Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by franktheitaliantank, Oct 28, 2016.
In theory, your proposal sounds logical.
In practice, it has failed in the courts.
The whole issue of shootings that people are worried about take place against unarmed victims in the first place. In these instances, it does not matter one wit whether the shooter is limited to 10 rounds or not.
Whether the these types of shootings happen in designated gun-free zones, shopping centers, parks, etc., the shooter has chosen a field of operation in which armed resistance of any kind is minimal. So it just doesn't matter because he'll continue shooting until he runs out of ammunition on his person OR someone else stops him.
And that "someone else" almost invariably ends up being someone else with a gun. THEN having more than ten rounds in a magazine can certainly have an effect on the outcome.
I understand the emotional desire to lash out against the government and impose punative restrictions on them...but in the long term, this won't work for a variety of reasons.
If we want to succeed in the long run ( I'm talking about a never-ending, generational time frame), then the battle MUST be fought with a foundation based on sound logic and honesty. Anything else will not produce lasting results.
Trying to limit government to civilian limits has no more chance than it ever has. It is also an effort expended in the wrong direction. Trying to argue that LE only need 6 or 8 or 10 round magazine capacity only betrays our argument against such limits.
I don't love the decision in Heller vs DC. That was a joke. I haven't ever used that in an argument with antis... Sometimes THEY use that argument because the late Antonin Scalia had to add some legal jargon about "reasonable restrictions" without actually clarifying what he meant by it... Anti's take that to mean everything but an outright ban of ONLY handguns. (they still think they can ban whatever else they want including the mags that those handguns use)
I think if someone asked one of the founding fathers about the "DC vs Heller" decision; They would ask that person: "Are you stupid? Did you REALLY need a court to confirm something SO OBVIOUS?" They would continue to say that: "The courts were meant to decide difficult and complicated issues... Not obvious rights that were already established!" I think that they would be very angry that it was ever brought to ANY court.
And it's a farce. It hangs from a thread. ONE JUDGE can "reverse" that decision... Really?? What a joke. Ruth Bader ginsburg isn't stupid. She said it's not a right. shes just as educated as any other... Why was her decision different than Samuel Alito? That's just how she wanted to rule... There is no basis but her opinion. If just one more "Ginsburg" walks in the supreme court... If some yahoo takes it to the supreme court again, are we really gonna say "Oh wait! Looks like they were wrong the first time. It looks like handgun bans ARE constitutional after all!"? That would be comically INSANE... seriously. It's a joke.
The system is rigged... I'll give an example:
United States vs Miller
To make a long short, Miller challenged the UNCONSTITUTIONAL (I don't care what anyone says) NFA of 1934, claiming that he had a right to own a short barrel shotgun. The judge basically told him: "No, you don't have a right to a short barrel shotgun since the right to bear arms only applies to military grade weapons since it mentions militias and no military uses short barrel shotguns"... Really? (Btw the military HAS used short barrel shotguns since then) So that all being said, shouldn't we have the right to own full auto m16's? Hahahahaha! NO you silly goose!... 9 out of 10 times (in my estimation) these rulings mean whatever the establish needs them to mean!
Let's look at the 9th Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Now observe some rulings by judges on constitutional issues... you should notice that courts ROUTINELY construe rights to deny or disparage others! This government has fallen SO FAR from the intent of the founding fathers, that is is NOT the country they founded anymore.
All that statement in the Constitution means is that the BoR isn't a complete and final list.
And yes, the system is "rigged" in that SCOTUS has always tried to limit the scope of its decisions to the most immediate matter at hand, rather make sweeping proclamations based on every challenge.
Heller was a big deal because the court has stated, on the record, that the Second Amendment is not just for militias, and that is true even in non-states. And while you are correct that the decision could go another way, the court generally tries very hard to not invalidate its own authority by invalidating past decisions. No matter what a future justice feels, that justice is still going to have argue against both the current case AND the previous decision, which is not easy.
The shotgun specifics of the Miller case are stupid, but the broad statement of the court that 2A protects military weapons is still worthwhile.
Your mag limit for cops thing amounts to "equal unfairness under the law", which is not the same as "equal protection". Police departments and their employees are government agencies, not individuals who fall under the BoR. A police department can't "plead the fifth" or prevent soldiers from being billeted in a precinct.
The only possible real injustice in all of this is treating retired cops differently than everyone else, but if a department wants to deputize retirees (or anyone else), they certainly can.
Pennsylvania has no magazine restrictions ( at this time ) which is fine with me. What ever the cops carry is no business of mine, but I hope they are well armed enough to handle the bad guys. Now when the law comes around and tells me that I have to limit how many cartridges I can have in a handgun I am sure I won't like it.
To expect the cops to be equally bound to the same law is ridiculous. To whine that it isn't fair is silly.
The cops put themselves in harms way. I try to stay out of harms way.
No, I don't like magazine restrictions, we had them in the 90's with that Brady law thanks to a Clinton.
Congress let the weapons bans expire in 2004.
States can do what they want. As Judge Judy says, if you don't like where you're living ... MOVE!
This will be a bit of a digression, but I'm afraid that you need to become acquainted with reality. The reality is that this is the system the Founding Fathers put in place, and your opinion of what is or is not constitutional doesn't count.
The Founding Fathers assigned the job of deciding what the Constitution means and how it applies to the federal courts (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed.
What our Constitution states and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813.
So, as the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution, if there is disagreement about whether a law is constitutional, the matter is one within the province of the federal courts to decide. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177 -- 178):
It's well settled law that under certain circumstance and to some extent a constitutionally protected right may be regulated. What those circumstance might be and the nature and extent of permissible regulation will be worked out by the courts. To do so, a court will consider, among other things, the nature of the right, the nature of the regulation, and the governmental purpose intended to be served.
For the purposes of illustration, let's consider the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion against laws that abridge those rights we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:
Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.
If you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies. If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA, and you will have to have demonstrated, through hard, scientific data, that any claims or representations made are true. These are also laws that abridge freedom of speech, and yet they are regularly enforced.
Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official. See, for example:
Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:
Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:
In the leading case on prior restraint (Near v. State of Minnesota Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931)) the Court in striking down a Minnesota statute allowing for the abatement, as a public nuisance, of malicious, scandalous and defamatory news analyzed in considerable detail and depth the scope and extent of the infringement of the freedom of press, the interests served and the availability of other and narrower remedies. And the Court then reached the conclusion that the statute went too far to be a permissible regulation.
But nonetheless the Court also noted that certain interests, under certain circumstances would justify even prior restraint (Near, 283 U. S. 657, at 715 - 716):
In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890)).
So in fact the reality is that rights protected by the Constitution may nonetheless be subject to some limited regulation. The foregoing discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence serves the limited purpose of demonstrating that the courts do permit limited regulation of a constitutionally protected right. There are numerous examples of laws sustained by the courts which abridge freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. And First Amendment jurisprudence also offers some clues as to how such regulations will be evaluated by the courts.
We can not expect, nor will we see, perfect correspondence between the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment and the regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence is quite mature at this point, but Second Amendment jurisprudence, in the wake of Heller, is in its infancy. However, we can expect some regulation of Second Amendment rights to be upheld by the courts.
With regard to any existing or possible future governmental actions which might be applied to limit, restrict or prohibit activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms, here's essentially how things work:
Any governmental action limiting, restricting or prohibiting activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms is subject to judicial challenge.
In the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.
There is judicial authority going back well before Heller and McDonald for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, there is some possibility that highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply, at least to some issues.
The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.
Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny.
Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy. Until Heller in 2008, it was still in doubt whether the Second Amendment would be found to describe an individual or collective right. Until McDonald in 2010, the law was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)). So the scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment is still unclear.
The bottom line is that Second Amendment jurisprudence will need to mature over time as these sorts of issues get litigated.
It's been a while since I'd been on here. I joined this website to ask some technical questions and when they were answered, I hadn't come back... until now... I was hoping someone might have picked up this argument so OTHER frank doesn't actually think he's right about this because he is WRONG!
First off , let me say, it's NOT about my opinion and I never claimed it to be. The reality is, the system which the Founding Fathers put in place is NOT being followed the way it is supposed to! Judges routinely rule with logic that has nothing to do with the constitution. It's basically like adultery against the constitution!
You wrote a lot to make it look like you are saying something... but the examples you gave are irrelevant!
Hylton v. United States... is about taxes, NOT gun rights
McCulloch v. Maryland... is about taxes and banking, Not gun rights
Marbury v. Madison... Doesn't touch on the issue of gun rights at all. It gets into how the system is organized, but that doesn't mean much when those judges are ruling based on ideas OTHER than the constitution. I am not knocking the system. Just the unconstitutional REASONING judges often use in these processes. When they use the system in order to justify unconstitutional rulings, the system, no matter how good it was set up, becomes a SCAM!
I'll give YOU an example... Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She wet through all the processes to become a judge, did everything expected. But I think you know DARN WELL that her decisions are based on almost ANYTHING BUT the constitution or the Bill of Rights! There's usually 2 judicial "opinions", but usually only ONE can be right by the constitution (regardless of consensus) . Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinions are usually based on left-wing ideology. there are A LOT of judges like that and they don't necessarily have to be left-wing.
...And they found a way to circumvent that by politicizing judges. Over time, they threw enough money at the system and worked from "behind the scenes" and got what they wanted. Now it mostly just serves to put on a show to get us to accept whatever they are going to do. It's a SCAM
Honestly.... let me give you some court examples... And please, remember, I am not taking sides with this example and it's REALLY controversial, so let's not get sidetracked on the issue... but how it radically changed.
How on Earth can you go from: Pace v. Alabama to Loving v. Virginia?
First of all, for a unanimous decision to be challenged, going through ALL THOSE CIRCUITS, during a time when popular opinion was 90% for the status quo, is unusual enough. But for it to be UNANIMOUSLY OVERTURNED... with a KKK member on the bench (Hugo Black) is comical.
When Hugo Black was asked about his KKK past, he made it noted that he disassociated himself with them before he got into the senate... I suppose people can change... but is this the type of turbulence we should rely on to make such decisions?
Later in life, he said of it: "I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes."
That is the type of person he is. A fake. A little snot-nose who decided that he wanted some authority when he grow'd up, so he worked for it. And the oblivious masses praised him for his self-serving achievements.
Franklin D. Roosevelt handpicked psychopaths who would do whatever he needed them to do. Hugo Black was just one of them and it go's much deeper than FDR.
The function of the second Amendment is: "Power to the people." The people are never meant to be at a tactical disadvantage against authority. Laws are supposed to be enforced by the community. Therefore, gun control should be irrelevant.
One criminal, with a gun equal to everyone else's, can't really out-gun a crowd.
If ever the majority of the common man becomes pitted against authority, the authority might just be in the wrong. Authority is supposed to be a community effort. It is not supposed to asserted on the community.
If you take a type weapon away from civilians, because it is too dangerous, then it's too dangerous for the police who patrol the civilians of that community. Otherwise, you break the balance of power between people and authority, thus sabotaging the function of the Second Amendment.
That sounds like an argument an anti-gun troll would use. IT'S NOT COMPARABLE!!!! Selling lies is not "free speech", It's like stealing... so nice try... It honestly makes me wonder why you'd even be on a site like this, with THAT argument... Seriously.
That's NOT a good example because it's more of a "when and where" situation. That would be like how you typically aren't allowed to bring a gun into a courtroom. but this post is NOT about getting into "when and where's", which may have their own valid arguments.
This post is however, about gun laws that prohibit or limit what common people can have in MOST ANY time and place; and how the balance of power between authority is the intent of the Second Amendment. And with that being said, you CAN NOT limit one and not the other and maintain the intended balance.
Honestly. I don't know about every decision. I'm sure you can throw me hundreds of examples that have nothing to do with the Second Amendment and try to draw some nonexistent conclusion.
The only "free speech" violations to point out, that would compare to gun control, would be "hate speech" laws. But that is something which happens in countries that don't have a Bill of Rights like we do... But it has been talked about here... maybe if it happens, you can post a bunch of other court cases to try to justify that hypothetical violation to the constitution... and pretend that a good legal "opinion" makes it ok. I'm sure that will make you (and others) feel better about the "system" so you can keep some distorted sense of faith in it.
You know what? I'm not sure how I feel about "freedom of religion". So you're kind of barking up the wrong tree about that issue. I feel like some religions can have negative influences on people's sanity, and I feel that religions often take advantage of people...
However, that's how I feel about some religions. I don't necessarily advocate those feelings. Politicians aren't really supposed to advocate feelings (not that they have any). Politicians are only supposed to advocate the constitution!
Gun control is a VERY feely issue. You have positive feelings from guns like: feeling safe, guns are awesome works of engineering, guns are liberating or guns are fun to shoot. But you also have people with negative feelings about guns: Guns are scary, guns cause sadness, guns cause regret, guns cause the loss of people's loved ones...
So yeah... very feely indeed. However, politicians and judges are supposed to put feelings like that aside, that's their job! Instead, they often manipulate and use feelings to their advantage. That's fine for some issues. Some issues and feelings can be indifferent to the constitution... BUT THEY SHOULD NEVER USE FEELINGS AGAINST THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO GET VOTES!!!!! ...And that's basically what motivates gun control. The masses of anti-gun people are about feelings... the rest are the fiendish leaders who take advantage of those feelings in people.
Again, It's about balance of power between common people and authority.
Since you brought it up, let's talk about scrutiny. I don't think an individual should be able to own nuclear or chemical weapons...
And neither should police!
Same go's for guns. If it's too dangerous for use BY civilians, it's too dangerous for police to use ON civilians! You are a Stockholm syndrome'd masochist if you are a civilian who think that's ok... And you are a HOSTILE TYRANT if you are a policeman, politician or judge who thinks that's ok... There's no hiding behind "it's just my opinion" when having a hostile opinion like that, which CLEARLY go's against our supposed guaranteed rights!
No. It's like finding a perfect square and a perfect circle... you can clearly see the difference between the two... but then you STILL you go to through the courts so they can officially decide what a square and a circle is... that's my impression of taking the second amendment to court.
It says right there in the Bill of Rights, that I have the right... There is no reason that would be going to court, other than to give authority a chance to re-neg. Our answer to them should be a steadfast "Folk you! we already know our rights. We are NOT going to ask permission on our established rights!"
Even if gun control were a good idea... it would ONLY be a good idea IN SPITE of the constitution. I DON'T need a judge to tell me that!
I am not claiming to be an expert on the entire constitution, but I do know the the part of the constitution that the common man was meant to understand. What he is entitled to; the Bill of Rights.
Wow... just.. wow.
This thread started in creepy uncle that the whole family ignores posting on facebook FWD FWD FWD FWD territory and just sailed right into sovereign citizen putting "Private Vehicle" plates on their car.
The fact that you don't understand how cases that don't specifically deal with the 2nd Amendment, but deal with how courts evaluate, weigh, balance and apply enumerated rights, are directly pertinent to this discussion tells us the value of your statements... very little.
Frank pretty much pimp slapped last October.
I want to point something else out. You argument is the similar what the Catholic argument would have been during the protestant reformation, mine is more similar to what the protestant argument would be like.
That would be like the Catholic church saying: "The reality is that this is the church that St. Peter put in place, and your opinion of what is or is not biblical doesn't count."
Not taking religious sides... just wanted to point out the parallel argument(s).
In all fairness, he gave me a heck of a lot to read... I don't like to comment or argue about something I didn't read... and you know what? Some of us have other things to do besides read a bunch of court cases related to an internet forum... you know, like maybe working for a living... know anything about that?
I thought that at one point I had verified that he used ONLY 10 round magazines but I could be wrong. If you can point me to some information that says he used some 15 rounders, I would appreciate it so I can make sure I have my facts straight.
Ok, I found it.
The report does state that he had 15 round magazines for the Glock he purchased.
It also states that "The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders could have been about as deadly in this situation."
BLM seem more like your garden variety Terrorist. Rioting, looting, advocating the killing of police, burning down our towns, disrupting the voting system and on and on. There numbers are growing more and more each day. At some point we may loose total control.
Because they don't care what you want. "They" (the legislature, police and so on) don't care if your guns are banned, so long as theirs aren't banned.
The magazine capacity limit in NYS, if the SAFE Act had passed as written, would have been FIVE rounds in ANY firearm. The reason it was changed to seven before the bill was introduced to the legislature, is because Dean Skelos owned a large collection of 1911 pistols (reported to be the largest private collection in NYS) and wanted to exempt his own guns.
I know you think I'm wrong. What make you think you're right?
Of course it's about your opinion. Nothing you've posted is anything but your unsupported opinion.
And who made you the authority on that? Who assigned to you the authority to decide how the system is supposed to work?
You live in your own fantasy world. But here in the real world, reality is defined by what happens, not what goes on in your head. And in the real world your opinions don't matter. The world will continue to go on about its business without regard to what you think.
Indeed, It's fatuous to presume to know how the Founding Fathers intended our system to work, just as it is fatuous to believe that even they all agreed on exactly what they meant and how the Constitution would apply. The reality was that although fifty-five delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1786-87, only thirty-nine signed the proposed Constitution. Thirteen left early without signing, and three refused to sign. There was then a bitter fight over ratification by the States. And it indeed looked like the Constitution would fail ratification until the Massachusetts Compromise was hashed out -- giving us the Bill of Rights after the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers well understood how people do disagree and how politics works. They were active, mostly successfully, in the commercial and political world of the time. Many were lawyers. A few were judges. Almost all were very well educated. They were generally politically savvy. Many were members at various times of their home colonial assemblies or were otherwise active in local government or administration. They were solidly grounded in the real world and knew how to make things work in the real world. That is why they were able to bring our nation into being.
And since they had their share of disagreements among themselves, in the Constitution they assigned the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts -- which included, as specifically stated in the Constitution, deciding cases arising under the Constitution. And so the Founding Fathers gave us the federal courts to decide disagreements about what the Constitution means and how it applies in connection with matters in dispute. That is what courts do, and have done since long before the founding of our Republic.
So while you might think you know what the Constitution means and how it applies, others have disagreed, and will continue to disagree. As I noted above, in post 41, Hylton v. United States, in 1796 when the ink was barely dry on the shiny, new Constitution, appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution.
What we can know is that the Founding Fathers left us with --
A system of checks and balances achieved through a separation of powers among the Congress (legislative), the President (executive) and the Courts (judicial);
Of these three branches of government, the legislative was most directly subject to the influence of the body politic, and the judicial was the least subject to the direct influence of the body politic;
Judicial power vested in a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish, and this judicial power would extend to all cases arising under, among other things, the Constitution and the laws of the United States;
A Constitution that could be changed, albeit with difficulty.
It's system that allows us to try to hash out those differences. But the reality is that nobody is going to be completely happy all the time about the way things are.
Phooey! Of course they're relevant. The topic being addressed by the citation of those cases. Those cases illustrate how the federal courts exercise the judicial power of the United States, as conferred on them in the Constitution to decide cases arising under the Constitution, i. e., what the Constitution means and how it applies.
Hogwash. We're not debating competing theological views.
I'm explaining how the law works in the real world. You're describing your fantasies.
And in the real world the opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property or real people. Your opinions on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.[/QUOTE]
I mean yeah, what does an actual trial lawyer with more years experience than you've been alive know...
To be clear, I wasn't a trial lawyer (i. e., I didn't try cases in court). But when my client needed a trial lawyer I managed things "off stage." That's how complex litigation gets handled.
None so blind as those who will not see.
(Oh, and $2 only gets you about a thimble-full at the s-bux; you need $3 and change for a medium )
Ah, another soul living in a fantasy world. And of course you and the OP have lots of company. Fantastical notions about law, politics and history tend to be much easier and more satisfying than actually studying law, politics and history in any sort of a disciplined, rigorous way. It's much like the way the person who has no understanding of how the Solar System works is pleased by the belief that a solar eclipse is caused by a dragon swallowing the Sun.
Folks believe many things that aren't actually true, and their beliefs in those untruths can not change reality.
Those who can actually hope to change things are those with a profound understanding of the reality of law, politics and history. Those of you who lack that sort of solid foundation can, of course, try to take action based on your fantastical notions, and we'll see how far you get.
The police are a standing military force under the control of the government... Worse yet they are given special rights, privileges and preferntial legal treatment that are not shared by the rest of us. I'm not saying that there aren't good people in the police but the door is wide open for abuse.
The law should be such that any citizen should be able to and expected to enforce the law under most circumstances (or be charged as an accessory if stand by and watch). I would prefer seeing swat type activities carried out by a group like the national guard (I'm sure there's reasons not to do this).
I realize that in today's environment so much can't be fixed as the battle for sanity, both in government and society, has pretty much been lost.
You can tell people they live in a fantasy world but a good way to look to the future is to try to identify what a better system/world looks like and then figure out how to start moving in that direction. That's just basic systems engineering.
What makes you think that systems engineering can work in a human society?
It's a fundamental error to believe that this is somehow about "systems" -- that there is some system, any system, which will automatically produce the right results. And that even if there were such a system there would be a way to "install" it in our world -- like replacing the exhaust system in your car or the hard-drive and processor in your laptop.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves ..."
We live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as we do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role of government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.
The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.
We are "the system." We elect our representatives. We have the final say at the ballot box. If some of us aren't happy with how things are working it means we're failing to get enough people to go along with our values and beliefs. We're failing to inspire.
The Constitution does not bestow wisdom. It's up to the body politic to be wise and to use the processes provided for in the Constitution to make wise decision and promote wise policies. A "system" can't be wise. A "system" is just a mechanism. It is up to those using the mechanism to use it wisely.
If our side apparently lacks the savvy to operate within the existing legal and political process to better further our interests and values, what makes us think that we will be able to successfully do so in any other legal and political process.
Due to our Constitutional government, citizens of one state cannot demand anything from governments of other states.
I kinda like it that way. I've made a conscious choice to reside in states where the citizens don't accept the kind of foolish gun control that places arbitrary limits on magazine sizes. I'd hate for the foolish citizens in other states to have any say in the gun control laws of my home state.
Why, then, would I get to have any say in the laws of their states?
Once you vote with your feet not to live in a stupid state, you have pretty much given up any say in the laws of those stupid states.
I respectfully submit that if one is going to argue legal matters, or legal history, there is no better source for information than "a bunch of court cases."
Under the loosest possible definition of "military"...maybe, but only in that they're employed by state governments and carry arms. The purposes, duties, capacities, and spheres of action are vastly different. So this it "truthy." It sounds like it should be true, but suggests something completely false.
They are given duties to perform and are then provided with legal counsel by their employer and indemnification (a certain degree of legal protection) for the results of actions they take -- so long as those actions follow the policies of the department they're a member of. This has to be so, for any department or any officer to continue to work.
"Wide open" is too strong a term. Of course there is potential (and reality) of abuse in any system, but the scrutiny is very tight on law enforcement officers these days and getting tighter all the time.
Did you stop and think about that at all before you wrote it?
How many pages of posts -- just here on this one forum -- would you have to read before you'd understand just how AWFULLY badly the average person understands the law, just in terms of self-defense issues? Let alone the thousands of other laws a police officer is required to be at least basically familiar with, and likewise with general principles of his or her own authority to use force, and lethal force?
The average person believes all sorts of nutty things about what's "right" and what the law is ... or what they think is it, or what they think it should be. Giving "any citizen" not just the right, but the duty, to enforce the random collection of fluffy ideas they have about the law against all the other citizens they interact with?
I really can't think you actually meant that.
Perhaps you meant to say you felt that every citizen should be subject to compulsory 30+ weeks of training at the hands of their state's government? Each high school graduate should be forced to attend the police academy so they have some clue about how the laws of their state work and what arrest powers are and how those work?
Yes. You are correct. There are reasons not to do this.
And I really doubt you'd be a lot happier if you started seeing uniformed soldiers performing SWAT raids in your town.
You should study American history. And the history of civil government in the rest of the world, too. If you think that our society has lost it's mind, TODAY, you're mistaken. ALL of history has been a messy, contradictory, conflicting muddle. The most "rational" societies have been monarchies, and I doubt you really want to live under one of those. But at least those societies were subject to following (more or less) just one guy's whims and beliefs and desires. Since our nation's founding, we've been divided on thousands of hot issues and we've been pulled every which way by the forces of all the conflicting opinions about all those varied issues. If you think we're "insane" now? Recall that we once fought a war with ourselves that killed approximately 1/10th of the white male population of our nation. A few broken store windows or burned cop cars these days is a mere whisper of the storms of confliction we've been through.
We live in a highly pluralistic society where the beliefs and whims and desires of 320 MILLION people all get their say. And that includes the random beliefs of every citizen, from the person who thinks BLM is right on, to people who think college and healthcare should be "free," to people who think that we should invade other countries if they annoy us, to some guy who thinks average citizens should be duty bound to enforce the law on each other and that the National Guard should be sent out to do SWAT raids. The only way to conclude that we've lost some vaunted level of "sanity" in recent days is to look with rose-colored glasses at the most blinkered and nostalgic and poorly understood tiny sliver of history for comparison.
In a way, you're right. Every movement that carries us forward into coming history is founded on some "fantasy world" idea that caught on and spread through the population over time until it was incorporated into the fabric of our society.
The difference between that, and what we (so often) see here with these arguments over how the Constitution works, is that a great dream of social change should be conscious. You have to recognize that things are one way today, but you want to convince others that they should be some other way, and that they could be so sometime soon.
Instead, we find here another screed about how things ARE. "The Constitution works this way...! The Courts are SUPPOSED TO...! This is how it IS...!" And those statements are disconnected from how our system of government really performs. So Frank Ettin says that's LIVING in a fantasy world unable to act because one does not recognize the actual operation of the system one is working in, not dreaming of a better world and how to move toward that goal.
Nice to see some common sense here.
Separate names with a comma.