Next SCOTUS case may give ALL Americans a constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public

[yiostheoy]

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

So? Here is the main point of your story:

CBS News correspondent Jerika Duncan asked, “Is there a connection between concealed-carry permits and the amount of road rage shooting incidents?”

“We don’t have decades’ worth of data here, [but] the data that we do have suggests that that might be happening,” Burnett replied.

It "might" be happening? You mean they don't know if somebody has a CCW or not when they arrest them?

Sounds to me like he was trying to avoid the question.

Here in Chicago, the gangs are now shooting at each other when they see their enemies in cars on the roads.....and you can bet they are including drive by shootings against gang members in their vehicles as road rage incidents...

This report is a typical left wing, anti gun piece of crap.

CCW's are only as good as the laws written to protect the victims. I would have no problem defending myself from an attacker in this state because the laws are written to favor us. I would be afraid to use my license in NYC or California unless it was do or die. In places like that, you can justifiably shoot somebody and still end up in jail or prison.

If Chicago had gun favoring laws for the CCW holders, it would do that city a lot of good to have armed citizens.

I think you mean CFP's or LTC's.

CCW means nothing.

 

[2aguy]

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

But the rate of violence in other countries has also fallen. It's based on there being better entertainment at home, so less people are likely to be hanging out on the streets getting up to no good.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

The numbers don’t lie: banning guns means more crime

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

UK police behind effort to ban knives to end ‘knife violence’

Posting just websites isn't really an argument.

You third one about Australia was written in 2009. The gun ban was in 1997.

The problem is that sometimes things don't show a correlation in the short term, or something happens that leads to more crime.

Australian Institute of Criminology - Violent crime

Certainly looking at this, robbery rates have dropped dramatically since 2001. Sexual assault is at about the same rate.

Victims of violent crime (n per year)

There were 321 murders in 1997, and 249 in 2013. 2003 was the last time there were 300 or more. So, in the long term, perhaps the gun ban has helped reduce murders by 70 a year.

The UK also implemented a gun ban in 1997, and the impact has also been positive.

So, posting websites all referring to the same report which basically took a very small amount of time after a gun ban, to prove something which isn't the case, isn't going to get you very far.

From last year...

Gun city: Young, dumb and armed

The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city.

----

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five year

-----------

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.

-------------

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing - unprovoked.”

------------

Gun crime soars
In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence.

The investigation has found:

• There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months - more than one incident a week since January 2015
• Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
• The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
• Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
• Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts

In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.
============
The second part of the series....
Gun city: Gunslingers of the North West


========================
'Thousands' of illegal guns tipped to be handed over in firearms amnesty

Asked roughly how many he expected to be handed in, Mr Keenan said: "Look I certainly think the number will be in the thousands."

The Australian Crime Commission estimated in 2012 there were at least 250,000 illegal guns in Australia. But a Senate report noted last year it was impossible to estimate how many illicit weapons are out there.

But....military weapons?

And despite Australia's strict border controls, the smuggling of high-powered military-style firearms is also a growing problem.

 

[2aguy]

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

But the rate of violence in other countries has also fallen. It's based on there being better entertainment at home, so less people are likely to be hanging out on the streets getting up to no good.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

The numbers don’t lie: banning guns means more crime

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

UK police behind effort to ban knives to end ‘knife violence’

Posting just websites isn't really an argument.

You third one about Australia was written in 2009. The gun ban was in 1997.

The problem is that sometimes things don't show a correlation in the short term, or something happens that leads to more crime.

Australian Institute of Criminology - Violent crime

Certainly looking at this, robbery rates have dropped dramatically since 2001. Sexual assault is at about the same rate.

Victims of violent crime (n per year)

There were 321 murders in 1997, and 249 in 2013. 2003 was the last time there were 300 or more. So, in the long term, perhaps the gun ban has helped reduce murders by 70 a year.

The UK also implemented a gun ban in 1997, and the impact has also been positive.

So, posting websites all referring to the same report which basically took a very small amount of time after a gun ban, to prove something which isn't the case, isn't going to get you very far.

And of course their gun crime is increasing..not decreasing....

Australia’s Gun 'Buyback' Created a Violent Firearms Black Market. Why Should the U.S. Do the Same?

Just days ago, Australia's Peter Dutton, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and Michael Keenan, Minister for Justice, held a joint press conference to announce "We don't tolerate gun smuggling in Australia and we know Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs are engaged in it. We have been keen to send the strongest possible message from Canberra that we're not going to tolerate people smuggling in guns or smuggling in gun parts. You'd appreciate that even one smuggled gun can do an enormous amount of damage."

When politicians announce that they don't tolerate something, it's a fair bet that the something is completely out of hand.

"Police admit they cannot eradicate a black market that is peddling illegal guns to criminals," the Adelaide Advertiser concededa few years ago. "Motorcycle gang members and convicted criminals barred from buying guns in South Australia have no difficulty obtaining illegal firearms - including fully automatic weapons."

More recently, the country's The New Daily gained access to "previously unpublished data for firearms offences" and reporteda surge in crime "including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period."

"Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before with the country's underground market for firearms ballooning in the past decade," the report added. "[T]he national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns."

Much as the Mafia and other organized criminal outfits rose to power, wealth, and prominence by supplying illegal liquor during Prohibition in the United States, outlaw motorcycle gangs in Australia appear to be building international connections and making money by supplying guns to willing buyers.

3/17/16


Eight shootings in one week

THIS could be the worst month for gun violence in Victoria since 2014, with eight shootings in the first 10 days of March including one man being killed.

The spate of shootings across the state has led to a specific taskforce from Victoria Police to focus on the increase of incidents.

The worst month for gun violence since 2014 was October last year, when there were 12 shootings, including one fatality.

Fairfax Media reports March is on track to beat the number of shootings last October, making it the worst month for shootings since at least 2014.

The latest shooting was last night, when the driver of a black Audi fired at another car with a handgun.

Victoria Police say a Mazda was stopped at a Sunshine West intersection when the Audi pulled up beside it.

The two men in the Audi then drew their guns and the driver fired into the rear passenger side of the Mazda

Scary trend in Australian gun crime

MONDAY’S siege in Sydney that saw three people shot and three held hostage before the gunman turned the firearm on himself was a terrifying reminder of the Lindt cafe crisis just over a year ago.

It comes as another man was shot dead in Victoria at close range last night, three days after a man was killed in a suspected shooting at a Melbourne motel and four days after a man was shot dead at a property in Ipswich, Queensland, with police called just after 2am.

Last month, a man accused of a shooting in Canberra allegedly boasted to police that the victim would be dead if he had pulled the trigger, because he had significant experience with firearms, despite not having a licence.

There were 207 firearms deaths in Australia in 2013, a rate of 0.93 per 100,000 people, higher than in 19 other countries, including the UK, Bolivia and Zimbabwe.

While we often shake our heads in horror at America’s problems with gun crime, it’s clear we are far from immune from the deadly influence of firearms.

-----------

In New South Wales, weapons offences have risen 8.7 per cent per year over the past five years, to 11,471 in the year to September 2015. The New Daily reported in November that incidents involving firearms rose 83 per cent in NSW from 2005-6 to 2014-5. Charges for possession and trafficking of guns in South Australia saw a 49 per cent rise over four years.



------------



Victoria is similarly affected, with a 52 per cent increase in firearms offences to 3645 between 2009-10 and 2014-15. In Tasmania, there was a 26 per cent increase in firearm-related offences between December 2012 and 2015.

Victoria police chief Steve Fontana this week expressed fears about the rapid increase in shootings in the past eight months. The state’s Crime Statistics Agency Chief Statistician Fiona Dowsley said in December: “Weapons and explosives offences and drug use and possession offences have again seen statistically significant increases this quarter.”

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

So? Here is the main point of your story:

CBS News correspondent Jerika Duncan asked, “Is there a connection between concealed-carry permits and the amount of road rage shooting incidents?”

“We don’t have decades’ worth of data here, [but] the data that we do have suggests that that might be happening,” Burnett replied.

It "might" be happening? You mean they don't know if somebody has a CCW or not when they arrest them?

Sounds to me like he was trying to avoid the question.

Here in Chicago, the gangs are now shooting at each other when they see their enemies in cars on the roads.....and you can bet they are including drive by shootings against gang members in their vehicles as road rage incidents...

This report is a typical left wing, anti gun piece of crap.

CCW's are only as good as the laws written to protect the victims. I would have no problem defending myself from an attacker in this state because the laws are written to favor us. I would be afraid to use my license in NYC or California unless it was do or die. In places like that, you can justifiably shoot somebody and still end up in jail or prison.

If Chicago had gun favoring laws for the CCW holders, it would do that city a lot of good to have armed citizens.

I think you mean CFP's or LTC's.

CCW means nothing.

That's what we refer to them here. It depends on where you go I guess.

 

[yiostheoy]

No, I was speaking on behalf of my state who has yet to adopt Stand Your Ground. They were working on it when the George Zimmerman case brought so much uproar in the MSM, so they tossed the idea until a better time.

I do believe in Stand Your Ground.

I believe "stand your ground" is a dumb idea.

it goes against all the principles of fighting explained by Bruce Lee in his books.

You always want to keep your distance/interval from your opponent.

You never want your opponent to violate that interval.

You only close distance when you are striking.

And so if you are not striking you never stand your ground.

Stand your ground is some redneck law devised by rednecks who have no idea of how to defend themselves or how to fight.

Amazon.com: Bruce Lee: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

So how did an actor/ Karate guy become an authority on that?

Sure we keep our distance in martial arts because it involves a lot of kicking which can't be done in most cases close up. The more distance from your opponent, the more ability you have to block punches and kicks.

Stand your Ground is a law that removes retreat if using deadly force. If somebody starts giving you a hard time at a bus stop--a bus you need to be on for work or an event, legally you'd have an obligation to leave that bus stop and miss your bus.

Stand your Ground allows you to defend yourself without a legal obligation to retreat. I wish we had that here. I don't want somebody to be able to push me around just because I have a firearm that I may need to use. Our law states I'm the one that has to leave an altercation or be legally disabled from using deadly force.

I would not hold Bruce Lee's movies against him.

His books and his fighting skills are excellent.

A gunfight is still a fight.

 

[2aguy]

So this means I can walk around with a gun and if one you right wing pieces of shit threaten me I can shoot you?

Only if you believe you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm...and can prove that to a judge....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I was speaking on behalf of my state who has yet to adopt Stand Your Ground. They were working on it when the George Zimmerman case brought so much uproar in the MSM, so they tossed the idea until a better time.

I do believe in Stand Your Ground.

I believe "stand your ground" is a dumb idea.

it goes against all the principles of fighting explained by Bruce Lee in his books.

You always want to keep your distance/interval from your opponent.

You never want your opponent to violate that interval.

You only close distance when you are striking.

And so if you are not striking you never stand your ground.

Stand your ground is some redneck law devised by rednecks who have no idea of how to defend themselves or how to fight.

Amazon.com: Bruce Lee: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

So how did an actor/ Karate guy become an authority on that?

Sure we keep our distance in martial arts because it involves a lot of kicking which can't be done in most cases close up. The more distance from your opponent, the more ability you have to block punches and kicks.

Stand your Ground is a law that removes retreat if using deadly force. If somebody starts giving you a hard time at a bus stop--a bus you need to be on for work or an event, legally you'd have an obligation to leave that bus stop and miss your bus.

Stand your Ground allows you to defend yourself without a legal obligation to retreat. I wish we had that here. I don't want somebody to be able to push me around just because I have a firearm that I may need to use. Our law states I'm the one that has to leave an altercation or be legally disabled from using deadly force.

I would not hold Bruce Lee's movies against him.

His books and his fighting skills are excellent.

A gunfight is still a fight.

Yes it is, but there's a difference between gun fights and physical fighting. Different strategies are used.

 

[2aguy]

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

The usual twisted claptrap from the usual suspects.

From "U.S. v. Heller", Opinion Of The Court written by Antonin Scalia:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

....the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed.

Former Justice Scalia says your definition is not only wrong, it is ABSURD.

I've already discussed this.

The problem here is that "bear" can mean "carry". Just like "stool" can mean "feces", does't mean it does.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If you look here, and read it, and understand it, you'll see they saw "bear arms" as "render military service" or "militia duty". In fact, if you read what they wrote with "bear arms" meaning "carry arms", it's just laughable. Like somehow "carrying arms" is done for the protection of the people. Er... I don't think so.

There's no reason for an amendment of the Constitution to protect walking around with guns. All of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights have a specific purpose... the Second Amendment is there to protect the militia, which in turn protects the people.

So, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need, the right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in the militia.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says you are wrong...

From Heller....and Muscarello...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

 

[yiostheoy]

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

So? Here is the main point of your story:

CBS News correspondent Jerika Duncan asked, “Is there a connection between concealed-carry permits and the amount of road rage shooting incidents?”

“We don’t have decades’ worth of data here, [but] the data that we do have suggests that that might be happening,” Burnett replied.

It "might" be happening? You mean they don't know if somebody has a CCW or not when they arrest them?

Sounds to me like he was trying to avoid the question.

Here in Chicago, the gangs are now shooting at each other when they see their enemies in cars on the roads.....and you can bet they are including drive by shootings against gang members in their vehicles as road rage incidents...

This report is a typical left wing, anti gun piece of crap.

CCW's are only as good as the laws written to protect the victims. I would have no problem defending myself from an attacker in this state because the laws are written to favor us. I would be afraid to use my license in NYC or California unless it was do or die. In places like that, you can justifiably shoot somebody and still end up in jail or prison.

If Chicago had gun favoring laws for the CCW holders, it would do that city a lot of good to have armed citizens.

I think you mean CFP's or LTC's.

CCW means nothing.

That's what we refer to them here. It depends on where you go I guess.

CFP -- concealed firearms permit

LTC -- license to carry

 

[yiostheoy]

No, I was speaking on behalf of my state who has yet to adopt Stand Your Ground. They were working on it when the George Zimmerman case brought so much uproar in the MSM, so they tossed the idea until a better time.

I do believe in Stand Your Ground.

I believe "stand your ground" is a dumb idea.

it goes against all the principles of fighting explained by Bruce Lee in his books.

You always want to keep your distance/interval from your opponent.

You never want your opponent to violate that interval.

You only close distance when you are striking.

And so if you are not striking you never stand your ground.

Stand your ground is some redneck law devised by rednecks who have no idea of how to defend themselves or how to fight.

Amazon.com: Bruce Lee: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

So how did an actor/ Karate guy become an authority on that?

Sure we keep our distance in martial arts because it involves a lot of kicking which can't be done in most cases close up. The more distance from your opponent, the more ability you have to block punches and kicks.

Stand your Ground is a law that removes retreat if using deadly force. If somebody starts giving you a hard time at a bus stop--a bus you need to be on for work or an event, legally you'd have an obligation to leave that bus stop and miss your bus.

Stand your Ground allows you to defend yourself without a legal obligation to retreat. I wish we had that here. I don't want somebody to be able to push me around just because I have a firearm that I may need to use. Our law states I'm the one that has to leave an altercation or be legally disabled from using deadly force.

I would not hold Bruce Lee's movies against him.

His books and his fighting skills are excellent.

A gunfight is still a fight.

Yes it is, but there's a difference between gun fights and physical fighting. Different strategies are used.

Same principles however --

Speed of attack.

Force of attack.

Accuracy of attack.

Distance.

Numbers, as in a brawl.

 

[2aguy]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

But we were told the same thing about Roberts....and Hugh Hewitt....a lawyer, and radio host and who worked with Roberts told us he would end obamacare....didn't work out that way....

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

you would still have to pass a check to buy a gun

 

[2aguy]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

The "correct way" or the way the right wants people to vote?

I've stated the facts on the 2A many times, and almost every time people will IGNORE the facts because they don't suit their agenda.

The correct way, as in the way that is mandated by a thorough reading of the Constitution on this issue.

Okay, which would mean that the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Seeing as this is how the founders decided it should be, seeing as this is how the Supreme Court has ruled it, and seeing as this is the only way for it to make any sense.....

I reject your interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly in District of Columbia v. Heller that there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun, and that the Founding Fathers didn't just intend it for militia purposes. I doubt that self-defense was blank from the Founders' minds when they drafted the Constitution.

Well it's not surprising that you reject my interpretation. Everyone does. Why? Well because they have an agenda.

The point is, ALL THE EVIDENCE points to what I have said. I had a debate with someone on here, and they presented nothing, but managed to just ignore everything I presented, which included the Supreme Court both past and present, the Founding Fathers including George Washington.

Also, you don't understand my interpretation, so again, hardly surprising you're rejecting it.

There is an individual right to own a weapon. This is NOT reliant on Militia service. The reason it is protected in the 2A is so that the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need. Rather than relying on govt arms, it relies on those in the general populace.

There is an individual right to be in the militia. This is NOT reliant on militia service. You don't need to be in the militia to then, in a time of need, to then join up the militia.

There is other evidence of this. In the early 20th Century there Dick Act was passed, which made the National Guard. Now, if everyone has the right to be in the militia, then the National Guard would be as ineffective as the militia was at dealing with more modern threats and wars. So they made the "unorganized militia" so that all males aged 17-45 would automatically be in the "militia", but technically rather than in reality, so then these people could demand to be in the militia, which would in effect be the National Guard. There is not other reason to make an "unorganized militia" which has, in over 100 years, never done a single thing, never met, never operated, never called up, never done one thing. It exists for one reason, and that, as I explained, is because the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia, or as the Founding Fathers said "render military service" or "militia duty".

Telling a lie doesn't make it true...there is nothing in your post backed up by what the Founders actually stated, what they put in the Bill of Rights or what the Supreme Court has ruled........

Heller points out the history and specifically states both history and legal history show it is an individual right...troll.

 

[2aguy]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

The question is where does Neil Gorsuch stand compared with Scalia -- further to the "right" or not?

Scalia in Heller interpreted "bear arms" as bringing them from your home to your militia duty when mustered out.

Will Gorsuch take the same view? Or will he interpreted the word differently.

No...he didn't...

 

[yiostheoy]

you would still have to pass a check to buy a gun

Background checks are very popular and will never go away.

Almost 99.99999999 of the public likes them whether they are pro or anti gun.

They don't really accomplish much but they are popular and they look good on paper.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I was speaking on behalf of my state who has yet to adopt Stand Your Ground. They were working on it when the George Zimmerman case brought so much uproar in the MSM, so they tossed the idea until a better time.

I do believe in Stand Your Ground.

I believe "stand your ground" is a dumb idea.

it goes against all the principles of fighting explained by Bruce Lee in his books.

You always want to keep your distance/interval from your opponent.

You never want your opponent to violate that interval.

You only close distance when you are striking.

And so if you are not striking you never stand your ground.

Stand your ground is some redneck law devised by rednecks who have no idea of how to defend themselves or how to fight.

Amazon.com: Bruce Lee: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

So how did an actor/ Karate guy become an authority on that?

Sure we keep our distance in martial arts because it involves a lot of kicking which can't be done in most cases close up. The more distance from your opponent, the more ability you have to block punches and kicks.

Stand your Ground is a law that removes retreat if using deadly force. If somebody starts giving you a hard time at a bus stop--a bus you need to be on for work or an event, legally you'd have an obligation to leave that bus stop and miss your bus.

Stand your Ground allows you to defend yourself without a legal obligation to retreat. I wish we had that here. I don't want somebody to be able to push me around just because I have a firearm that I may need to use. Our law states I'm the one that has to leave an altercation or be legally disabled from using deadly force.

I would not hold Bruce Lee's movies against him.

His books and his fighting skills are excellent.

A gunfight is still a fight.

Yes it is, but there's a difference between gun fights and physical fighting. Different strategies are used.

Same principles however --

Speed of attack.

Force of attack.

Accuracy of attack.

Distance.

Numbers, as in a brawl.

Some are similar and others not.

For instance I would never pull a gun on somebody right in front of them. I would space myself out by at least four feet. physical fight? In Kempo, we moved in on the opponent. We had one belt where we studied self-defense against an opponent with weapons other than guns. The trick to that is never attack the weapon--you attack the hands or arms that are holding the weapon. To do that, you need to move in on your opponent.

 

[2aguy]

I reject your interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly in District of Columbia v. Heller that there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun, and that the Founding Fathers didn't just intend it for militia purposes. I doubt that self-defense was blank from the Founders' minds when they drafted the Constitution.

Well it's not surprising that you reject my interpretation. Everyone does. Why? Well because they have an agenda.

The point is, ALL THE EVIDENCE points to what I have said. I had a debate with someone on here, and they presented nothing, but managed to just ignore everything I presented, which included the Supreme Court both past and present, the Founding Fathers including George Washington.

Also, you don't understand my interpretation, so again, hardly surprising you're rejecting it.

There is an individual right to own a weapon. This is NOT reliant on Militia service. The reason it is protected in the 2A is so that the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need. Rather than relying on govt arms, it relies on those in the general populace.

There is an individual right to be in the militia. This is NOT reliant on militia service. You don't need to be in the militia to then, in a time of need, to then join up the militia.

There is other evidence of this. In the early 20th Century there Dick Act was passed, which made the National Guard. Now, if everyone has the right to be in the militia, then the National Guard would be as ineffective as the militia was at dealing with more modern threats and wars. So they made the "unorganized militia" so that all males aged 17-45 would automatically be in the "militia", but technically rather than in reality, so then these people could demand to be in the militia, which would in effect be the National Guard. There is not other reason to make an "unorganized militia" which has, in over 100 years, never done a single thing, never met, never operated, never called up, never done one thing. It exists for one reason, and that, as I explained, is because the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia, or as the Founding Fathers said "render military service" or "militia duty".

Militia service is a DUTY not a RIGHT.

Keeping arms in your home is a RIGHT.

Well in a manner yes. The Founding Fathers looked at it that a person could be compelled to be in the militia, but also that a person could demand to be in the militia, ie, have the right.

It works both ways. But the 2A prevents the US federal govt from stopping people from being in the militia, because they said there was a right to bear arms.

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
George Washington

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"


"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

George Washington also used the term "bear arms" to mean militia duty, and yes, they did use militia duty as a duty.

However, how do you protect the militia from attack from the Federal government? You protect the two things a militia needs. Arms and personnel.

Sounds like a duty to me.

Good for you.

The point is, all over the place there is this "right to bear arms", and it comes out as "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Bill of Rights protected specific things, and the 2A clearly protected the militia, seeing as the first half of the Amendment talks about... about... the militia, oddly enough.

So, you have this Amendment... It starts with "the militia is really damn important and protects the people from the horrible government", then you have the second part which says "And to protect the militia we're going to stop the govt from being able to take guns away from individuals so they can't fuck the militia over by taking away all their arms"

Now, this is where it gets interesting. Your version of the Amendment would go like this "and we're going to protect the right of people to walk around with guns in their pockets for no fucking reason other than we're bored today".

Or my version which is "and guns don't kill people, people do, so we're going to stop the nasty old government from preventing individuals from being in the militia, so the people can use those guns we can take away, and then the militia is safe".

Have a guess which one makes sense to you.

Nope.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-------
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.

 

[2aguy]

No, I was speaking on behalf of my state who has yet to adopt Stand Your Ground. They were working on it when the George Zimmerman case brought so much uproar in the MSM, so they tossed the idea until a better time.

I do believe in Stand Your Ground.

I believe "stand your ground" is a dumb idea.

it goes against all the principles of fighting explained by Bruce Lee in his books.

You always want to keep your distance/interval from your opponent.

You never want your opponent to violate that interval.

You only close distance when you are striking.

And so if you are not striking you never stand your ground.

Stand your ground is some redneck law devised by rednecks who have no idea of how to defend themselves or how to fight.

Amazon.com: Bruce Lee: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

You don't understand the legal principal in Stand Your Ground....it simply states that you are not obligated to prove to the court that you could not run away from your attacker...you may defend yourself if you are in a legal place and are not required to first retreat, and then prove that you could not retreat.....you are essentially innocent until they prove you were the aggressor.

 

[2aguy]

Ok -- on the subject of when to shoot ... .

You need to be in fear of your life or of severe bodily harm.

A black eye or a bloody nose is not enough.

Having a gun or knife pointed at you IS enough.

Having someone trying to knock you unconscious IS enough.

Seeing someone start to stomp on someone else who is unconscious IS enough.

Best thing is to keep your distance from someone else and shout at them to keep their distance too. If they keep coming at you then that IS enough.

Not really. The law is you have to escape danger if you can when outside of your home; inside your home is different.

You cannot be an aggressor in a situation and then use deadly force. If somebody cuts you off on the road, you can't tailgate them for a mile, and then when the person gets out of the car, shoot him. You have to not be the aggressor.

Bloddy nose and black eye? Sure, that's enough if you are attacked. Check out the George Zimmerman case. The jury (some against their own conscience) voted not guilty when Zimmerman was getting beat up by Trayvon Martin. He used his gun to kill Martin who was 17 years old at the time. Perfectly legal in the state of Florida.

There is no law that an attacker has to be armed for you to use deadly force yourself. You can legally kill an unarmed attacker if justified by the laws of your state.

So you don't believe in "stand your ground" then huh?

I personally always try to escape before shooting someone else.

But this is not the legal requirement everywhere.

That isn't the issue with Stand Your Ground....it is a legal issue.....where you aren't attacked as the victim if some prosecutor decides you should have run away first.....since he wasn't there and wasn't attacked.

 

[2aguy]

Stand Your Ground was not an issue in the Zimmerman Trial...