SCOTUS tells Chicago to shove it.

[Solomwi]

I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean that a big purpose of drunk driving laws is to punish people when they drive drunk anyway. It's my impression that the punitive aspect is much lower with gun control laws, at least the controversial ones.

KH:

Then there's that.

[flash9286]

judicial activism Power corrupts.

[Kitschum]

SCROTUS

[Asher]

Uh, how many blacks do you have?

In Scarborough?

Visible minorities make up 67% of the population of Scarborough.

[Darius871]

In Scarborough?

Visible minorities make up 67% of the population of Scarborough.

I don't mean the productive minorities.

[Hauldren Collider]

judicial activism Power corrupts.

Original intent seems to me to be the OPPOSITE of activism.

[Darius871]

Original intent seems to me to be the OPPOSITE of activism.

Having read the opinion, I'd say the only thing "original intent" about it would be the findings of fact lifted from Heller. The means of incorporation ironically is, and always has been, every bit as activist as the fake rights the left wing of the court has conjured from the Due Process Clause by pretending its guarantee that any and all deprivations of liberty be imposed by a "process" that is "due" somehow can absolutely foreclose an entire type of deprivation in and of itself, no matter what process is used. In other words, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, etc. stem from the same perverse precedential source as your right to a jury in a state criminal trial, your right against state cops' coercion of self-incrimination, your newfound right to own a handgun in the home, etc. etc. etc.

Justice Thomas, of course, was right on the money with this one, but he couldn't even get Scalia on board, who would only hint that he'd love to throw out substantive due process doctrine entirely but was too buried in a century of bad precedent to do anything about it now...

[Asher]

@Darius: I assure you, Scarborough is not where the "productive" minorities go. They're north in Markham and Richmond Hill.

[Darius871]

@Darius: I assure you, Scarborough is not where the "productive" minorities go. They're north in Markham and Richmond Hill.

What kind of music do they listen to?

[Asher]

Most definitely rap/hip-hop.

I know because I get to enjoy their music all the time too. They're loud enough to crank the stereos in their ****box cars, or crank the volume on their earphones.

[Asher]

One of the nicknames for the city is Scarlem, FWIW.

[Darius871]

Well, then it must be something you guys put in the water. Gun control or no gun control, they should be more uppity than the numbers suggest.

[Asher]

There's your fair share of stabbings. But if they all had easy access to guns, such assaults would be more deadly. And the numbers more worse.

Don't see why it's so hard to understand.

There's still violence. There will always be violence. But when the means of violence accessible to most people are considerably less lethal, so the "numbers" are better.

[Darius871]

Don't see why it's so hard to understand.

Well for my part I don't even see a need to contend that more gun control wouldn't cause a reduction in total gun violence. It's enough for me to settle the issue on who is among the dead; i.e. I don't mind seeing 100 gan-banging thugs blow each other away if it means 1 innocent woman can shoot a rapist, 1 innocent head of the household can shoot a burglar (and survivors twice), etc. etc. etc.

In other words, I find the principle of a fundamental right to defend oneself so important on a gut moral level that I just plain don't care about some collateral damage. As was hinted at in the other thread, and as the Court's opinion put it quite plainly, it's already a given that every constitutional right comes with its costs. For every innocent man who gets acquitted thanks to the right to a jury trial upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt, countless hardened criminals will be set loose on the streets to victimize again. For every innocent man whose house isn't repeatedly ransacked by police without cause, countless hardened criminals will have reliable evidence against them excluded from trial and go free for reasons having nothing to do with guilt, allowing them to victimize again. For every thousand snippets of socially valuable expression protected by the First Amendment, there will inevitably be some snippets of inciting speech that will be the but-for cause of violent crimes, some snippets of obscene expression that will be the but-for cause of sex offenses, etc. etc. etc. You get the picture. I have no illusions about the Second Amendment having a price in blood; it's simply that the price doesn't particularly bother me.






[Plus my gun compensates for my pathetically tiny penis.]

[Asher]

1 innocent woman can shoot a rapist

because there's no other way to fend off a rapist...like tasers or pepperspray.

Can't argue with that logic.

On the other hand, the rapist with the gun gun permits the rapist to better control the woman, no?