Roe and Guns

[Bootstrap]

Before the Civil War, the Federal government had no right to tell the states that slavery was not allowed. After the Civil War, it did.

Because amendments to the constitution was passed about it. This made it federal.

Exactly.

[Soloist]

I'm mostly trying to describe the complicated history of how things have evolved. Individual freedom started out meaning things like the freedom of white individuals to own non-white individuals and the right of individual states to enshrine slavery. After the Civil War, individual rights had much more robust protections against state and local governments.

That has nothing to do with the similarity between the two though. On what ground can a state dictate something but not the federal government or vise versa? As far as it goes, is not the bold inherently a subjective "fact" that is debated and disagreed on?

Can you please tell me what part of that you think is hotly debated? Slavery was legal before the Civil War and illegal after it. Before the Civil War, the Federal government had no right to tell the states that slavery was not allowed. After the Civil War, it did.

If we are disagreeing about facts, which facts?

Hotly debated? perhaps by some. What I was saying was that individual freedom meaning things like freedom of white's to own slaves was not how some would view it. Also the civil war was fought by some not for slavery and Lincoln didn't fight to free the slaves, although he was instrumental in doing so. My point though is that something that you would find to be clear is not clear to all and is debated. Also, what states actually ratified the 13th amendment? How many of them were part of the Union when this happened? The Federal government didn't make slavery illegal. That was done by the states themselves per our constitution. There were 36 states, 11 rebelled, 5 kind of were neutral and the remainder stayed in the Union. Out of those states, 27 actually ratified the 13th amendment. That leaves 9 states that did not support it. Out of the southern states, they basically were under military rule the entire time this was done. Sort of amazing that there actually was dissention to the amendment itself.
These things are not as clear as people would like them to be and "facts" about the civil war or the war between the states are deeply debated by multiple historians even to today.

[nett]

What is the difference between a state and the federal government other then size?

To the Founders, this difference was huge and fundamental. That changed significantly after the Civil War. But originally, the Second Amendment was all about the difference between federal government and the states. The federal government must not have a standing army. States must be able to have well regulated militias. There's no mention of an individual right to self defense. States were allowed to regulate guns.

This is your opinion and is no where near universally accepted by legal scholars. Your interpretation has been specifically repudiated by the multiple Supreme Courts, who are the ultimately authority in constitutional interpretation.

[nett]

There is a country where guns are practically impossible to own. This country is an island, meaning it has no land borders, so guns cannot be smuggled across a border from a neighboring country with more lax gun laws. This country also has incredibly tight border control, and a generally compliant population.

This country is Japan, and their Prime Minister was just assassinated with a firearm.

Please tell me how effective gun control is again?

[Ken]

There is a country where guns are practically impossible to own. This country is an island, meaning it has no land borders, so guns cannot be smuggled across a border from a neighboring country with more lax gun laws. This country also has incredibly tight border control, and a generally compliant population.

This country is Japan, and their Prime Minister was just assassinated with a firearm.

Please tell me how effective gun control is again?

To answer that question we would need to know the difference in firearms death rates in the US vs. Japan. Do you know how they compare?

[Bootstrap]

What is the difference between a state and the federal government other then size?

To the Founders, this difference was huge and fundamental. That changed significantly after the Civil War. But originally, the Second Amendment was all about the difference between federal government and the states. The federal government must not have a standing army. States must be able to have well regulated militias. There's no mention of an individual right to self defense. States were allowed to regulate guns.

This is your opinion and is no where near universally accepted by legal scholars. Your interpretation has been specifically repudiated by the multiple Supreme Courts, who are the ultimately authority in constitutional interpretation.

Starting with the Heller decision in 2008. Before that, I don't think any Supreme Court claimed that there was an individual right to guns for self defense, which is why it made headlines. No such right is spelled out in the text of the Constitution. I think that much is simple fact.

And today's court has found further gun rights that previous Supreme Courts were unaware of. I think that is also simple fact. These new rights apparently trump state's rights to regulate weapons that even Heller claimed.

[MaxPC]

There is a country where guns are practically impossible to own. This country is an island, meaning it has no land borders, so guns cannot be smuggled across a border from a neighboring country with more lax gun laws. This country also has incredibly tight border control, and a generally compliant population.

This country is Japan, and their Prime Minister was just assassinated with a firearm.

Please tell me how effective gun control is again?

Gun control laws are not, in my opinion, effective. Frankly anything can be smuggled anywhere at any time. It is a matter of connections.

Regarding former Prime Minister Abe's assassination: lines of inquiry are pursuing the theory that China is behind it due to Abe's strong support for both Taiwan and the USA. Abe was a charismatic leader who was capable of rallying allies; China considered him an enemy and a threat.

[Robert]

Before that, I don't think any Supreme Court claimed that there was an individual right to guns for self defense, which is why it made headlines.

It was never defined and more an assumption. The right is to bear arms. It is not conditional to anything. If it should be conditional, then there needs to be a new amendment stating that.

No such right is spelled out in the text of the Constitution. I think that much is simple fact.

Again, the right it to bear arms. No reasons or conditions are made.

And today's court has found further gun rights that previous Supreme Courts were unaware of. I think that is also simple fact.

Until the early 1900's, there was little questioning of a person's right to bear arms, so why would earlier Supreme Courts find something that everyone accepted as a right?

[Szdfan]

Even Santa has Renaults on the naughty list

And a version of the Passat produced in China, Japan, and Brazil was known as the Santana.

The santanic connections should be obvious.

You mean with Carlos?

[Bootstrap]

There is a country where guns are practically impossible to own. This country is an island, meaning it has no land borders, so guns cannot be smuggled across a border from a neighboring country with more lax gun laws. This country also has incredibly tight border control, and a generally compliant population.

This country is Japan, and their Prime Minister was just assassinated with a firearm.

Please tell me how effective gun control is again?

You seem to be saying that Japan has the same level of gun violence problems that the United States does. Let's compare:



And it's not that they simply kill with some other weapon, their homicide rate is also much lower: