Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!


"swamp" <swampmunge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:o62ja3ldk5qsebalk6rg096dqc244l5cka@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:05:27 -0500, "Herb Martin"
<news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snippity-snip]

No, you have NEVER demonstrated the least aptitude nor ability at logic
and you have YET to give those logical reasons but have merely dismissed
out of hand.

I'm sorry you couldn't understand them. I can't "dumb them down" any
more than I already have.

Saying you used logic when you cannot now explain that logic is just
further
dishonesty on your part -- or pathological self-delusion.

You've already said dishonest. "Pathologically self-deluded" is a new
one tho. I'll add it to the growing ad hominem list.

And I can no more provide evidence than
pro-gun can, and shouldn't,

So you are saying that such things can NEVER be proven? Then gun
control is Unconstitutional since the Constitution REQUIRES proof
to abridge a fundamental right.

Constitutional rights have *never* req'd proof, one way or the other.
They merely reflect the beliefs and feelings "of the People" at the
time. It's the more guns = less death equation that req's proof.

If you claim it CAN be proven then state what (hypothetical) proof
you would accept that is in your mind physically possible....

Pro-gun's formula can't be proven. Its antithesis can't be proven
either. Thus, I find pro-gun's reliance on a CDC study and state
supreme court rulings specious, at best.

Once again you prove yourself ignorant -- it is NOT an "ad hominem"
attack when someone's actual behavior within the context of the discussion
is pointed out.


If no proof is possible ALL gun control laws remain forever
unconstitutional.

True,

Excellent.

although I thought we'd come to the agreement that somewhere
between nuclear missile submarines

I have no interest in "nuclear control" laws since there is no existing
problem with this stupid exaggeration.

It's called "argumentum ad adsurdum," and the whole point, your
interest notwithstanding.

That is what we pointed out to you early on -- it was your strawman
and fallacious absurdity.

and BB guns,

No, we agreed (since you say we agreed) that at least the same
firearms used by police and the individual military is the minimum
protected (see Miller).

Heck w/ Miller. Think for yourself.

This however is a PRECEDENT for the protections of the RKBA
by the Supreme Court.


some limitations were allowable.

Not according to you since NOTHING can pass the proof test for
Strict Scrutiny according to you.

According to someone else. What's "strict scrutiny?"

You mean you just notice this? I (and others) have been posting the
explantion for you repeatedly:

One of the rules of constitutional law is that any law (whether a statute,
regulation or town ordinance) impacting a fundamental right is subject to
strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, a judge must presume that the law in
question is invalid, and a court will uphold the law only if it is found it
be
narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Laws that
are subject to strict scrutiny frequently are struck down as
unconstitutional.

In order to be constitutional, laws infringing on rights must serve
narrowly defined "compelling state interests" and avoid unnecessary
infringement on individuals' rights unless there is a direct and
provable connection between the individual and the interest served.

For there to be a compelling state interest, there must be:

1. A major problem;

2. Clear and direct proof the proposed restriction would significantly
reduce
that problem; AND

3. any restriction must be NARROWLY tailored, in general this means the
smallest possible restriction of rights and that the restriction must not
apply to the law-abiding due to bad behavior of others, i.e., without due
process; AND

4. clear evidence that no other method is available and that no restriction
that was less burdensome on the populace would be effective.



Restrictions similar to those on Police or other government employees
who carry firearms MIGHT be reasonable, e.g., "no carrying firearms
in prison."

Now *you're* allowing some restrictions. You win. You just killed me!

Constitutional law has never required that a right be totally unrestricted;
for instance YOUR rights end where my "nose" begings, i.e., you cannot
exercise your rights at my expense.

But such must be VERY narrorly tailored to avoid undue restrictions on
fundamental rights.

Such must be either in DIRECT opposition to another persons rights
(e.g., you have a to "free speech" or to "travel" but you cannot break
into MY HOME to exercise those rights even though there are very
few limitations on your right to stand on the courthouse steps or
in front of the capitol and screem to your heart's content.)

Or such must be infringed ONLY AFTER due process -- you can
lose your rights to vote, to own firearms, or even your liberty and
LIFE as punishment for crimes YOU have committed, but now for
the crimes of others nor due to suspicion that you MIGHT engage
in bad behavior.


But even the prohibition on otherwise legal arms in AIRPLANES is
unconstitutional.

Difficult issue.. not sure .. and don't think constitutionality comes
into play.

Sure it does. I have a constitutional right to be armed. The state has
a burden to PROVE that disarming me while traveling is (on balance)
a necessity AND that there is no other reasonable way to reach the
same result.


Didn't we go thru this one before? The question is whether
the prohibition, or lack thereof, leads to greater good in general.

No, that is insufficient. It must be PROVEN. It must be substantially
greater. It must be NARRORLY tailored (least infringement); and
there must be no other way.

No one has even shown that having armed citizens on a plane is not
BENEFICIAL, must less that it is harmful.

Citizens carried without incident on planes for years. Then they
disarmed the law-abiding but let the crazies continue the practice.

I'd arm the pilots. Opinion only...

At least. I would arm ANYONE who can legally own firearms and
believe that a case could be made for requirement certain "ammo"
(called frangible althought this isn't strictly necessary) and for requiring
a specific "firearms in flight safety" course.

With this method NO TERRORIST could ever be certain of taking
a plane again.

I would make the penalty for abuse so stiff that no sane person would
ever violate it. Say, 10 years Federal Prison, no parole, minimum.

Such laws MIGHT be made to conform by allowing law-abiding citizens
to take a class on safety but there really is little support even for such
requirements.

I doubt there are any laws *denying* law-abiding citizens from taking
gun safety classes.

But there are from taking their safe guns on the airplane IN THE CABIN.

TSA frowns on this although there is not real evidence of this being
beneficial.

All the TSA regulatons on the law-abiding are mere assumptions, and
most are dubious at best.

Had the law-abiding citizens been armed on 9/11 the hijackers could
have never taken the plane with "4 people".

It's not the weapons; it's the character of the ?# people who
challenge them. Not sure where I would have been. Are you?

Yes. I was scheduled to fly on a plane that could conceivably have
been involved -- a few days later so this isn't real close (not like someone
who says, I missed Flight 77 or Flight 93.)

BUT, I and a lot of people were perfectly aware that 9/11 or something
VERY close to it would eventually happen -- contrary to what the press
said about "no one could predict it."

We were generally carrying the maximum weapons allowed by law.
(In my case two survival type folding knives. Great for opening packages
and other daily tasks but also decent for fighting and wearable with a
suit and tie.)

Those people who fought back were mainly hampered by a LACK OF
WEAPONS since they all assumed (like the terrorists did) that "knives
were illegal on planes" even though that was categorically NOT TRUE.

So where would I have been? Quite simply: IN THE FIGHT.

I might have still LOST; the plane might have still crashed; but I would
have been IN THE FIGHT.


If the
passengers charge forward they throw off the trim, and the plane nose
dives, as in PA.

Unlikely with the weight of a fully loaded plane (fuel was still full
remember)
but it only would have taken a relatively small number of ARMED passengers
to have a great effect.



.

Loading