Posts by Ana Simkiss
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Merry Christmas, you all, in reply to Kumara Republic,
I've switched from haaaating Matinee Idle to just loving it. Means summer... Merry belated Christmas to you all, perhaps we can share our Hogmanay plans next?
-
Hard News: Music: In before Christmas, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
Love the Waitresses & that song in particular, which I found on this rather neat little Christmas album when it was re-issued a few years ago: http://www.discogs.com/Various-ZE-Christmas-Album/release/365452
-
Can I just say this. This is an intense and serious and emotional discussion, carried on with respect and aroha by you PA peeps. Keep it up & well done you lot.
-
Hard News: Cultures and violence, in reply to Russell Brown,
that a significant number of the perpetrators of rampage killings, especially in schools, look like victims of those “hyper-gendered cultural pressures”.
Well said Russell. Privilege is not the issue to focus on.
-
Hard News: Cultures and violence, in reply to David Hood,
Yes, based on Heller the historical access to arms matters to what freedom is protected by the second amendment. My point is that it is not something that gets defined by legislation. It is up to the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court.
-
Hard News: Cultures and violence, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Congress et al could enact a gun control law that excluded semi automatic weapons from 2nd amendment protection.
If you are suggesting that any legislature in the USA can simply define certain types of weapons out of the constitutional protection of the second amendment, then I agree with Graeme. That is plain wrong.
An illustration. Can a state define certain things as not being "speech" therefore not protected by the first amendment? well yes, but the Supreme Court may well disagree with the definition and strike the law down.
-
Hard News: Cultures and violence, in reply to Sacha,
The US doesn't have to repeal the Second Amendment, just enforce it - "a properly regulated militia".
unfortunately the Supreme Court's view (5 vs 4 anyway) is that that part of the provision does not modify the right of the individual to bear arms for historically lawful purposes. I.e. Heller means that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.
I've not read the whole decision but the majority opinion sure smells like Scalia.
-
Hard News: Cultures and violence, in reply to BenWilson,
Ben, I disagree that Australia and the USA can be seen as equivalent in this area. They are just not the same and gun culture is not only an aspect of the Ameerical self, but in the constitution which might as well be the Bible so reified is it. Yes legislation can work, but it will work differently in different environments.
In terms of drafting, the law that bans assault weapons, assuming one was passed (whether it be state or federal) needs to be crafted so as to avoid being struck down by the Supreme Court, as well as meet the test for good and effective lawmaking. I do not know if the two are likely to be in harmony or not, I suspect not given the Supreme Court's present makeup. It seems more likely the law will be weaker rather than stronger to accommodate this risk, but it cannot be traded off the make the law "more effective".
You are right the constitution could be amended, but count the number of states won by republicans in the last preseidential election. That is prima facie roughly how many states wiare unlikely to ratify the amendment, and I don't know how that number ever gets to zero. I can't even imagine two thirds of Congress getting it together to propose an amendment. Possibly pessimistically, I think it is politically impossible for the 2nd amendment to be repealed.
-
Hard News: Cultures and violence, in reply to BenWilson,
I recall the change post Port Douglas. However I don't think that gun ownership was as widespread in Australia. Nor were there quite the same strong cultural associations between guns and some fringe-y groups that very well might use those arms to defend their constitutional right to bear arms.
Anyway, premature. You'd have to get this sort of measure past Congress, Senate and the Supreme Court. It might even take a constitutional amendment.
-
The thing that has been twisting my noodle is this. How would you ever get those weapons out of circulation if the US Goverment decided to go ahead and legislate for that?
Imagine, against the odds, that the US decides to limit or eliminate assault weapons. How, when many of those weapons are in the hands of militarist/millenist/survivalist/libertarian tea party wingers/2nd amendment nuts (etc), is the government going to take those weapons away? I foresee Waco x many if that happens.