LJ;1392932 wrote:Btw, really lame source? The Asahi Shimbun is considered the largest and moat respectable news publication in Japan, LOL

I was talking about ausgunowners.wordpress.com which didn't even provide an actual link to the Asahi Shimbun article...

Who knows if they're telling the truth or not at that blog?

LJ;1392929 wrote:Right.....:rolleyes:

Yes. Exactly right. Whereas in the United States we have as many guns as we have people. Why is it so hard to accept the proposition that the Japanese have shown that in some possible world that you can largely get rid of guns and gun violence?

Why not just stick with the normative questions...whether it's morally right to do so...whether the infringement on liberty outweighs the benefits, etc.

BoatShoes;1392997 wrote:......whether the infringement on liberty outweighs the benefits, etc.

That's not the trade off. It's an unalienable right. It's not a liberty issue. It's a fundamental rights issue.

And you have to marvel at what they consider "illegal guns flourishing" in that article. Outrage over two gangsters killing each other and <2,000 illegal firearms and fewer than 20 gun related injuries in the whole country. That happened last weekend in the U.S. probably lol.

Once again we're playing language games...because I chose the word "Erase" as opposed to "largely Erased", etc.
:laugh:

BoatShoes;1392996 wrote:I was talking about ausgunowners.wordpress.com which didn't even provide an actual link to the Asahi Shimbun article...

Who knows if they're telling the truth or not at that blog?

the link is on the page, can you read Japanese?

Con_Alma;1392998 wrote:That's not the trade off. It's an unalienable right. It's not a liberty issue. It's a fundamental rights issue.

You are wrong. Under 14th Amendment Jurisprudence, Congress can 'infringe" on our fundamental rights...including the second amendment if they have a compelling interest for doing so and can do so in a narrowly tailored manner.

LJ;1393005 wrote:the link is on the page, can you read Japanese?

I clicked the link. It converts to English and it is not the article they're talking about. It's a link to the front page of the Asahi Shimbun.

BoatShoes;1393007 wrote:You are wrong. Under 14th Amendment Jurisprudence, Congress can 'infringe" on our fundamental rights...including the second amendment if they have a compelling interest for doing so and can do so in a narrowly tailored manner.

The narrowly tailored manner is the key. What part of my statement was wrong? It absolutely is a rights issue as opposed to a liberty issue.

BoatShoes;1392997 wrote:Yes. Exactly right. Whereas in the United States we have as many guns as we have people. Why is it so hard to accept the proposition that the Japanese have shown that in some possible world that you can largely get rid of guns and gun violence?

Why not just stick with the normative questions...whether it's morally right to do so...whether the infringement on liberty outweighs the benefits, etc.

Because they didn't "get rid of guns". They had a low ownership rate to begin with and low murder rates.

BoatShoes;1393008 wrote:I clicked the link. It converts to English and it is not the article they're talking about. It's a link to the front page of the Asahi Shimbun.

Not me, takes me to the article in Japanese dated with the same date. Sorry about your luck.

LJ;1393013 wrote:Not me, takes me to the article in Japanese dated with the same date. Sorry about your luck.

I have my doubts that what you're saying is correct. When you click the link from your Australian Gun Blog, this is the link.

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200704230057.html


These are the Japanese words that pop up.

&#12393;&#12435;&#12394;&#12467;&#12531;&#12486;&#12531;&#12484;&#12434;&#12362;&#25506;&#12375;&#12391;&#12377;&#12363;&#65311;&#65288age Not Found&#65289;&#12362;&#25506;&#12375;&#12398;&#35352;&#20107;&#12399;&#35211;&#12388;&#12363;&#12426;&#12414;&#12379;&#12435;&#12391;&#12375;&#12383;&#12290;
&#65333;&#65330;&#65324;&#12364;&#35492;&#12387;&#12390;&#12356;&#12427;&#12363;&#12289;&#20844;&#38283;&#26399;&#38291;&#12434;&#32066;&#20102;&#12375;&#12383;&#21487;&#33021;&#24615;&#12364;&#12354;&#12426;&#12414;&#12377;&#12290;
&#26397;&#21002;&#12399;&#21320;&#21069;&#65301;&#26178;&#26356;&#26032;&#12391;&#12377;

When you put that into Google Translate, it translates to:

"Are you looking for Content"

"Article you are looking for could not be found.
URL is incorrect, there is a possibility that the Public period ended.
Morning paper is an update 5:00 am"

Then the page converts to:

http://www.asahi.com/english/

Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

Con_Alma;1393009 wrote:The narrowly tailored manner is the key. What part of my statement was wrong? It absolutely is a rights issue as opposed to a liberty issue.

You consistently act like the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed up upon in any way whatsoever because it is a fundamental right/liberty and "cannot be infringed upon" as you've consistently written. That is not the case. Fundamental rights/liberties can be infringed upon and when they are, under due process clause jurisprudence the standard of review is strict scrutiny but the courts will uphold the infringement if there was a compelling interest in doing so and it's narrowly tailored. Point being, fundamental rights can be infringed upon and it's a tradeoff against the compelling interests of Congress to determine when they can be. Which you suggested it is not.

BoatShoes;1393135 wrote:I have my doubts that what you're saying is correct. When you click the link from your Australian Gun Blog, this is the link.

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200704230057.html


These are the Japanese words that pop up.

&#12393;&#12435;&#12394;&#12467;&#12531;&#12486;&#12531;&#12484;&#12434;&#12362;&#25506;&#12375;&#12391;&#12377;&#12363;&#65311;&#65288age Not Found&#65289;&#12362;&#25506;&#12375;&#12398;&#35352;&#20107;&#12399;&#35211;&#12388;&#12363;&#12426;&#12414;&#12379;&#12435;&#12391;&#12375;&#12383;&#12290;
&#65333;&#65330;&#65324;&#12364;&#35492;&#12387;&#12390;&#12356;&#12427;&#12363;&#12289;&#20844;&#38283;&#26399;&#38291;&#12434;&#32066;&#20102;&#12375;&#12383;&#21487;&#33021;&#24615;&#12364;&#12354;&#12426;&#12414;&#12377;&#12290;
&#26397;&#21002;&#12399;&#21320;&#21069;&#65301;&#26178;&#26356;&#26032;&#12391;&#12377;

When you put that into Google Translate, it translates to:

"Are you looking for Content"

"Article you are looking for could not be found.
URL is incorrect, there is a possibility that the Public period ended.
Morning paper is an update 5:00 am"

Then the page converts to:

http://www.asahi.com/english/

Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

Is it can't be found or the front page? You have claimed both. I have my doubts that what you are saying is correct.

BoatShoes;1393136 wrote:You consistently act like the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed up upon in any way whatsoever because it is a fundamental right/liberty and "cannot be infringed upon" as you've consistently written. That is not the case. Fundamental rights/liberties can be infringed upon and when they are, under due process clause jurisprudence the standard of review is strict scrutiny but the courts will uphold the infringement if there was a compelling interest in doing so and it's narrowly tailored. Point being, fundamental rights can be infringed upon and it's a tradeoff against the compelling interests of Congress to determine when they can be. Which you suggested it is not.

Would you mind elaborating on why you think the Due Process clause allows the infringement of rights without establishing that the current rights are prohibiting the rights of another as outlined in it? Admittedly, it's been some time since I've read it, but I don't recall this being a provision in reading it, but I'm open to hearing a formulated case as such.

You consistently act like the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed up upon in any way whatsoever because it is a fundamental right/liberty and "cannot be infringed upon" as you've consistently written. That is not the case. Fundamental rights/liberties can be infringed upon and when they are, under due process clause jurisprudence the standard of review is strict scrutiny but the courts will uphold the infringement if there was a compelling interest in doing so and it's narrowly tailored.

...and you consistently act like gun control, both as is presently proposed by some in Congress, and as you have proposed even more stringent measures, can be enacted by trumping the 2nd amendment with a deluded misinterpretation of the 14th.

Under 'strict scrutiny, an intellectually honest case cannot be made for this 'problem' being a crucial or critical override, nor has it been proven that we are without any other means of accomplishing a prefferred solution. Nor is it narrowly tailored nor 'the least restrictive' method possible.

Fail, fail, fail.

LJ;1393145 wrote:Is it can't be found or the front page? You have claimed both. I have my doubts that what you are saying is correct.

It was a mistake. Because I cant read japanese my guess was that it was the front page. Then, i translated it because you were being obstinate and would not admit your link was pretty lame.

HitsRus;1393179 wrote:...and you consistently act like gun control, both as is presently proposed by some in Congress, and as you have proposed even more stringent measures, can be enacted by trumping the 2nd amendment with a deluded misinterpretation of the 14th.

Under 'strict scrutiny, an intellectually honest case cannot be made for this 'problem' being a crucial or critical override, nor has it been proven that we are without any other means of accomplishing a prefferred solution. Nor is it narrowly tailored nor 'the least restrictive' method possible.

Fail, fail, fail.

I agree that some more extreme measures wouldnt satisfy struct scrutiny but benign things like universal background checks would. Youre aiming too high here. Im just trying o get the "constitutionalists" aming us take at least the first step and cknowledge that guns can be regulated.

And who knows.. maybe we might as a society come to think we ight have a compelling interest in not having little kids get murdered by guns?

BoatShoes;1393199 wrote:It was a mistake. Because I cant read japanese my guess was that it was the front page. Then, i translated it because you were being obstinate and would not admit your link was pretty lame.

LOL at you calling my link lame because you dont like it. Its not like you can't even google it and see that it is a valid article.

BoatShoes;1393202 wrote:And who knows.. maybe we might as a society come to think we ight have a compelling interest in not having little kids get murdered by guns?

Well of course not, but we as a society also might have a compelling interest in not having little kids choke and die on steak. Doesn't mean the problem lies with the freedom to purchase and eat steak as a family, though.

The struggle here is, for many, trying to throw out the bathwater (we'll say it has Anthrax in it to create a larger sense of urgency) without throwing out the baby, which is why I'm not sure there is an answer. How do you create laws that disarm people who intend to break laws? To me, it seems circular in reasoning. Moreover, how would you do so without disarming innocents who have no intention of breaking the law?

As I think we can all agree, this is not an easy subject. I think that's why we need to disagree, even strongly, while keeping in mind that many of us are indeed trying the best we can to come up with the solution to a problem.

O-Trap;1393213 wrote:How do you create laws that disarm people who intend to break laws? To me, it seems circular in reasoning. Moreover, how would you do so without disarming innocents who have no intention of breaking the law?

BoatShoes;1393200 wrote:Im just trying o get the "constitutionalists" aming us take at least the first step and cknowledge that guns can be regulated.

They can't. Not legally under the Constitution anyway. Not that it matters. When is the last time the likes of you gave a fuck about what the Constitution says? The Constitution is the law the government must obey, but if we can't enforce the law then I guess it isn't.

Using Japan is a convenient example, and they curtailed gun violence the same way you are going to have to do it. By having the U.S. military occupy the land and use their guns to take ours.

BoatShoes;1393136 wrote:You consistently act like the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed up upon in any way whatsoever because it is a fundamental right/liberty and "cannot be infringed upon" as you've consistently written. That is not the case. Fundamental rights/liberties can be infringed upon and when they are, under due process clause jurisprudence the standard of review is strict scrutiny but the courts will uphold the infringement if there was a compelling interest in doing so and it's narrowly tailored. Point being, fundamental rights can be infringed upon and it's a tradeoff against the compelling interests of Congress to determine when they can be. Which you suggested it is not.

They can be regulated, they can be restricted, the can be managed in the legislated process of society's desires,. They cannot not be eliminated from use by the people.

Nothing I wrote in my post was wrong that you quoted. It's not a liberty issue. It's a rights issue.

Cleveland Buck;1393237 wrote:They can't. Not legally under the Constitution anyway. Not that it matters. When is the last time the likes of you gave a **** about what the Constitution says? The Constitution is the law the government must obey, but if we can't enforce the law then I guess it isn't.

I disagree. Not only can they be regulated but they are.