udhq: Ok, please enlighten all of us, from where in the constitution does the government derive the power to abridge the right of the public to keep and bear nuclear arms?

1) The general welfare clause is not a general grant of legislative authority to regulate for the general welfare. Whenever you hear righties say this, they're actually correct. It's one of the rare times.

2) What they do not understand is that it is a general grant of legislative authority to spend money to promote the general welfare. Google Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures" from 1791 for an early articulation of this view on behalf of George Washington. To be clear, this means that no less august a personage than George Washington himself subscribed to the modern Hamiltonian (liberal) view of the general welfare clause. It is a view with a sound historical pedigree, contrary to the claims of many conservatives, who act like it was made up during the New Deal.

3) But a ban on the private possession of nuclear weapons does not in itself entail the expenditure of money. Such a ban is therefore not authorized by the general welfare clause.

4) I'm not personally acquainted with the statutory scheme regulating private ownership of nuclear weapons in America. But the only clear Article I source of authority to regulate nuclear weapons in any way whatever is the commerce clause. Certainly the federal government may ban the interstate movement of key materials required to manufacture nuclear weapons, as it may also ban the interstate movement of nuclear weapons themselves.

Things get murkier when we start talking about banning private possession of things wholly intrastate. States may regulate nuclear weapons via their police powers. I would have to review the cases closely, which I'm not going to do, to give you an authoritative answer on how, if it does, the federal government derives its power to regulate the wholly intrastate possession of nuclear weapons. I'm confident the answer is "the commerce power," though outside of a recitation that "mere private ownership of nuclear weapons, whether they're ever actually used or not,  may confidently be predicted substantially impact interstate commerce," I'm unable to say why.

to have a close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce,"

vygramul: udhq: bugontherug: udhq: Traditionally, the boundary of the 2nd amendment has been the general welfare clause.

The general welfare clause and the 2nd Amendment have almost, but not quite, no relationship to each other whatsoever. It is true that both involve connected strings of words ordered to convey meaning. It is also true that both appear in the document called the United States Constitution. In the original documents, they were likely written in the same color ink. After that, not much.

I think we agree in principle that the government may and should do more to restrict the availability of firearms. But you appear to have pulled that one from a deep, dark, smelly place.

Ok, please enlighten all of us, from where in the constitution does the government derive the power to abridge the right of the public to keep and bear nuclear arms?

There is a Supreme Court ruling that says that the amendment was to allow militiamen to arm themselves like typical soldiers. So until an FGMP becomes TO&E, that doesn't seem an unreasonable argument. (Although there WAS private ownership of artillery back then.)

A view of the Constitution holding its application changes to respond to historical developments? Who would have thought it would be Scalia who finally and conclusively conceded that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document?" And who would have thought so many conservatives would so enthusiastically cheer the concession?

He probably just wanted to see if Texans really do bleed gravy.

Shaggy?

tricycleracer: My "assault" X-Acto w/ extended capacity magazine.  I bet you libs can't wait to ban these:


[cdn.dickblick.com image 600x583]

I had that set as a kid.

vrax: OMG, I hope it's already been said to you farkin' morons, but we have banned certain types of knives already!  For example, butterfly, switch blade, etc.

Also, was this written by a Texan?!

...and was armed with a knife similar to an exacto knife, that may be used in animal dissections.

That would be called a farkin' SCALPEL you dumbasses!!  An Exacto knife would be used when you build a NASCAR plastic model in your basement.

We aren't going to ban either of those because they have specific uses of which a weapon is way down on the list.  Same thing with kitchen and table knives.

As someone who's seen a family member accidentally cut themselves to the bone with an exacto knife- it's basically a scalpel you dumbass. I could dissect a frog/fetal pig as easily with an exacto knife as with a scalpel.

HBK: vrax: OMG, I hope it's already been said to you farkin' morons, but we have banned certain types of knives already!  For example, butterfly, switch blade, etc.

Also, was this written by a Texan?!

...and was armed with a knife similar to an exacto knife, that may be used in animal dissections.

That would be called a farkin' SCALPEL you dumbasses!!  An Exacto knife would be used when you build a NASCAR plastic model in your basement.

We aren't going to ban either of those because they have specific uses of which a weapon is way down on the list.  Same thing with kitchen and table knives.

As someone who's seen a family member accidentally cut themselves to the bone with an exacto knife- it's basically a scalpel you dumbass. I could dissect a frog/fetal pig as easily with an exacto knife as with a scalpel.

FFS, I've accidentally cut myself to the bone with my Swiss Army knife.  I've owned many Exacto blades over the years.  A scalpel is on a whole different level with regard to sharpness.  If you ever see a surgeon using an Exacto blade, run fast and far.

Obviously this is a fake incident manufactured by the NRA. Nobody was really hurt.

/Am I doing it right?

Gyrfalcon: I'm still awed that in freaking TEXAS, home of the Bring-it-on mentality, the guy could seriously injure so many people with a 1/2" Exacto knife...and nobody did jack-shiat to stop him for so long. Apparently not until the guy was done with his slashing spree and on his way outside to cut a few more victims.

Some sources are saying its a student who subdued this guy. If true (others are saying he was tazed), I'm not sure how much more of a response we can expect.
He didn't fit the medias usual profile of a madman walking around in armor and carrying large weapons. Stabbing doesn't generate much noise outside of victims screaming. He wasn't even carrying the kind of butcher blade one might think would be associated with a slasher, to the fortune of his victims at least. It could be as simple as people caught off guard by the uniqueness of the situation.
There isn't much to analyze till we get the details.

We are a gun culture and, to some extent, a victim of our own success. Having spent the last few centuries in a mutually enforced peace, we don't look at each other and expect the kinds of rampant violence these nutcases are dishing out.
We need to understand why these attacks are happening more than how because, in the end, people aren't much happier when stabbed.

Quick used a "razor-type knife" in the attack,


Is that like a "military-type" rifle?

Rapmaster2000: If Americans weren't so hostile to knifery then this wouldn't have happened.  I personally have spent hours perfecting my skills at the dagger range.  I personally carry at all times a butterfly knife and a concealed cleaver at all times.  I'd rather have a dagger and not need it then need a dagger and not have it.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 284x178]
Lately, I've been carrying this beauty so I can see what I'm stabbing in the dark.  I bet the KNIFE KNABBERS are terrified to see such a SCARY knife.




That way, I don't have to choose.

BigBooper: You know, you don't hear much from the National Knife Association. Do they protect your rights to own a sword as well? Or do they limit there protections to smaller blades? Is there a NSA?

Sure is:


Up in Maryland. In fact, they love it when you bring your blades up there to show them.

See? A knife!

This story effectively negates all gun control arguments.
What? You wanna ban all cutlery now?

doubled99: See? A knife!

This story effectively negates all gun control arguments.
What? You wanna ban all cutlery now?

Don't taunt the prohibitionists.
You damn well know they'll try if we take their demands seriously.

MythDragon:


Ok, while that looks menacing, that must be the most awkward thing ever to use.

I just want to point out that I'm not in favor of outright bans, just limits. The points I brought up here are not to make this a cut and dry issue of banning guns, but of trying to find the right combination of laws and regulations that makes this the worst thing we see, and not Sand Hook. It may not be possible, but that should be the goal.

ambassador_ahab: bugontherug: "mere private ownership of nuclear weapons, whether they're ever actually used or not, may confidently be predicted substantially impact interstate commerce," I'm unable to say why.

to have a close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce,"

The bolded part there is an edit that didn't get erased somehow. Sorry if it was confusing.


Even if I accept your premise as true, I think you could easily apply the "aggregation theory" for nuclear weapons, saying that if you allow one person to have them, then a whole lot of people could have them, and if multiple people set them off, that would clearly have a very significant impact on interstate commerce, even if nobody has set one off yet.  You could use some of the analysis from Lopez and combine in with Wickard and maybe some of the reasoning in Gonzalez v. Reich.

However, I think there are many laws that have nothing to do with spending money but do promote general welfare.  For example, there are federal criminal statutes against things like murder.  Congress isn't spending money to prevent murder (yes, tax dollars pay for the judicial system,) but as a society we say it's bad so congress wrote statutes about it.

It isn't a matter of "accepting my premise as true." No Supreme Court in American history has ever held that the general welfare clause is a general grant of legislative authority. To say it is renders superfluous every other word in Article I. On the other hand, to say it isn't a grant of general legislative authority to spend renders the general welfare clause itself superfluous. The power to spend for each of the other enumerated powers is already encompassed by the necessary and proper clause. Therefore, either the general welfare clause is a general power to spend for the general welfare, or everything in Article I but the general welfare clause is meaningless, or the general welfare clause itself is meaningless.

There is no federal statute barring murder generally. For the federal government to prosecute anyone for anything, there must be an appropriate "federal jurisdictional hook" tying the crime to some Article I enumerated power. The federal government can prosecute copyright violations, and even prosecute them without any connection to interstate commerce, because of the enumerated copyright power. The federal government can also prosecute a murder if, for example, it can demonstrate some connection to interstate commerce.

I have trouble with applying the aggregation theory to permit intrastate possession of nuclear weapons, at least at this point in world history. The chief problem being that it seems unlikely enough private persons could obtain wholly intrastate nuclear weapons at this point for the commercial aspects of intrastate nuclear weapon construction and trade to bear, even in the aggregate, a substantial enough relationship to interstate commerce to meet the requirements of the aggregation theory.

If private possession of wholly intrastate nuclear weapons is regulable, it is regulable under the commerce power. And if it is regulable under the commerce power, it is regulable because of the impact mere possession of even a single nuclear weapon by a private individual has on interstate commerce.

bugontherug: I have trouble with applying the aggregation theory to permit intrastate possession of nuclear weapons, at least at this point in world history. The chief problem being that it seems unlikely enough private persons could obtain wholly intrastate nuclear weapons at this point for the commercial aspects of intrastate nuclear weapon construction and trade to bear, even in the aggregate, a substantial enough relationship to interstate commerce to meet the requirements of the aggregation theory.

And to be clear, as Mr. Justice Scalia has now unmistakably conceded, the Constitution is a "living, breathing document," whose application changes with changes in historical circumstance. Therefore, just as application the 2nd Amendment lives, breathes, and evolves with changes in commonly available weapons technology, so does the commerce clause live, breathe, and evolve with changes in the nature of commerce.

Bravo Two: However, I would be willing to bet that if you brought out the same basic argument that ownership/use of a vehicle correlates to higher incidence of having auto accidents, then a percentage of people would go "well, no, not going to buy a car then!" just based on that fact.

That argument, that statistic is used to disprove a very specific argument gun-rights advocates like to use.  That guns make you safer.  They don't.  I'm not telling you to not buy a gun, I'm telling you to stop pretending you're safer with a gun.  The statistics and the data clearly prove otherwise.

Your car analogy only fits if you find someone who is claiming owning a car makes them safer.  You're an idiot if you buy a car to be safe.  You're an idiot if you buy a gun to be safe.  But as it turns out, there are other good reasons to own a car and a gun.
  Bravo Two: It's a statistic that gets trotted out in these discussions as though it's significant

It only becomes significant when gun-rights advocates pretend guns make them safer.  That's the exact moment that statistic gets trotted out.  You totally believe guns make you safer.  You base that belief on your imagination and nothing else.

Bravo Two: Also, you DO keep arguing about the role that guns play in suicide, and you turn around and ignore or downplay it when called on that very position with questions as to how the rates are affected by alternatives to simply removing guns compared to other approaches.

I think you've got me completely wrong.  My argument can be summarized as "guns play a role and therefore should be a part of the discussion."  That's it.  What I usually gather from gun-rights advocates is "guns play no role and should not be a part of the discussion at all."

Bravo Two: So, you may disagree with me on this, and that's fine.

But I agree with you.  I even agree with the underlying point behind your example numbers, that mental health plays a larger role than guns.  Again, I'm only arguing against the idea that guns play zero role and should not be a part of the discussion.

Bravo Two: But I will not agree or accept that "yes, banning guns is a good thing because it prevents suicides",

I never once argued that banning guns is a good thing.  I only argued that banning guns lowers the suicide rate.  That one isn't up for opinion or debate, it's an established fact.  Banning handguns lowers the suicide rate.  Whether that's a good thing entirely debatable and just to be clear, I think banning handguns is a bad thing.  I'm just tired of gun rights advocates ignoring facts and reality.

Bravo Two:   It has nothing to do with data, it has nothing to do with any implied scholarly position on anything, other than my refusal to have my rights tied to the actions of another individual.

... It's not my place to tell another person what is and isn't right for him to own. I don't agree with a lot of things other people do, but it's not my place to try and legislate them into compliance with my world view.

I couldn't agree more.  That's my exact position on gun laws.  Owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by a gun.  That's a fact.  But who the fark am I to tell you whether or not that risk is acceptable?  It's not my place.

But the problem is along the way you get people saying guns make you safer, or gun laws don't work, or whatever else and those things are demonstrably false.

lennavan: Bravo Two:   It has nothing to do with data, it has nothing to do with any implied scholarly position on anything, other than my refusal to have my rights tied to the actions of another individual.

... It's not my place to tell another person what is and isn't right for him to own. I don't agree with a lot of things other people do, but it's not my place to try and legislate them into compliance with my world view.

I couldn't agree more.  That's my exact position on gun laws.  Owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by a gun.  That's a fact.  But who the fark am I to tell you whether or not that risk is acceptable?  It's not my place.

But the problem is along the way you get people saying guns make you safer, or gun laws don't work, or whatever else and those things are demonstrably false.

There's a reason your posts look like this on my screen:

There's a reason your posts look like this on my screen:
[i.imgur.com image 850x192]

He'd green-3 on mine. I reserve cyan for racists.

You're both like a couple of 13 year old girls

vygramul: Rhino_man:

There's a reason your posts look like this on my screen:
[i.imgur.com image 850x192]

He'd green-3 on mine. I reserve cyan for racists.

I reserve orange for racists and tea party trolls... massive overlap on the Venn diagram of those two groups.

Darker shades of orange for more obviously racist/trolly folks.

National news just said he had been wanting to stab people since he was 8.  for some reason this came to mind and i have no idea why.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: People_are_Idiots: China has a few good ideas there believe it or not...

On gun regulation?

Nope, on punishing illegal drug dealers. ;)