danivon wrote:At a Federal level, yes. When they are not sclerotically deadlocked. But reading freeman's post as a whole, he was talking about State level legislation which would be nothing to do with Congress or your mate Obama. But it can be referred up to the USSC.

Yes, and his point was the USSC was being influenced by current events so as to not get involved in lower court cases challenging State laws. It is that influence I am decrying.

Something is either constitutional or it's not; the current circumstances are irrelevant to a law's constitutionality or lack thereof.

Ray Jay wrote:It's interesting how the topic of another Muslim extremist attack has quickly turned into another discussion about gun control. I am in favor of gun control, but I do notice that it seems to be a way to shift the discussion and avoid talking about Islamic extremism. The 9/11 murderers had box cutters. The Boston Marathon murderers used pressure cookers. We cannot ban knives and cooking devices. France has very good gun control, I presume, and look what happened there.

What other steps should we be taking; gun control may reduce risk (or not depending on your perspective) but there's no evidence that it is sufficient to eliminate these terrorist attacks.

This is what the President and other liberals have consistently done: the attacks have nothing to do with Islam and are the product of lax gun laws, or so they say.

However, that's not true at all. The President has proposed nothing that would make another San Bernardino/Paris attack less likely. Nothing at all.

I'm not in favor of Trump's "no Muslims" proposal. It's offensive. However, there is good reason to scrutinize more carefully people from certain countries. One example of this would be Pakistan, the origin of the female attacker in California. We know Pakistan has many links to extremism. The government failed utterly when it came to screening Malik.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but there is a strain of Islam that simply wants to kill. We have to find ways to identify jihadists before they commit their crimes.

Ray Jay wrote:It's interesting how the topic of another Muslim extremist attack has quickly turned into another discussion about gun control. I am in favor of gun control, but I do notice that it seems to be a way to shift the discussion and avoid talking about Islamic extremism. The 9/11 murderers had box cutters. The Boston Marathon murderers used pressure cookers. We cannot ban knives and cooking devices. France has very good gun control, I presume, and look what happened there.

What other steps should we be taking; gun control may reduce risk (or not depending on your perspective) but there's no evidence that it is sufficient to eliminate these terrorist attacks.

"Eliminate" is a big ask.

I think there are various ways to reduce risk. Control of weapons that are controllable is indeed just one. I don't think Sass intended such a derailment though.

Also, a reduction in the bombast rhetoric against Muslims would help. It is not only meat and drink to those extremists who already see this as a binary conflict between "true" Muslims and the rest of the world. But it also alienates Muslims and makes them more amenable to radicalisation.

We should be consistent and distance ourselves from Saudi Arabia. We should be careful about expanding military intervention in the Middle East. We should be tougher on Israel where it expands settlements.

We should work with muslims locally to break down barriers and.help them identify and report or head off extremism.

We do need to invest more resources in intelligence, and balance security with freedom. If it truly is our freedom that they hate then let us revel in it. The freedom they hate is secularism (freedom.of religion with no state religion), and social liberty - female liberation, sexual freedom, the "pursuitoof happiness".

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:At a Federal level, yes. When they are not sclerotically deadlocked. But reading freeman's post as a whole, he was talking about State level legislation which would be nothing to do with Congress or your mate Obama. But it can be referred up to the USSC.

Yes, and his point was the USSC was being influenced by current events so as to not get involved in lower court cases challenging State laws. It is that influence I am decrying.

Something is either constitutional or it's not; the current circumstances are irrelevant to a law's constitutionality or lack thereof.

Except that the "general welfare" is not static, it is very much dependent on the prevailing situation.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:At a Federal level, yes. When they are not sclerotically deadlocked. But reading freeman's post as a whole, he was talking about State level legislation which would be nothing to do with Congress or your mate Obama. But it can be referred up to the USSC.

Yes, and his point was the USSC was being influenced by current events so as to not get involved in lower court cases challenging State laws. It is that influence I am decrying.

Something is either constitutional or it's not; the current circumstances are irrelevant to a law's constitutionality or lack thereof.

Except that the "general welfare" is not static, it is very much dependent on the prevailing situation.

If we grant that the Supreme Court is to make decisions based on what it perceives to be in the best interest of the general welfare, then it is a body free from the constraints of the Law.

Congress is to legislate, not the Supreme Court. The Congress doesn't get to decide the constitutionality of a matter and the Court does not get to whip up legislation.

ray

It's interesting how the topic of another Muslim extremist attack has quickly turned into another discussion about gun control. I am in favor of gun control, but I do notice that it seems to be a way to shift the discussion and avoid talking about Islamic extremism. The 9/11 murderers had box cutters. The Boston Marathon murderers used pressure cookers. We cannot ban knives and cooking devices. France has very good gun control, I presume, and look what happened there.

What other steps should we be taking; gun control may reduce risk (or not depending on your perspective) but there's no evidence that it is sufficient to eliminate these terrorist attacks.

In part because decent gun regulations that would keep Islamic terrorists from arming themselves with AR15s would also keep the average white loser who shoots up a school from getting the means as well.
Focusing on just the so-called Islamists as a threat ignores the damage being done by guns by everyone else. And everyone else is like 350 events versus a couple...
The Islamic terrorists that are dangerous today are just a small subset of the gun carnage. You could follow Trump and ban all Muslims and even put them in camps and the same 20 year old deluded white kids will find a reason to shoot up their school or a theatre.
But deal with preventing the normal school shooter from arming themselves, will also keep ISIS copy cats from their weapons too.

Doctor Fate wrote:Congress is to legislate, not the Supreme Court. The Congress doesn't get to decide the constitutionality of a matter and the Court does not get to whip up legislation.

Except that other than repeatedly asserting it, you have not shown that the USSC is legislating.

This is a dead end, off of the gun law diversion. Can we agree to disagree and move back to the actual subject?

Forgetting about civil liberties for a second, RJ. What criteria would we look for in identifying home- grown Muslim terrorists. Sample criteria :

(1) Young (18-34)
(2) Muslim
(3) Recent visit to Muslim country
(4) Recent gun purchases, particularly multiple
(5) contacts with known radicals
(6) Internet postings supporting radical Islam
(7) unusual banking transactions

Could the NSA devise criteria that would data sift to spit out names for further attention without unduly infringing on Muslim civil liberties? Recent visit to Muslim country plus something else (unusual gun purchase, name pops up somewhere on radical internet post, contact with know radical )= heightened scrutiny by live agent? A lot of people should be thinking very hard on how to do without unduly infringing on civil liberties, particularly on Muslim civil liberties . There was a lot of information out there that could have tipped off the government to the San Beenardino terrorists and clearly we need to a better job in spotting potential terrorists.

fate

False choice.

No its not. Republicans have always had the ability to produce legislation that would improve the administration of the no fly list.
They have not tried till now. But they have resisted keeping people who were on the list from acquiring guns. This was a choice they willingly made. They voted.
Which means they care less about public safety then they make out.

Fate

Is there an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing a right not to wear a seatbelt? Other than that, great comparison (okay, not really)

.
Here's what opponents of seat belt laws claim.

While the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in support of seat-belt laws has been a horrendous financial burden to society, the greatest cost is really not money. It’s the loss of freedom. Seat-belt laws infringe a person’s rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments, and the civil rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws are an unwarranted intrusion by government into the personal lives of citizens; they deny through prior restraint the right to determine one’s own individual personal health-care standard.

Then Constitution is interpreted by many in different ways. It was you who use to claim that the Constitution could not be used to protect Gay Marriage... Nevertheless
Scotus disagreed with thee arguments of those seat belt refusersniks...and of anti gay marriage types.
They might one day change their tune on the 2nd too.

Fate

Do you suppose in the age of the Internet, people cannot figure out many ways to commit suicide without guns? Did suicide not exist when the Second Amendment passed? Is this a new thing?

Homes with guns in them have a higher incidence of suicide.

A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management Matthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazi ... d-suicide/

The use of actual evidence....Not a new thing.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Congress is to legislate, not the Supreme Court. The Congress doesn't get to decide the constitutionality of a matter and the Court does not get to whip up legislation.

Except that other than repeatedly asserting it, you have not shown that the USSC is legislating.

Um, I didn't assert it. I was quoting freeman3 who seemed to suggest it could.

This is a dead end, off of the gun law diversion. Can we agree to disagree and move back to the actual subject?

Sure, since you can't even accurately characterize what I said.

freeman3 wrote:Forgetting about civil liberties for a second, RJ. What criteria would we look for in identifying home- grown Muslim terrorists. Sample criteria :

(1) Young (18-34)
(2) Muslim
(3) Recent visit to Muslim country
(4) Recent gun purchases, particularly multiple
(5) contacts with known radicals
(6) Internet postings supporting radical Islam
(7) unusual banking transactions

Could the NSA devise criteria that would data sift to spit out names for further attention without unduly infringing on Muslim civil liberties? Recent visit to Muslim country plus something else (unusual gun purchase, name pops up somewhere on radical internet post, contact with know radical )= heightened scrutiny by live agent? A lot of people should be thinking very hard on how to do without unduly infringing on civil liberties, particularly on Muslim civil liberties . There was a lot of information out there that could have tipped off the government to the San Beenardino terrorists and clearly we need to a better job in spotting potential terrorists.

Thanks; that's what I was getting at.

Yes, on #s 4 - 7. For # 3 I would only include Muslim countries with large radical groups. Actually, I would include any country with large radical groups. Let's also add #8 data collection from phone records, and not expunging those records after 2 years (as I understand the current practice). I don't agree with #s 1 and 2. We don't discriminate based on religion and being young and male is not enough to warrant attention.

Ray

Thanks; that's what I was getting at.

Freeman and Ray, what makes you think that this isn't what (or something close) being used as criteria to ferret out radiicalized persons now?

rickyp wrote:Ray

Thanks; that's what I was getting at.

Freeman and Ray, what makes you think that this isn't what (or something close) being used as criteria to ferret out radiicalized persons now?

If it is, they sure dropped the ball in California.

(3) Recent visit to Muslim country
(4) Recent gun purchases, particularly multiple
(5) contacts with known radicals
(6) Internet postings supporting radical Islam
(7) unusual banking transactions

At the very least, 3, 4, 5, and 7 applied.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Ray

Thanks; that's what I was getting at.

Freeman and Ray, what makes you think that this isn't what (or something close) being used as criteria to ferret out radiicalized persons now?

If it is, they sure dropped the ball in California.

(3) Recent visit to Muslim country
(4) Recent gun purchases, particularly multiple
(5) contacts with known radicals
(6) Internet postings supporting radical Islam
(7) unusual banking transactions

At the very least, 3, 4, 5, and 7 applied.

The guns were bought by a third party.