Officials identify suspect in shooting that killed 10 at Texas' Santa Fe High School

[Norm dePlume]

Please find where I said that laws against ownership of dynamite are unconstitutional.

Wait, so you don't think a law that infringes on a constitutional right is an unconstitutional law?

I mean, you said that you have a constitutional right to buy and use dynamite. And you agreed that this right has been infringed "through the legislative process".

[Frostbit]

Wait, so you don't think a law that infringes on a constitutional right is an unconstitutional law?

I mean, you said that you have a constitutional right to buy and use dynamite. And you agreed that this right has been infringed "through the legislative process".

[Gingersnap]

Really this entire thing is nonsensical.

Yes, you can own a full-auto firearm, dynamite, or a tank in this country. You can buy gasoline, Dawn, rags, and beer bottles (just not in a convenient "kit" form - yet).

The statistics say that the average American will not use any of those things to inflict harm. CCW holders are less likely to to shoot friends or enemies than non-CCW holders. Legal gun owners are less likely to use firearms in a conflict than illegal gun owners.

Yes, guns are used in male suicides. Why? Because they work! A guy who has decided to end it doesn't want to wake up in the ICU three days later. It's not a 'cry for help' or attention-seeking act. He literally wants to die that minute.

We can discuss if that's a morally good or bad act but men committed to suicide also hang themselves or jump off buildings. Gun laws won't change male behavior in suicidal moments.

[gary m]

Really this entire thing is nonsensical.

Yes, you can own a full-auto firearm, dynamite, or a tank in this country. You can buy gasoline, Dawn, rags, and beer bottles (just not in a convenient "kit" form - yet).

The statistics say that the average American will not use any of those things to inflict harm. CCW holders are less likely to to shoot friends or enemies than non-CCW holders. Legal gun owners are less likely to use firearms in a conflict than illegal gun owners.

Yes, guns are used in male suicides. Why? Because they work! A guy who has decided to end it doesn't want to wake up in the ICU three days later. It's not a 'cry for help' or attention-seeking act. He literally wants to die that minute.

We can discuss if that's a morally good or bad act but men committed to suicide also hang themselves or jump off buildings. Gun laws won't change male behavior in suicidal moments.

Forget the Dawn. Use styrofoam. Makes a great poor man's Napalm. Sticks to anything and the more you try to wipe it, the more it smears and burns.
Recycle those old McD's coffee cups for something useful.

[Gingersnap]

Forget the Dawn. Use styrofoam. Makes a great poor man's Napalm. Sticks to anything and the more you try to wipe it, the more it smears and burns.
Recycle those old McD's coffee cups for something useful.

Good to know! I don't usually have Styrofoam anything but I do have dish soap.

And fire.

[gary m]

Good to know! I don't usually have Styrofoam anything but I do have dish soap.

And fire.

In the post apocalyptic zombie future, there will probably not be dish soap.
There will always be McD's and packing material from Chinese computer, TV's and cellphones.
Post consumer waste has no limits.

[Gingersnap]

In the post apocalyptic zombie future, there will probably not be dish soap.
There will always be McD's and packing material from Chinese computer, TV's and cellphones.
Post consumer waste has no limits.

I'll think about this.

Have you ever lit gasoline on a Styrofoam cooler? I knew somebody who did that or so I was told. "They" told me it was quite quick and spectacular for a few minutes. Or so "they" claimed.

[gary m]

I'll think about this.

Have you ever lit gasoline on a Styrofoam cooler? I knew somebody who did that or so I was told. "They" told me it was quite quick and spectacular for a few minutes. Or so "they" claimed.

Haven't tried that but I know someone that tried to use a styrofoam cup as a funnel to fill a running lawnmower. Didn't work out well.

[80zephyr]

Heh. Deflection!

Where is the deflection?

Mark

[Adam]

Wait, so you don't think a law that infringes on a constitutional right is an unconstitutional law?

Of course not. Did you even go to high school? This is basic civics stuff.

I mean, you said that you have a constitutional right to buy and use dynamite. And you agreed that this right has been infringed "through the legislative process".

That's correct.

[Norm dePlume]

Of course not. Did you even go to high school? This is basic civics stuff.

Okay, let's take an example. District of Columbia v. Heller -- one of your favorites, right? Was the law restricting firearms in that case ruled unconstitutional? And why? Was it because it infringed on a constitutional right?

[Adam]

Okay, let's take an example. District of Columbia v. Heller -- one of your favorites, right? Was the law restricting firearms in that case ruled unconstitutional? And why? Was it because it infringed on a constitutional right?

Yes, it was ruled that DC, in that particular case, was improperly infringing upon the individual right to keep and bear arms.

You're missing the larger point here. It's not a straight-line case of "if something infringes upon a Constitutional right, it's automatically unconstitutional." The point here is that you're looking at the Constitution backwards. The Constitution says that everything is a right, but that rights can be restricted through proper legislation. The reason that we have a Supreme Court is to sort out whether some legislation improperly infringes upon people's rights. Hence, murder is a Constitutional right by virtue of the fact that there is no prohibition of murder in the Constitution, but it's not at all improper for governments to legislate to restrict murder and to define what murder is as opposed to self-defense, manslaughter, degrees of murder, etc.

It's important here to note the difference between a right and a guarantee. I am guaranteed the opportunity to keep and bear arms, I am guaranteed a speedy trial, I am guaranteed that troops will not be quartered in my home. People very frequently confuse "right" with "guarantee," as well as "entitlement," and admittedly the terms are frequently used interchangeably, often intentionally so. So yes, you have a right to health care, but you don't have an entitlement to it (outside of legislation that ensures that the ER has to treat life-threatening injuries and other such legislation). You have a right housing, a right to food, a right to a job, etc. You just don't have an entitlement to any of these things, again outside of specific legislation to that effect.


The Constitution restricts government, not people. This cannot be emphasized enough.

[Gingersnap]

Haven't tried that but I know someone that tried to use a styrofoam cup as a funnel to fill a running lawnmower. Didn't work out well.

Clearly, more chemistry. In my "friend's" case, I knew what would happen.

I or my "friend" just didn't know the timing.

It's fairly quick. Quicker than one might think. Aside from the instant fire situation, gas itself almost instantly degrades polystyrene which makes sense.

Well, it would if one wasn't fairly drunk at camp with 20 other seriously impaired people and a really big fire.

These things are largely situational. Or so I've been told.

[Norm dePlume]

Yes, it was ruled that DC, in that particular case, was improperly infringing upon the individual right to keep and bear arms.

You're missing the larger point here. It's not a straight-line case of "if something infringes upon a Constitutional right, it's automatically unconstitutional." The point here is that you're looking at the Constitution backwards. The Constitution says that everything is a right, but that rights can be restricted through proper legislation. The reason that we have a Supreme Court is to sort out whether some legislation improperly infringes upon people's rights. Hence, murder is a Constitutional right by virtue of the fact that there is no prohibition of murder in the Constitution, but it's not at all improper for governments to legislate to restrict murder and to define what murder is as opposed to self-defense, manslaughter, degrees of murder, etc.

It's important here to note the difference between a right and a guarantee. I am guaranteed the opportunity to keep and bear arms, I am guaranteed a speedy trial, I am guaranteed that troops will not be quartered in my home. People very frequently confuse "right" with "guarantee," as well as "entitlement," and admittedly the terms are frequently used interchangeably, often intentionally so. So yes, you have a right to health care, but you don't have an entitlement to it (outside of legislation that ensures that the ER has to treat life-threatening injuries and other such legislation). You have a right housing, a right to food, a right to a job, etc. You just don't have an entitlement to any of these things, again outside of specific legislation to that effect.


The Constitution restricts government, not people. This cannot be emphasized enough.

If you're gonna argue definitions, there's this thing called a dictionary. There are even legal dictionaries.

constitutional rights

guarantee

constitutional guarantee

[Norm dePlume]

Here's Black's Law Dictionary:

constitutional right

guarantee

constitutional guarantee does not appear