The US Election 2016, Part V

[Wrath of Dagon]

Considering gun control laws have become more lax and guns even more prevalent in the US, I've never understood this whole "2nd Amendment is under attack!" narrative.

Can you understand 5-4 Conservative majority vs. 5-4 Liberal majority?

[Pidesco]

 

Considering gun control laws have become more lax and guns even more prevalent in the US, I've never understood this whole "2nd Amendment is under attack!" narrative.

Can you understand 5-4 Conservative majority vs. 5-4 Liberal majority?

That still doesn't mean in any way that the second amendment is under attack.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Then you don't know anything about any of the Supreme Court Second Amendment decisions.

[Hurlshort]

 

Considering gun control laws have become more lax and guns even more prevalent in the US, I've never understood this whole "2nd Amendment is under attack!" narrative.

Can you understand 5-4 Conservative majority vs. 5-4 Liberal majority?

 

 

You are taking an incredibly complex situation and grossly simplifying it.  The Supreme Court can not just throw out the Heller case, or McDonald vs. Chicago.  

 

Your gun rights were considerably more at risk 30 years ago than they are today.  You also might want to notice that even the dissenting opinions in the Heller case varied, in fact you should read how different the tone of Breyer and Johnson are, because it makes it clear they are not really on the same page.  Simply put, this isn't a black and white, liberal versus conservative issue.

 

You should also note that Ginsburg and Breyer are both identified as liberal, and both are well into their later years.  They aren't going to live forever.  Kennedy is up there as well, of course, but he's often identified near the middle instead of a full conservative.  So yeah, there is pretty much no evidence that as soon as Garland is elected, the government is going to take away all our guns.  That's just hyperbole.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

Considering gun control laws have become more lax and guns even more prevalent in the US, I've never understood this whole "2nd Amendment is under attack!" narrative.

Can you understand 5-4 Conservative majority vs. 5-4 Liberal majority?

 

 

You are taking an incredibly complex situation and grossly simplifying it.  The Supreme Court can not just throw out the Heller case, or McDonald vs. Chicago.  

 

Your gun rights were considerably more at risk 30 years ago than they are today.  You also might want to notice that even the dissenting opinions in the Heller case varied, in fact you should read how different the tone of Breyer and Johnson are, because it makes it clear they are not really on the same page.  Simply put, this isn't a black and white, liberal versus conservative issue.

 

You should also note that Ginsburg and Breyer are both identified as liberal, and both are well into their later years.  They aren't going to live forever.  Kennedy is up there as well, of course, but he's often identified near the middle instead of a full conservative.  So yeah, there is pretty much no evidence that as soon as Garland is elected, the government is going to take away all our guns.  That's just hyperbole.

 

Why can't they just throw it out? And who the hell is Johnson? The liberal theory is that Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right, so only government sanctioned organizations are allowed to possess guns. I don't know of any liberal Justices who disagree with that, the only reason Second Amendment is still around is Kennedy swings both ways, conservative in this case. Edited August 11, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

@ WoD. Hurlshot is right... to a point. And I think you might be missing why he is right. Heller did more than just struck down a ban on having guns in the home in Washington DC. For the first time in the 228 years that have passed since the US Constitution was ratified the Court confirmed that the 2nd Amendment does in fact protect the individual right to own a firearm. Think about that. For 228 years the first clause has been screwing up the second by being misinterpreted as a condition for the second rather than a reason for the second. That was huge. And yes what one court does another can undo. That is a concern. But generally the Supreme Court does not revisit recent decisions and as I pointed out if a case on point were filed today it would be years before it could make it's way to the Supreme Court. If they would even take it.

 

As I posted before judges like Ginsburg, Breyer, & Kagan scare the absolute hell out of me because in their world view there are no individual rights save those the State sees fit not to oppose. When the government is a party in an argument before them they will side with the government nearly every time and the law be damned. Hillary will give us more of that. That is what I fear. 

 

@Hurlshot & everyone else: The 2nd Amendment will never be safe. Never. The left wants that one gone more than any other because it is the linchpin of every other desire they have. So long as the citizenry is armed the power of the government will never be absolute. Yes, yes we have many discussions about the possibilities of success of an actual armed insurrection. We will not agree on it. But that it is possible at all and that there would be a blood price to pay if some future political cabal tries to seize power IS the very reason the Founders included it. As you have read me quoting many times the price of liberty it eternal vigilance. Yes gun rights are safe right now and yes what Hillary is suggesting in not unreasonable. The real threat to the 2nd amendment does not come from a President or legislature now or in the near future but from a Court that undoes the individual right aspect of Heller some point down the road. That is one reason why WoD and others oppose Clinton's potential Court picks. Step 1 is seating justices who WILL undo it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

@ WoD. Hurlshot is right... to a point. And I think you might be missing why he is right. Heller did more than just struck down a ban on having guns in the home in Washington DC. For the first time in the 228 years that have passed since the US Constitution was ratified the Court confirmed that the 2nd Amendment does in fact protect the individual right to own a firearm. Think about that. For 228 years the first clause has been screwing up the second by being misinterpreted as a condition for the second rather than a reason for the second. That was huge. And yes what one court does another can undo. That is a concern. But generally the Supreme Court does not revisit recent decisions and as I pointed out if a case on point were filed today it would be years before it could make it's way to the Supreme Court. If they would even take it.

Means nothing. It was a 5-4 decision, now it will be a 5-4 decision the other way, and that's before Hilzilla gets to appoint some more Justices.

 

@Hurlshot & everyone else: The 2nd Amendment will never be safe. Never. The left wants that one gone more than any other because it is the linchpin of every other desire they have.

Now you're contradicting yourself. That's exactly what I said earlier. Do you think they won't jump at the chance as soon as they get it? Remember, SC can do anything, there are practically no limits on their power.

[Hurlshort]

Except they can't do just anything, and they are limited in their power.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

@Hurlshot & everyone else: The 2nd Amendment will never be safe. Never. The left wants that one gone more than any other because it is the linchpin of every other desire they have.

Now you're contradicting yourself. That's exactly what I said earlier. Do you think they won't jump at the chance as soon as they get it? Remember, SC can do anything, there are practically no limits on their power.

 

Yes but it can only do it in a case that is before it. To give them the chance to overturn it it would take someone with standing to file a lawsuit, it would fail, appeal and have it fail to the federal appeals court, then the federal district court, then the Supreme Court. At any point it could be scuttled by any court refusing to hear it. The SCOTUS itself may refuse to take it because Heller is recent. It a hell of a hill to climb. It would take years. A lot of them. A lot can happen in that time. 

 

And lets say it did. Lets say in 2022 (because six years is how long the original suit took) the court overturns Heller. That does not repeal the 2nd Amendment. It will be in jeopardy from the legislature but they have been made to pay a high price for gun control before. And the NRA will still be around and will still be powerful. Congress will still face the wrath of the voters every two years. And even if they were inclined they would not start with complete prohibition.

 

Yes, there is a danger that should be fended off now by making sure people like Clinton don't get to pick to many judges (for many good reasons besides this one) but that danger is not imminent. It's down the road a ways. just over the horizon. 

[Guard Dog]

Doesn't really seem fair does it?

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Except they can't do just anything, and they are limited in their power.

They don't have executive power, but they have full judicial and partial legislative powers if they choose to use them.

 

 

 

@Hurlshot & everyone else: The 2nd Amendment will never be safe. Never. The left wants that one gone more than any other because it is the linchpin of every other desire they have.

Now you're contradicting yourself. That's exactly what I said earlier. Do you think they won't jump at the chance as soon as they get it? Remember, SC can do anything, there are practically no limits on their power.

 

Yes but it can only do it in a case that is before it. To give them the chance to overturn it it would take someone with standing to file a lawsuit, it would fail, appeal and have it fail to the federal appeals court, then the federal district court, then the Supreme Court. At any point it could be scuttled by any court refusing to hear it. The SCOTUS itself may refuse to take it because Heller is recent. It a hell of a hill to climb. It would take years. A lot of them. A lot can happen in that time. 

 

And lets say it did. Lets say in 2022 (because six years is how long the original suit took) the court overturns Heller. That does not repeal the 2nd Amendment. It will be in jeopardy from the legislature but they have been made to pay a high price for gun control before. And the NRA will still be around and will still be powerful. Congress will still face the wrath of the voters every two years. And even if they were inclined they would not start with complete prohibition.

 

Yes, there is a danger that should be fended off now by making sure people like Clinton don't get to pick to many judges (for many good reasons besides this one) but that danger is not imminent. It's down the road a ways. just over the horizon.

 

There's probably a test case already working its way through the courts just from the draconian anti-gun actions California recently took, if not a test case can be easily manufactured. I don't think it'll take anywhere that long since all the liberal courts will be complicit, also remember any federal judge's decision stands until overruled. Any case they hear which has anything at all to do with the Second Amendment gives them the chance to throw out the entire Second Amendment, you're whistling past the graveyard.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If they wanted to get the second amendment thrown out all they would have to do is propagandize cops and wealthy suburbanites being under attack by "undesirables", like militant leftists and muslims and immigrants and "urban" folk. They do that and a good amount of people who were previously unconditionally against gun control would change their unconditional support to include a big "but...".

[Zoraptor]

Doesn't really seem fair does it?

 

 

 

That... would immediately convince me not to vote Libertarian. Indeed, it's the sort of thing we get regularly from the Greens here (on economics) and instantly convinces me not to vote for them.

 

Then again, I am triggered by bad statistics.

 

(Always compare like with like. Both Trump and Clinton have far greater than the 15% poll support required to get into the debates anyway. Considering they're the two most disliked candidates in polling history we can safely assume that any D/R candidate will be there with the 15% rule even if they weren't be there by fiat. In other words, it's the cumulative systemic issues that hamstring 3rd parties; struggling to get to 15% support is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.)

[Hurlshort]

It's not even feasible or realistic to throw out the 2nd Amendment.  As a gun owner in California, I am not worried about the new legislation in the least.  My biggest concern is that more than half of it is unenforceable, making it a largely useless and likely to be thrown out in the lower courts.  

 

But hey, give the NRA credit, they are extremely effective at spreading their narrative.  People love to talk about the liberal media bias, yet the needle never actually moves towards more gun laws.   

[Calax]

Can I just ask, if the second amendment was amended by the proper fashion GD, what would you do?

 

After all there are mechanisms to remove that amendment, and probably the political will if the NRA were marginalized for a political cycle. You cannot say that anything is intrinsically unable to be changed because the as "powerful" as you think a pistol might be in the hands of a population against oppressors, a pen is a much more significant weapon in that situation but we seem to treat guns with more "you can't infringe this" attitude than we do the first amendment.

 

As to the election, I don't really see a way for Trump to win. As many people who say "I cannot support Hillary, and thus vote trump" there seem to be just as many who are in the party that just won't vote, or are voting against trump.

 

And purely on a "arguments the candidate makes for themselves" basis, the fact that Hillary out earned "the amazing business man" in her campaign war chest speaks volumes about his ability to run an organization as labrynthian as the us federal government

[Namutree]

As to the election, I don't really see a way for Trump to win. As many people who say "I cannot support Hillary, and thus vote trump" there seem to be just as many who are in the party that just won't vote, or are voting against trump.

If democrats aren't excited about a candidate (and not many are excited about Hillary) then they usually don't bother to show up. The same is not true of Republicans. Even many of the republicans that dislike Trump will likely still show up and vote for him to keep the SC out of leftist hands if nothing else.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's not even feasible or realistic to throw out the 2nd Amendment.  As a gun owner in California, I am not worried about the new legislation in the least.  My biggest concern is that more than half of it is unenforceable, making it a largely useless and likely to be thrown out in the lower courts.  

 

But hey, give the NRA credit, they are extremely effective at spreading their narrative.  People love to talk about the liberal media bias, yet the needle never actually moves towards more gun laws.

Again, the reason it never did is because the Supreme Court was protecting the Second Amendment. That will no longer be the case once there's another liberal Justice.

[Guard Dog]

@WoD:The court CAN'T make the 2nd Amendment go away. It is a thing. All they can do is reinterpret it to say that it does not protect an individual right. I forget the name but there was a case n the 30's where the Court specifically said it was not an individual right. So from 1788 to 2009 the status of the "individual right" was in question and all during that time there was no prohibition. There were restrictions at times. Some worse than others but generally the Congress and State legislatures has been made to pay a high electoral price for meddling with that. If you remember a few State Reps in Colorado lost their jobs in a recall for signing a particularly odious bill and that was right after the movie theater shooting. I'm not saying there isn't a danger. There is. But, while the left will continue to nibble around the edges the real danger is not imminent.

 

@Calax: To eliminate the protection of the 2nd Amendment all together would require a Constitutional Amendment. That would mean 2/3 of the states would have to agree to give up their freedom. And do it knowing they are forcing the other 1/3 to give up theirs. That would be a hard sell on both counts NRA or no. You must understand that would break the country as no issue has since 1860. As to your second point I think every liberty protected by the Constitution, as well as those that are not should be zealously defended. Always and unflinchingly.

[Calax]

 

@Calax: To eliminate the protection of the 2nd Amendment all together would require a Constitutional Amendment. That would mean 2/3 of the states would have to agree to give up their freedom. And do it knowing they are forcing the other 1/3 to give up theirs. That would be a hard sell on both counts NRA or no. You must understand that would break the country as no issue has since 1860. As to your second point I think every liberty protected by the Constitution, as well as those that are not should be zealously defended. Always and unflinchingly.

But the thing is that people often will clinch for free speech because the intent behind the protected word is insane or hateful. We don't allow people to curse or use racial slurs because we consider that "bad". We don't allow somebody to scream "fire" in a movie theatre because of the damage it would do. But if mr "hold mah beer" comes along with a revolver in his shorts and blows off his manhood, the bra would say that he should have been allowed to hold his gun as he chose.

 

Anyway, putting aside that rhetoric for a moment, my point to you was that Youseem to be viewing the constitution as a document that is consistently unchanging and the very concept of removing an amendment is unthinkable. But we have done it before. And I am willing to bet that by the time you are on your death bed, the second amendment will be treated removed

[Wrath of Dagon]

@WoD:The court CAN'T make the 2nd Amendment go away. It is a thing. All they can do is reinterpret it to say that it does not protect an individual right. I forget the name but there was a case n the 30's where the Court specifically said it was not an individual right. So from 1788 to 2009 the status of the "individual right" was in question and all during that time there was no prohibition.

Yes, and re-interpreting it this way makes it meaningless. This is a different country now from the time you're referring to. Certain states and localities will be only too happy to ban guns. As far as nationally, we're safe so long as Republicans control the House, but once that is lost so are our rights, mark my words.

 

Btw, at this point in 1988 Dukakis was up by 17 points, though I'm not making any predictions.

[Hurlshort]

I certainly hope not, Calax.  Honestly I don't see how that is even feasible or realistic given the fact that guns are all over the place.  It's unenforceable without going to war over, and it certainly isn't worth doing so.  Who would even fight that war?  Good luck convincing the military to side with the government on such a ridiculous change in culture.  

[Guard Dog]

 

@Calax: To eliminate the protection of the 2nd Amendment all together would require a Constitutional Amendment. That would mean 2/3 of the states would have to agree to give up their freedom. And do it knowing they are forcing the other 1/3 to give up theirs. That would be a hard sell on both counts NRA or no. You must understand that would break the country as no issue has since 1860. As to your second point I think every liberty protected by the Constitution, as well as those that are not should be zealously defended. Always and unflinchingly.

But the thing is that people often will clinch for free speech because the intent behind the protected word is insane or hateful. We don't allow people to curse or use racial slurs because we consider that "bad". We don't allow somebody to scream "fire" in a movie theatre because of the damage it would do. But if mr "hold mah beer" comes along with a revolver in his shorts and blows off his manhood, the bra would say that he should have been allowed to hold his gun as he chose.

 

Anyway, putting aside that rhetoric for a moment, my point to you was that Youseem to be viewing the constitution as a document that is consistently unchanging and the very concept of removing an amendment is unthinkable. But we have done it before. And I am willing to bet that by the time you are on your death bed, the second amendment will be treated removed

 

Oh no right is absolute. Scalia himself wrote in Heller that the 2nd Am was subject to reasonable restrictions. But complete prohibition is not reasonable. Take Concealed Carry for example. That is not a right. No court has ever said the 2nd Am allows you to carry your piece with you. In the most proper Federalist way imaginable every State has decided for itself how that privileged will be granted, if at all. And, in a most un-libertarain fashion I'm ok with that.

 

But the entire amendment being repealed in my lifetime? I find that doubtful. Not impossible, but doubtful.

[Meshugger]

Why is Soros dictating to the state department on what to do with Albania of all places?

 

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28972

 

Oh, right. He's a big Clinton Foundation donor just cashing in, just business as usual.

[Rostere]

You've actually made my point for me. In your previous example, with 2 liberal parties and 3 conservative ones, equally split ideologically, you'd always have a liberal and a conservative in the run-off, so no problem.

 

Wrong. With two liberal parties, three conservative parties, and voters equally split ideologically the liberal parties would both get 25% while the conservative parties would get 16,6%, which would result in two liberal parties in the run-off, just like I said. You did finish primary school, right?

 

With 16 conservative parties they would of course always lose, so unless brain dead they'd consolidate into fewer parties, just like the 2 party system works now. And that's what I said, we want 4-5 parties, not 16-100.

With one run-off election, you would in theory get 3 parties, since if we start out with the current two-party system, you could always safely vote for what at the time looks like the third most popular party without wasting your vote and letting the other side win. Most places with run-off presidential elections I can think of have proportional representation in their parliaments, so that leads to more people initially competing and thus more seemingly viable alternatives (for good or bad, since with only one run-off some are bound to waste their vote).

 

I think to achieve 4-5 parties you will at the very least need MMP or something similar.

[Hurlshort]

Please understand that the education system in Texas is very different than the rest of the country.  

 

 

(just kidding.  I think WoD went to school in Eastern Europe anyways.)  

Edited August 13, 2016 by Hurlshot