-
Features
Yet another school shooting
- Thread starter AthenaAwakened
- Start date
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,233
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Non-reporting probably helped.
But the main driver of the solution (according to the police) was the adoption of zero tolerance policing. Police saturate the areas where fans gather pre- and post-match, and arrest anyone who so much as uses foul language towards anyone else. Known troublemakers are banned from the area, and can be arrested on sight. Any kind of assault, battery, or affray can get a person banned from attending matches.
The gun control equivalent would be to prohibit any person who ever so much as threatened to use a firearm (even in jest) from owning one. Presumably LP would be completely in favour of such an approach.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Loren Pechtel said:
Putting your head in the sand doesn't make facts go away.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,377
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Is it a good time to say that hooliganism seems to be reported these days?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,233
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I haven't lived in the UK for a long time, so I really don't know whether it is or not. I rather suspect not; Certainly, it wasn't back in the early '90s when I last lived there. (Of course, it never stopped being reported internationally, as far as I am aware).
There's so little of it these days (compared to the heyday of the hooligan back in the 1980s and early '90s) that it probably doesn't matter either way.
These teenagers, the survivors of this latest gun massacre, are amazing. I am afraid to hope, but I want to hope...
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XExNsQZZZM[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XExNsQZZZM[/YOUTUBE]
Quote:
For most of the republic’s lifespan, from 1791 to 2008, those commas and clauses were debated by attorneys and senators, slave owners and freedmen, judges, Black Panthers, governors and lobbyists. For some, the militia was key; for others the right that shall not be infringed; for yet others, the question of states versus the federal government. For the most part, the supreme court stayed out it.
“Americans have been thinking about the second amendment as an individual right for generations,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “You can find state supreme courts in the mid-1800s where judges say the second amendment protects an individual right.”
But for the 70 years or so before a supreme court decision in 2008, he said, “the supreme court and federal courts held that it only applied in the context of militias, the right of states to protect themselves from federal interference”.
In 2008, the supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4 , overturning a handgun ban in the city. The conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the country’s history, the supreme court explicitly affirmed an individual’s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history
Quote:
For most of the last century, the meaning of the Second Amendment was not particularly controversial: the courts, legal scholars, politicians, and historians endorsed some version of the collective rights interpretation. As late as 1991, Chief Justice Warren Burger described the individual rights view as an intellectual fraud. Yet, the growth of a revisionist individual rights theory of the Second Amendment in the years since Burger made his comment has been nothing short of astonishing.
This view was originally propagated by gun rights activists such as Stephen Halbrook, Don Kates, and David Kopel whose research was funded by libertarian think tanks and the National Rifle Association (NRA).
In the decade before Burger's attack, these activists had published law review articles at a dizzying rate arguing for an individual rights view. The NRA even endowed a chair in Second Amendment studies at George Mason Law School with the express purpose of supporting this viewpoint. As the paper trail supporting this view grew longer, the individualist perspective started to gain some traction among prominent liberals.
When Harvard Law School's Lawrence Tribe, a renowned liberal, acknowledged the legitimacy of this view in 2005, the long road from Burger's "intellectual fraud" to constitutional mainstream had ended. There is no doubt that the individual rights view is now eminently respectable.
For several reasons, opponents of this interpretation were slow to respond: confidence that the individual rights view would never attract judicial notice, a general decline in interest in constitutional history outside law schools, and a general lack of funds to support research on this topic all hampered scholarship. Despite these obstacles, historians began to turn their attention to the Second Amendment and new funding for research on this topic led to a revival of scholarly interest and a more robust debate.
Scholarship on the Second Amendment is now is deeply divided. Indeed, there is currently a broad spectrum of views on the meaning of the Second Amendment running from an expansive individual rights view to the traditional collective rights view, and a host of new positions somewhere in the middle. While many law professors support the individual rights view, most historians reject this interpretation as an anachronistic reading of the amendment and its history....
https://origins.osu.edu/print/836
I thought this second quote was interesting for the history-of-interpretation it gives, but of course it may be somewhat biased in its perspective.
Quoting:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory.1 Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller2 confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment,3 an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts.4 Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription.5 Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory.1 Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller2 confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment,3 an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts.4 Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription.5 Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense....
All of this begs the question:
Why the fuck should an 18-year-old be restricted from drinking alcohol but allowed to buy a weapon of war?
We can blah de blah about the second amendment until we are all dead, or we can address why AR-15's are being sold to teenagers. Raise the age to 21. Easy fix. It won't make more than a tiny dent in the overall problem, but it would be a start.
Can the gun nuts agree on that much?
Why the fuck should an 18-year-old be restricted from drinking alcohol but allowed to buy a weapon of war?
We can blah de blah about the second amendment until we are all dead, or we can address why AR-15's are being sold to teenagers. Raise the age to 21. Easy fix. It won't make more than a tiny dent in the overall problem, but it would be a start.
Can the gun nuts agree on that much?
Quote:
There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
In those two decades, breakneck speed by the standards of constitutional law, they have helped to reshape the debate over gun rights in the United States. Their work culminated in the March decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, and it will doubtless play a major role should the case reach the United States Supreme Court.
Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.
“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”
The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.
Several other leading liberal constitutional scholars, notably Akhil Reed Amar at Yale and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas, are in broad agreement favoring an individual rights interpretation. Their work has in a remarkably short time upended the conventional understanding of the Second Amendment, and it set the stage for the Parker decision.
The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html
There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
In those two decades, breakneck speed by the standards of constitutional law, they have helped to reshape the debate over gun rights in the United States. Their work culminated in the March decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, and it will doubtless play a major role should the case reach the United States Supreme Court.
Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.
“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”
The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.
Several other leading liberal constitutional scholars, notably Akhil Reed Amar at Yale and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas, are in broad agreement favoring an individual rights interpretation. Their work has in a remarkably short time upended the conventional understanding of the Second Amendment, and it set the stage for the Parker decision.
The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html
It might be sensible to put it even higher imo.
I frankly agree, but am going for the lowest hanging fruit here. Something I can't imagine any gun advocate objecting to.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,377
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
You'll get the camel's nose under the tent argument.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
Dianne Feinstein has started a bill to raise the age for buying a AR-15 type gun to 21. Hopefully that will get implemented quickly.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,233
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Hopefully someone will introduce a typo in the final draft, and the age will accidentally be set to 210.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
Strangely enough, I feel about the same whenever I read one of your posts.
Are you ever right about anything?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Well, he's technically correct that the sun rises in the east. ... ... ... oh, wait.
The thing is little crime is committed with long guns. Most crime is done with handguns--and handguns are age 21.
- - - Updated - - -
We have admitted camels on here, the argument is reasonable.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,377
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
See, I told you. Fuck the kids, fuck the concert goers. Some people needs some guns.
So you are advocating for raising minimum age of "long guns" to 21 and banning handguns altogether, right?
Because otherwise you appear to be suggesting that we should NOT raise the age for purchasing a fucking AR-15, because there aren't enough children being murdered yet... and that would be too fucked up for even you.