What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Kbg » Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:19 pm

I'm assuming you know why 3 oz? If not look it up.

As for folks who can't read, not TSA's problem.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by glennds » Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:56 pm

Xan wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 8:37 pm
vnatale wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 8:09 pm
For many years we have heard the demands for the protection of the unborn—often at the expense of the living—from some segments within the Christian church. But if we are really for life, I must ask where is the cacophony of voices for stricter gun control laws to protect the lives of the living?
Wikipedia says in 2019 (most recent data) there were 629,898 abortions performed in the US. CDC says that in 2019 there were 39,707 gun deaths. 40% of those were suicides; you can count those or not as you like. Either way, if you care about life, you have a much bigger problem with the former issue than the latter, no?
Is your supposition that the gun death numbers aren't material enough to warrant the attention from the religious right otherwise they'd be more vocal about gun deaths? Or is it a walk/chew gum situation?

A false equivalency concert isn't complete without traffic fatalities being part of the lineup.

And for those that really care about life, let's not leave out contraception which probably eclipses all three other categories combined. The religious right has certainly been vocal there. In fact, in the Hobby Lobby case the religious lobby took the position that some forms of birth control are in fact "abortions" insofar as they prevent an embryo from implanting in the uterus.
Crazy Clarence laid a target on contraception in his opinion so it might enter the chat at some point soon.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by dualstow » Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:42 am

Ev-e-ry sperm is sacred
ev-er-ry sperm is great
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:03 am

glennds wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:56 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 8:37 pm
vnatale wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 8:09 pm
For many years we have heard the demands for the protection of the unborn—often at the expense of the living—from some segments within the Christian church. But if we are really for life, I must ask where is the cacophony of voices for stricter gun control laws to protect the lives of the living?
Wikipedia says in 2019 (most recent data) there were 629,898 abortions performed in the US. CDC says that in 2019 there were 39,707 gun deaths. 40% of those were suicides; you can count those or not as you like. Either way, if you care about life, you have a much bigger problem with the former issue than the latter, no?
Is your supposition that the gun death numbers aren't material enough to warrant the attention from the religious right otherwise they'd be more vocal about gun deaths? Or is it a walk/chew gum situation?

A false equivalency concert isn't complete without traffic fatalities being part of the lineup.

And for those that really care about life, let's not leave out contraception which probably eclipses all three other categories combined. The religious right has certainly been vocal there. In fact, in the Hobby Lobby case the religious lobby took the position that some forms of birth control are in fact "abortions" insofar as they prevent an embryo from implanting in the uterus.
Crazy Clarence laid a target on contraception in his opinion so it might enter the chat at some point soon.
I'm not the one coming up with this equivalency; the leftist who says the church is being hypocritical by not advocating for gun control did that. Regardless, the major moral issue is intentional taking of life, which is very different in kind from traffic accidents.

If life begins at conception, which scientifically it does, then intentionally making the uterus uninhabitable could well be a moral issue. One doesn't have to be "crazy" to hold this position.

And, "Crazy Clarence" is not banning abortions, or banning these particular kinds of birth control, or anything of the sort. He (and the rest of the court) are deciding that there isn't any kind of right to such things enshrined in the Constitution. Because the objective fact is, there isn't. We could amend the Constitution and put it in, if we wanted, but we can't just insert it by wishing.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by glennds » Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:53 am

Xan wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:03 am


I'm not the one coming up with this equivalency; the leftist who says the church is being hypocritical by not advocating for gun control did that. Regardless, the major moral issue is intentional taking of life, which is very different in kind from traffic accidents.

If life begins at conception, which scientifically it does, then intentionally making the uterus uninhabitable could well be a moral issue. One doesn't have to be "crazy" to hold this position.

And, "Crazy Clarence" is not banning abortions, or banning these particular kinds of birth control, or anything of the sort. He (and the rest of the court) are deciding that there isn't any kind of right to such things enshrined in the Constitution. Because the objective fact is, there isn't. We could amend the Constitution and put it in, if we wanted, but we can't just insert it by wishing.
Thanks for clarifying the equivalency source.
I didn't say Justice Thomas was banning anything. What he has done in his opinion is to take a much more explicit and bold position than Alito in that he not only opines on Roe v. Wade but he clearly opines that the underlying legal theory that supported Roe is defective AND he explicitly mentions other rights that are built on the same legal foundation arising from the 14th amendment due process clause. He specifically calls for "reconsideration" of same sex marriage, same sex intimacy and contraception. Interestingly, he left out interracial marriage, which is another right built upon the same legal basis. Interesting because he himself is in an interracial marriage.
"Crazy" can mean lots of things. Most legal scholars are calling Thomas' opinion crazy (as in highly) bold, even radical in the position it is taking.

The Court's reversing of prior law is rare, mostly due to the high bar of stare decisis precedent doctrine. It is super rare (and super interesting) that broad underlying legal foundation could be potentially undone. What is unknown is whether the conviction of any of the other conservative justices runs as deep as Thomas', or whether his opinion starts and stops at himself (though Alito took care to state that the Roe reversal in the Dodd ruling affects no other precedent other than Roe, and I think Kavanaugh did similar).

Lots of interesting developments will come out of this. For example Missouri's lawmakers are proposing a law inspired by Texas that would aim to prevent out of state abortions by granting a right of private citizens to sue the woman who received the abortion, anyone who assisted her, and even the out of state physician that performed the procedure.
Some states might criminalize the act of leaving the state at all for the purpose of an abortion, raising a possible conflict with the right to move freely.

So to your comment about rights enshrined in the Constitution - Freedom of movement is generally considered a basic Constitutional right that even predates the Constitution itself going back to the Articles of Confederation. Some historians believe it was so fundamental and obvious a right that the framers saw no need to specifically enumerate it in the Constitution itself.
But that being the case, it is clearly not objectively "enshrined". So do you accept freedom of movement as a Constitutionally protected right? Are Constitutionally protected rights limited to those specifically articulated in the document itself?
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Kbg » Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:49 pm

Skipping the specific issue at hand...I think the courts for several years, both left and right, have done themselves serious damage BY wading into essentially political issues guised as legal ones. Obviously law and politics intersect and people bring lawsuits all the time based solely on political reasons...but I think they would do themselves and us as a people a great favor by punting back to state and federal legislatures as much as possible on the "big issues."

No consensus means no consensus which in our system generally means do nothing. Legislatively, as in making law, something happens when there is consensus. And more importantly, things stick when there is consensus. It is a pavlovian feature of American life to sue when you can't get your way because you lost legislatively.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Tue Jul 05, 2022 8:36 pm

Kbg wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:49 pm
Skipping the specific issue at hand...I think the courts for several years, both left and right, have done themselves serious damage BY wading into essentially political issues guised as legal ones. Obviously law and politics intersect and people bring lawsuits all the time based solely on political reasons...but I think they would do themselves and us as a people a great favor by punting back to state and federal legislatures as much as possible on the "big issues."

No consensus means no consensus which in our system generally means do nothing. Legislatively, as in making law, something happens when there is consensus. And more importantly, things stick when there is consensus. It is a pavlovian feature of American life to sue when you can't get your way because you lost legislatively.
The worst damage of such is done when they force a political solution into an "interpretation" of the Constitution. When they rule on the meaning or application of a law, that can be changed legislatively. That isn't true for rulings about what's in the Constitution; it has to be amended in order to fix erroneous rulings.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by glennds » Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:02 pm

Xan wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 8:36 pm
That isn't true for rulings about what's in the Constitution; it has to be amended in order to fix erroneous rulings.
Or overruled by new interpretation by a subsequent Court like what has just happened.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Kbg » Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:33 pm

Xan wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 8:36 pm
Kbg wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:49 pm
Skipping the specific issue at hand...I think the courts for several years, both left and right, have done themselves serious damage BY wading into essentially political issues guised as legal ones. Obviously law and politics intersect and people bring lawsuits all the time based solely on political reasons...but I think they would do themselves and us as a people a great favor by punting back to state and federal legislatures as much as possible on the "big issues."

No consensus means no consensus which in our system generally means do nothing. Legislatively, as in making law, something happens when there is consensus. And more importantly, things stick when there is consensus. It is a pavlovian feature of American life to sue when you can't get your way because you lost legislatively.
The worst damage of such is done when they force a political solution into an "interpretation" of the Constitution. When they rule on the meaning or application of a law, that can be changed legislatively. That isn't true for rulings about what's in the Constitution; it has to be amended in order to fix erroneous rulings.
I think where the court went off the rails was when it created a "right" that half the country felt was a seriously immoral wrong. In my view the original Roe was up there with Dread Scott.

However, trying to be somewhat non-biased, there have been some good things that have been created from nothing by the court that we pretty much take for granted. And in hindsight now, it's hard to argue they weren't good calls. (Quite a few in the desegregation area alone.) I don't recall where I read it but one author ripped Thomas' reasoning/list of things that could be impacted (that the right like) and very directly pointed out that one of the things Thomas forgot to list was interracial marriage (Loving vs. Virginia).

I am most definitely not a lawyer and my opinion on any of this means little. I do believe things are rarely as black and white as the common view.
It will be interesting to see how this issue play out now that it's off the court's plate though I suspect as a minimum we are going to see court cases coming up from states that make zero exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Wed Jul 06, 2022 6:30 pm

Kbg wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:33 pm
Xan wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 8:36 pm
Kbg wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:49 pm
Skipping the specific issue at hand...I think the courts for several years, both left and right, have done themselves serious damage BY wading into essentially political issues guised as legal ones. Obviously law and politics intersect and people bring lawsuits all the time based solely on political reasons...but I think they would do themselves and us as a people a great favor by punting back to state and federal legislatures as much as possible on the "big issues."

No consensus means no consensus which in our system generally means do nothing. Legislatively, as in making law, something happens when there is consensus. And more importantly, things stick when there is consensus. It is a pavlovian feature of American life to sue when you can't get your way because you lost legislatively.
The worst damage of such is done when they force a political solution into an "interpretation" of the Constitution. When they rule on the meaning or application of a law, that can be changed legislatively. That isn't true for rulings about what's in the Constitution; it has to be amended in order to fix erroneous rulings.
I think where the court went off the rails was when it created a "right" that half the country felt was a seriously immoral wrong. In my view the original Roe was up there with Dread Scott.

However, trying to be somewhat non-biased, there have been some good things that have been created from nothing by the court that we pretty much take for granted. And in hindsight now, it's hard to argue they weren't good calls. (Quite a few in the desegregation area alone.) I don't recall where I read it but one author ripped Thomas' reasoning/list of things that could be impacted (that the right like) and very directly pointed out that one of the things Thomas forgot to list was interracial marriage (Loving vs. Virginia).

I am most definitely not a lawyer and my opinion on any of this means little. I do believe things are rarely as black and white as the common view.
It will be interesting to see how this issue play out now that it's off the court's plate though I suspect as a minimum we are going to see court cases coming up from states that make zero exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother.
Thomas's interracial marriage doesn't depend on interracial marriage being a right granted by the Constitution.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Kbg » Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:48 am

Xan,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you wrote, but the basic logic (extending something actually not in the constitution explicitly to become a "right") was what enabled interracial marriage in states that formerly banned it. Perhaps the word "right" in the formal sense is what you're focused on???

Wiki has a sketch of the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In any event, the effect of the two were the same...states couldn't makes laws against abortions or interracial marriages. Bottom line: If you're married to someone who is of another race or the same sex you have the Supreme Court to thank for that.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:45 am

Kbg wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:48 am
Xan,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you wrote, but the basic logic (extending something actually not in the constitution explicitly to become a "right") was what enabled interracial marriage in states that formerly banned it. Perhaps the word "right" in the formal sense is what you're focused on???

Wiki has a sketch of the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In any event, the effect of the two were the same...states couldn't makes laws against abortions or interracial marriages. Bottom line: If you're married to someone who is of another race or the same sex you have the Supreme Court to thank for that.
I don't think that's the bottom line at all. In some places and times it's true. But it sounds like your position is, if something isn't recognized as a Constitutional right, then it can't happen. That isn't the case, is all I'm pointing out.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Kbg » Thu Jul 07, 2022 6:08 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:45 am
Kbg wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:48 am
Xan,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you wrote, but the basic logic (extending something actually not in the constitution explicitly to become a "right") was what enabled interracial marriage in states that formerly banned it. Perhaps the word "right" in the formal sense is what you're focused on???

Wiki has a sketch of the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In any event, the effect of the two were the same...states couldn't makes laws against abortions or interracial marriages. Bottom line: If you're married to someone who is of another race or the same sex you have the Supreme Court to thank for that.
I don't think that's the bottom line at all. In some places and times it's true. But it sounds like your position is, if something isn't recognized as a Constitutional right, then it can't happen. That isn't the case, is all I'm pointing out.
Limitations of typing...my main point was a couple up and it was simply the court has waived its wand in the past and "created" some other things out of legal air and we like them with wide acceptance by a large majority. Interracial marriage was just the one I used because the article highlighted Thomas did not mention it and he is a beneficiary of that ruling in his private life.

Sort a related: I read an article Sunday about how John Marshall created preeminent judicial review for the Supreme Court. Snippet from Google: The U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. The unanimous opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.

In short, the SC created its strongest power for itself by itself.

But to be clear on my personal viewpoint...I prefer the Legislative to be the strongest branch of the government as the Founders intended. Unfortunately the Legislative is clearly the most dysfunctional branch by a LONG stretch and the two other branches have picked off a lot of what was intended to be done by Congress.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by glennds » Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:34 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:45 am
Kbg wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:48 am
Xan,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you wrote, but the basic logic (extending something actually not in the constitution explicitly to become a "right") was what enabled interracial marriage in states that formerly banned it. Perhaps the word "right" in the formal sense is what you're focused on???

Wiki has a sketch of the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In any event, the effect of the two were the same...states couldn't makes laws against abortions or interracial marriages. Bottom line: If you're married to someone who is of another race or the same sex you have the Supreme Court to thank for that.
I don't think that's the bottom line at all. In some places and times it's true. But it sounds like your position is, if something isn't recognized as a Constitutional right, then it can't happen. That isn't the case, is all I'm pointing out.
If something isn't recognized as a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court, then there is nothing that prevents a State legislature from declaring that same thing a crime. Which is exactly what has happened with abortion in many states with post Dobbs.

And Thomas' concurring opinion in Dobbs suggests the same could be the case with same sex marriage, same sex relations and birth control protections.
Stated differently, absent a SCOTUS ruling that something is a constitutional right, it is up to State legislatures, therefore it may be legal in some states and illegal in others.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Fri Jul 08, 2022 10:00 am

glennds wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:34 pm
Xan wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:45 am
Kbg wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:48 am
Xan,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you wrote, but the basic logic (extending something actually not in the constitution explicitly to become a "right") was what enabled interracial marriage in states that formerly banned it. Perhaps the word "right" in the formal sense is what you're focused on???

Wiki has a sketch of the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In any event, the effect of the two were the same...states couldn't makes laws against abortions or interracial marriages. Bottom line: If you're married to someone who is of another race or the same sex you have the Supreme Court to thank for that.
I don't think that's the bottom line at all. In some places and times it's true. But it sounds like your position is, if something isn't recognized as a Constitutional right, then it can't happen. That isn't the case, is all I'm pointing out.
If something isn't recognized as a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court, then there is nothing that prevents a State legislature from declaring that same thing a crime. Which is exactly what has happened with abortion in many states with post Dobbs.

And Thomas' concurring opinion in Dobbs suggests the same could be the case with same sex marriage, same sex relations and birth control protections.
Stated differently, absent a SCOTUS ruling that something is a constitutional right, it is up to State legislatures, therefore it may be legal in some states and illegal in others.
All true. That's how things are supposed to work. Another option is a federal law addressing an issue.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by glennds » Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:25 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 10:00 am
glennds wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:34 pm
Xan wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:45 am
Kbg wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:48 am
Xan,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you wrote, but the basic logic (extending something actually not in the constitution explicitly to become a "right") was what enabled interracial marriage in states that formerly banned it. Perhaps the word "right" in the formal sense is what you're focused on???

Wiki has a sketch of the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In any event, the effect of the two were the same...states couldn't makes laws against abortions or interracial marriages. Bottom line: If you're married to someone who is of another race or the same sex you have the Supreme Court to thank for that.
I don't think that's the bottom line at all. In some places and times it's true. But it sounds like your position is, if something isn't recognized as a Constitutional right, then it can't happen. That isn't the case, is all I'm pointing out.
If something isn't recognized as a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court, then there is nothing that prevents a State legislature from declaring that same thing a crime. Which is exactly what has happened with abortion in many states with post Dobbs.

And Thomas' concurring opinion in Dobbs suggests the same could be the case with same sex marriage, same sex relations and birth control protections.
Stated differently, absent a SCOTUS ruling that something is a constitutional right, it is up to State legislatures, therefore it may be legal in some states and illegal in others.
All true. That's how things are supposed to work. Another option is a federal law addressing an issue.
Correcting myself - Actually I should have said "absent a SCOTUS ruling that something is a constitutional right, or unless that right is specifically enumerated, it is up to State legislatures....

Where it gets interesting (controversial?) is Originalism vs Constitutionalism and whether SCOTUS rulings can or should interpret unenumerated rights - see my other post on this and Kbg's comments on the same in this thread.
Post Reply