Skip to main content

View Diary: My Son Goes to Madison High School (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Unless you're proposing a blanket ban (0+ / 0-)

    How can you figure out in advance who is irresponsible?

    The blanket ban would be unconstitutional, but go on.

    You have the right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

    by trumanesque on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 10:00:25 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  unconstitutional? (13+ / 0-)

      ---not according to former justice Stevens' reading of the constitution. Or unless they are part of a "well regulated militia" - I'm guessing not........

      •  You mean (0+ / 0-)

        a former justice who was in the minority? More importantly, as has been pointed out, even if there was no 2nd Amendment, most states and most major cities would allow guns, of course ignoring SF and NYC.

        You have the right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

        by trumanesque on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 10:15:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  5-4 decision by Scalia/Alito/Roberts/Thomas/Kenedy (15+ / 0-)

          against Stevens/Breyer/Ginsburg/Souter -- I'll go with the latter, any day. As to Scalia and crew, pick your acronym: K-RATS, right-wing TRASK, STARK (raving wingnuts), TSAR-K, etc. The sooner they retire, the better.

          If I understand your more important point, it is that "reversing Scalia's misinterpretation in Heller will not completely solve gun-violence in America, therefore..." No, no, I'm sure that's not it; I'll try again.

          "Most states and most major cities will still allow (most) guns even after Steven and Breyer's dissent in Heller becomes the law of the land, therefore Universal Background Checks (for example) will, um..." Hrm, I guess UBCs could get guns out of the hands of at least some bad, irresponsible parents, and thus save the lives of innocent children and adults, as JoanMar suggests. UBCs are supported by 90% of Americans, so we could elect more Dems who jump ahead and push this, now. So that's not it, either.

          OK, how's this: "Universal Background Checks will not solve all gun-violence, therefore..." No, I already tried that.

          How about: "reversing the violent, destructive framing by the NRA/GOA/SAF and other gun-bullies, who since the 1970s have misled vulnerable parents into thinking it's wise to keep weapons in the house (where children do access them, in reality, and family/friends are three times more likely to be killed than intruders), would be a bad thing because..." Nope, not that, either. Hrm.

          "Background checks, stopping gun trafficking (straw sales, private sales/gunshow loopholes), mandatory training and testing, aftermarket magazine limits, National Firearm Act limits, mandatory liability insurance, revocation of permits for any unintentional discharge, Swiss-like regulations on safe storage (not accessible to 3rd parties) and transport (unloaded, ammo kept separate, etc.), registration of all weapons, universal reporting of all firearm transactions, 'may issue' reasoning, firearms denied to violent offenders, etc. -- none of these (and the discussions around them raising awareness of gun-safety) would help shift parents' thinking about keeping guns and ammo in the house, because..."

          OK, I guess I'm not sure what your point is.

        •  You must have something better to do? (6+ / 0-)

          This group of supremes makes the concept of a minority majority really easy to understand, with likely 25 times the number of 5-4 decisions of any SCOTUS.  I have no doubt that many of their narrow, incorrect decisions will be overturned when Scalia and his cohort take their rightful places among former justices.  

          •  Stare decisis? (0+ / 0-)

            You have the right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

            by trumanesque on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:14:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed. As with Brown vs Board of Ed, overturning (4+ / 0-)

            prior decisions is hardly unheard of. Otherwise, Plessy v. Ferguson (a 7-1 ruling) would still be the law of the land, upholding the constitutionality of state laws that require racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but 'equal'." Cliven Bundy might feel at home, but not most of us.

            the principle of stare decisis has always been tempered with a conviction that prior decisions must comport with notions of good reason or they can be overruled by the highest court in the jurisdiction.
    •  Because responsible parents will follow the law... (15+ / 0-)

      and irresponsible parents will be made an example of (or at least they should be).

      If they would treat guns like they do automobiles (license, registration and insurance) then, like with automobiles, the price of insurance would help influence parents to be safer with guns around kids.  The would have to go through training to get a license like I did to drive a car.  They would pay more for insurance if they had a souped up hot rod of a gun as opposed to a nice, safe glock with a gun lock and a safe.  Throw in a security alarm and some safety lessons for the kids and the insurance drops to a very manageable price.  Leave your loaded guns lying around with kids having easy access and you pay through the nose.

      Responsible people would follow the law and lock their guns up.  Those that do not follow the laws are therefore criminals and they should not have guns.  Simple as that.

      Would it stop every gun incident?  No, but like automobile accidents, after a while, it would progressively get safer and safer.

      "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

      by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 10:13:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site