreme Court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional unless the law is contrary to something in the Constitution. That was my challenge.

[Rolyo85]

Will you give it up with abortion? It was 40 years ago! And I know you're not informed enough to know this, but the entire civilized world has legalized abortion. Join the rest of us at modern day morality.

[HenryReardon]

Will you give it up with abortion? It was 40 years ago! And I know you're not informed enough to know this, but the entire civilized world has legalized abortion. Join the rest of us at modern day morality.

At last, an area of agreement. I don't give a rat's behind about abortion. Never have, never will. The Republicans (and I am not now, nor have I ever been one) need to get off this topic, once and for all. Even my partner agrees with that, despite having strong feelings on the subject, largely due to his RC upbringing.

Frankly, abortion is nobody's business, except the woman involved.

[Sausy]

All those who will never get the chance to live( and if atheists are right there's only one life) because of abortion...fuck them, they were never worth consideration? Modern day morality? I understand and support the rights of women to take control over their bodies, and to fight against being treated as property of the male. But a lot of females have been aborted, too...they will never get to make the choice their mothers made to throw them away, prevent their existence. It's sad.... the power of life and death over another, even one only potentially a life(but destined to be nothing less than a human being) is an awful weapon to wield, and a woman of true conscirence would be loathe to ever use that weapon except in the most dire of circumstances.

Unfortunately though Henry's partner though pro life may be right...Republicans should have a policy of free conscience on abortion, as should the Democrats. Shouldn't be emphasized in the political party structure. Sorry to have vented steam here off subject but I get so damn angry when progressives go off about how civilized and wonderful their politics are but while the protest even the guiltiest person from being put to death for murder. I'm very conflicted on the death penalty myself, but it seems most on the left (and most socially libertarian conservatives like Henry) have no moral difficulty with abortion...well, at least your moms did not exercise that "oh so civilized" option on you. EVERYONE stats from a single fertilized egg, and while one can debate when the new life becomes human, should a potential human life be denied existence merely for inconvenience?

I'm not going to interrupt this subject again... but Rolyo's condescending self-righteousness in his declarations do not make his viewpoint the only correct perspective.