The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

Here's 8

Thank you---
I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -

Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again

My usual example, when someone asks about the utility of an AR for defense, is the Korean grocers during the LA riots.
That is unusual now, but it is not likely for society to always remain so pacified.
With the end of fossil fuels, it is likely there will be more starvation, crime, riots, civil unrest, etc.
There can also be natural disasters, plagues, meteorite strikes, eruptions, economic depressions, or even civil wars over politics.
No society has been without social upheaval involving mass violence for more than 400 years or so on average.
It would be wrong to throw away long term practices over short term placid periods.

 

[Markle]

So, the Union's government cannot infringe on the right of the militia to keep and bear arms for the Union?

The Federal Government must NOT stop itself from having an army of the people?

Why the FUCK did the founders feel it necessary to protect the federal government from itself?


Your argument is WRONG and STUPID.

Duhhhh.... Because they had left Merry Ol' England because of the oppression.

 

[Markle]

Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.

Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.

I own several

What difference does it make if the gun is dressed up to look "evil", like an AR-15 or a regular, wood stock, hunting rifle?

Explain to us how you describe an "assault weapon".

 

[Markle]

Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".

It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form. Here you can order one for $38.00.

Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide. It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
(2013)
Consensus Study Report

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

Wrong.

Heller concerned solely the possession of handguns.

Heller did not address the constitutionality of the regulation of long guns.

And Heller established no mandated level of judicial review to determine the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures:

‘The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose [of self-defense]. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.’ ibid

Consequently, Heller does not apply to bans on shotguns or ARs.

 

[Markle]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

Not a snowballs chance.

Do you know the process required to amend the Constitution? Please share it with us.

 

[Markle]

No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

BUT, you do believe in banning people from defending themselves. Why?

 

[Markle]

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it amends this: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Well regulated militia of the whole People are Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply post the actual text of the Second Amendment, along with punctuation?

What part of that is not clear to you. And, without your interpretation too!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

The Federals have no say in that. And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons. But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific. For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns. But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.

It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.

Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
But I understood that is likely what you meant.

Nonsense.

An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.

You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.

You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.

That’s a losing tactic.

The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.

 

[Markle]

Have you ever tried it; just to see what this is all about-?

I have, (not a regular smoker but have tried it); I found it hard or impossible to be "angry" while under its influence.
Do you have any real evidence where someone who was "high" committed a crime or injured someone-?

Just asking -

Yes, as a matter of fact, there have been several fatal accidents right here in Tallahassee Florida where the driver was not drunk but was stoned on Marijuana. If you'll look, the accidents and deaths have increased where Marijuana is now legal. How is it you have not noticed.

 

[Blues Man]

Here's 8

Thank you---
I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -

Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again

Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs

 

[Blues Man]

I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.

Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.

Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.

I own several

An AR really is too weak for a clean kill that you want for hunting. An AR is only good for small things like rabbits or coyotes.
But hunting is not the main purpose of weapons. They are mainly for home defense and anti crime, including criminal governments.

I don't know many people who ever said a .223 was more than a varmint gun

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".

It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form. Here you can order one for $38.00.

Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide. It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
(2013)
Consensus Study Report

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

Two names come up on that report as experts and contrubutors.

RONALD C. KESSLER, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA GARY KLECK, Florida State University, Tallahassee

Kessler and Kleck have been defrocked for using really fuzzy math. In fact, much of their work is supposed to be about civilian shootings but the included Police and Military shootings in those figures making the output completely erroneous. Any report with their names on it is subject to doubt on it's accuracy.The only name left off was Klecks partner in crime Lott.

I have looked over the whole thing. And it didn't cost any money. You left out the fact that you can download a PDF version for free. Kind of shoots things down the tubes fast, don't it. Here is an exert from a vox.com writeup on lott and kleck who actually started the gun cult we see in here today. It's based on false premises and leads back to the Kleck research for Lott in 1998.

In any case, extrapolating from the Kleck-Gertz survey leads to manifestly absurd results. For there to be more than 2 million defensive gun uses, homeowners would have to defend themselves with a firearm in more than 100 percent of burglaries (to choose one category of crime). And if other findings in the Kleck-Gertz survey were correct, more than 100,000 criminals would be injured by law-abiding gun owners annually. Hospital records reveal no such armies of wounded. (Kleck stands by his findings.)

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here's 8

Thank you---
I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -

Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again

Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs

There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed. That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked. But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference. I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson". Either one will get a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.

 

[Blues Man]

Here's 8

Thank you---
I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -

Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again

Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs

There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed. That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked. But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference. I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson". Either one will get a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.

I never said I was safer because I carry. I also never said I was less safe for carrying.

Safety is an illusion as all life is risk. Some people choose to ignore all risk and place their safety in the hands of others I choose not to place my safety in the hands of others because other people most likely won't be around if I am ever in danger.

If a gun neither makes me more safe or less safe then why do you have a problem with anyone who is legally eligible owning and carrying?

 

[Rigby5]

Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".

It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form. Here you can order one for $38.00.

Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide. It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
(2013)
Consensus Study Report

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

I don't see it saying anywhere that the CDC was involved.
The listed contributers were:

{...
Contributors
National Research Council; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Executive Office, Institute of Medicine; Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence; Committee on Law and Justice; Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors
... }

 

[Rigby5]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

Wrong.

Heller concerned solely the possession of handguns.

Heller did not address the constitutionality of the regulation of long guns.

And Heller established no mandated level of judicial review to determine the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures:

‘The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose [of self-defense]. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.’ ibid

Consequently, Heller does not apply to bans on shotguns or ARs.

I agree it was a narrow decision, but my point is that the self defense purpose should also apply even more to shotguns and rifles, as they more traditionally were the "over the fireplace mantle" the traditional home defense weapons. That is because pistols are less safe because they can be quickly and accidentally mis-aimed or even dropped. Two handed weapons are safer for home defense.
But I see, understand, and agree with part about pistols being "most preferred" simply in terms of numbers.

 

[Rigby5]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

The Federals have no say in that. And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons. But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific. For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns. But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.

It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.

Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
But I understood that is likely what you meant.

Nonsense.

An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.

You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.

You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.

That’s a losing tactic.

The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.

Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel. Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.

Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?

5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
.357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.

But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.

The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members. A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.

Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.

Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.

Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.

I own several

I mean an "ar" will work but if you are into hunting there are better guns available for the task

 

[Rigby5]

Here's 8

Thank you---
I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -

Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again

Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs

There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed. That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked. But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference. I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson". Either one will get a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.

Why do you think there is "NO evidence" that you are not safer armed?
Are you suggesting it is better to not resist a robbery because it is better to be just robbed than possibly killed?

There are over 1 million successful serious crimes of violence committed every year, so then it is most acceptable when people estimate there are between 1 and 3 million unsuccessful violent crimes. And it is not the police who are preventing them. So then it pretty much has to be armed owners. So I think that Kleckt, Lott, Mustard, etc., have had their studies vindicated and verified, not debunked.

The claim that has been debunked is the one stating home firearms are 17 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal intruder. That has been debunked in may ways. One is that 99.99% of the time you stop a crime, you don't kill the intruder, but just want to scare them off. Another is that there are many valid times a firearm can be used on a family member, such as to stop domestic violence, or suicide.