Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[Abatis]

Blah, blah is your reply?

No, my reply was succinct and on point.

You don't need to be so self-depreciating in acknowledging you don't understand my answer or the Heller quote.

Footnote 26

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Do you need an adult to explain this to you???

I doubt you (age notwithstanding) are capable of explaining it because you are so obviously mischaracterizing it.

I let SCOTUS and courts applying it to explain it to me.

That passage is not a blanket endorsement of gun control. It is a warning to both "sides" to not over-read Heller. SCOTUS is only saying that laws not under review in Heller will be considered "presumptively lawful" until they are specifically challenged or the Court finally undertakes an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment. Your quote of Heller is the victim of selective editing; not only is footnote 26 omitted but the statement explaining the conditional status of your passage was also omitted. As I said, Wikipedia scholarship is lacking . . .

There have been hundreds of laws challenged and upheld by citing 20th Century federal lower court decisions that inserted the "state's right" or "militia right" (including the generalized "collective right") interpretations of the 2nd Amendment into the federal courts. Those lower federal court decisions are now invalidated and abrogated by Heller and all those laws upheld by citing that illegitimate line of legal reasoning are infirm and will be thrown aside when challenged.

In actual legal action, footnote 26 has directed the actions of lower federal courts, placing a larger burden on the government defending challenged laws and has in fact, had the action of bringing into question longstanding prohibitions even those seemingly unquestionable under Heller like felon dispossession laws. This has forced the government to actually present evidence and argument that the law passes constitutional muster.

In 2011 the 3rd Circuit said:

"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted." -- U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011)​

Of course felon disablement of gun rights have been sustained federally because they are deemed founded on legitimate exercises of government authority which have been upheld many times using a wide range of legal reasoning under constitutional and common law.

Now, on the other hand, gun control laws that were upheld by citing US v Tot or Cases v US (and their many illegitimate progeny) and reasoned upon the theories that the 2nd does not secure an individual right, will be struck down.

.

 

[rdean]

Why anti gun people are so angry.....

Because angry people work really well with guns.

 

[chikenwing]

Thanks for enforcing the OP point,very good job,don't stop,your attempt at wit fell way short.Your ignorance,how ever has pegged the needle.

 

[2aguy]

"4) That in the face of more people owning guns...the gun murder rate is going down, and the gun accident rate is going down...that makes them angry.."

How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?

Have you looked at the stats...more people own guns and both the gun murder rate and the gun accident rate are going down, not up.....I know, that makes you angry....deal with it....

How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?

I don't know...I'm not a lefty.......

 

[2aguy]

Here you go....an actual account of the guy at the giffords shooting....

The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

QUOTE:

We do know one of the heroic first responders was indeed armed: Joe Zamudio, age 24. The following is drawn from his account of the incident from his perspective, shared with the rest of the class when he subsequently attended a Massad Ayoob Group program in nearby Sierra Vista, hosted by decorated combat vet Dan Southard of Gator Farm Tactical. This, lightly edited for space considerations, is his story.

Zamudio’s Experience

“It was Saturday,” Joe began. “I didn’t have to work, so I went to have breakfast with my mom. On the way back, I went to Walgreen’s. Walking up to the door, I saw a crowd of people (at the rally), and went in to get cigarettes before seeing what was going on. As I was asking the lady behind the counter for a pack of Camels, I heard one shot, then a chain of shots real fast, before she could hand me the cigarettes. It sounded like fireworks. I just responded and ran out door. As I cleared the door, a man in front of me who had been wounded in the leg said, ‘Shooter! Shooter! Get down!’”

Zamudio had long kept a gun in his car. The previous August, when buying a Ruger P95 9mm, he had learned from the gun dealer that Arizona had legalized permit-less carry, and from that day on had worn the Ruger constantly. Left-handed, he was carrying it that day, butt forward in the inside right breast pocket of his jacket, fully loaded with 16 rounds.

Zamudio continued, “I reached into my pocket, put my hand on my pistol, took the safety off, and ran down the sidewalk (toward the shooting scene). That’s when I saw a group of people wrestling with (Loughner). The first thing I focused on was the man closest to me. His back was to me. He raised up with a Glock in his hand, open, magazine sticking out. In that second I decided that because the gun was open, I didn’t have to shoot him. I immediately grabbed him by the wrist, turned the gun in toward him, told him to drop the weapon. He did.

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

Killer Restrained

“The world went into slow motion,” Joe continued. “I assessed the situation. Bill had Loughner by the neck on the ground. Roger stood on the gun and leaned over and grabbed Loughner’s shoulder, holding him down. Patricia had been on the ground when she grabbed the loaded magazine away from him, and she shimmied over his legs. Loughner began to struggle, and Patricia asked me to take her place. I got down onto the back of his knee and put a hand on his hip. A fourth gentleman put a foot on his back, he wasn’t going anywhere. I tried to call 911 but couldn’t get through, tried three times. The police showed up in about four minutes. All Loughner ever said during that time was, ‘Ow. You’re breaking my arm.’”

Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started. Bill Badger was bleeding, the first real blood I saw, and it hit me that this had really happened, all these people got shot. The enormity of it set in.

**************************

So....an actual, detailed account of this man's actions....hmmmmmm...different from the author of that articles report......


Okay, this is an important part of the story which the anti gunner overlooked...or didn't know about because he used an anti gunner journalist as his source...

4 minutes after they had subdued this guy the police show up....after he killed those people....

And the anti gunners only want cops to have guns......

They are so lucky he shot from inside a crowd and allowed people to be close to him when he started shooting....


And another point for you brain and for you bfgrn...the only reason they were able to wrestle him....just plain, stupid luck........otherwise, he would have reloaded and kept shooting...he missed this guy....

Not rushing the guy during a magazine change brain, and Bfgrn...he thought the guy was dead....after he shot him...and let Bill Badger get behind him.......you are wrong again brain....

You don't even know what YOU are posting.

Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him

Where is YOUR link?

The link? I posted from The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

And I quoted his full comments.....where he said Bill Badger had been shot by the shooter but had turned his head and was just grazed....but he fell to the ground and the shooter kept advancing....plain, dumb luck that the shooter missed and then got too close, had he kept his distance he would have kept shooting....

From YOUR link...(NO ONE would possibly call this site unbiased, or "anti-gun")

The takedown of the mass murderer was a study in citizens’ courage. As Loughner attempted to reload after emptying his pistol, one of the intended victims in the crowd reportedly smashed him in the back of the head with a folding metal chair. Retired Colonel Bill Badger, age 74, tackled the killer and brought him to the ground. Already down on the sidewalk herself, Patricia Maisch, 61, ripped a fresh magazine out of Loughner’s hand. Roger Sulzgeber separated him from his gun, and he and Joseph Zamudio held him down, immobile, until the first responding Tucson PD officer arrived at the scene.

Zamudio continued, “I reached into my pocket, put my hand on my pistol, took the safety off, and ran down the sidewalk (toward the shooting scene). That’s when I saw a group of people wrestling with (Loughner). The first thing I focused on was the man closest to me. His back was to me. He raised up with a Glock in his hand, open, magazine sticking out. In that second I decided that because the gun was open, I didn’t have to shoot him. I immediately grabbed him by the wrist, turned the gun in toward him, told him to drop the weapon. He did.

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

And again....you didn't quote the part where the shooter shot Bill Badger and advanced close to him........you know, the part where he actually shot Bill Badger....and Badger was on the ground.....and the old lady had simply laid on the ground to try to escape notice.....try posting that part....and

And again....he didn't shoot Sulzgeber, even though he thought he might be another shooter or the shooter...so the anti gun meme that all gun owners can't wait to kill their first criminal, especially if they are a minority is shown to be the crap that it is.....this guy assessed the situation and made rational decisions in the heat of a mass shooting with casualties on the ground...

And you guys are bitching and moaning about his actions.....

And again....he didn't shoot Roger Sulzgeber....you know...because he just wanted to kill someone because he is a gun owner and according to anti gunners all gun owners can't wait to kill......

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You don't even know what YOU are posting.

Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him

Where is YOUR link?

The link? I posted from The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

And I quoted his full comments.....where he said Bill Badger had been shot by the shooter but had turned his head and was just grazed....but he fell to the ground and the shooter kept advancing....plain, dumb luck that the shooter missed and then got too close, had he kept his distance he would have kept shooting....

You know, 2Aguy? A better question for your thread would be "Why are anti-gunners SO dishonest?"

Here is a REAL question...you and 2Aguy keep using false characterizations like "anti-gunner"

The TRUTH is you NEED to portray reasonable people as extreme to try to defend YOUR extremism. No one has advocated taking away all guns, or even most guns.

The only extremists on this thread are on the right.... the absolutist mentality just doesn't pass for reasonable or intelligent.

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

Yes, actually it means precisely that. You should take the time to study the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. Self defense wasn't even mentioned. The only way people would be required to give up their "assault rifles" is if our police and military did too.

 

[ChrisL]

"4) That in the face of more people owning guns...the gun murder rate is going down, and the gun accident rate is going down...that makes them angry.."

How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?

He's right. You can't ignore the facts.

 

[ChrisL]

Here you go....an actual account of the guy at the giffords shooting....

The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

QUOTE:

We do know one of the heroic first responders was indeed armed: Joe Zamudio, age 24. The following is drawn from his account of the incident from his perspective, shared with the rest of the class when he subsequently attended a Massad Ayoob Group program in nearby Sierra Vista, hosted by decorated combat vet Dan Southard of Gator Farm Tactical. This, lightly edited for space considerations, is his story.

Zamudio’s Experience

“It was Saturday,” Joe began. “I didn’t have to work, so I went to have breakfast with my mom. On the way back, I went to Walgreen’s. Walking up to the door, I saw a crowd of people (at the rally), and went in to get cigarettes before seeing what was going on. As I was asking the lady behind the counter for a pack of Camels, I heard one shot, then a chain of shots real fast, before she could hand me the cigarettes. It sounded like fireworks. I just responded and ran out door. As I cleared the door, a man in front of me who had been wounded in the leg said, ‘Shooter! Shooter! Get down!’”

Zamudio had long kept a gun in his car. The previous August, when buying a Ruger P95 9mm, he had learned from the gun dealer that Arizona had legalized permit-less carry, and from that day on had worn the Ruger constantly. Left-handed, he was carrying it that day, butt forward in the inside right breast pocket of his jacket, fully loaded with 16 rounds.

Zamudio continued, “I reached into my pocket, put my hand on my pistol, took the safety off, and ran down the sidewalk (toward the shooting scene). That’s when I saw a group of people wrestling with (Loughner). The first thing I focused on was the man closest to me. His back was to me. He raised up with a Glock in his hand, open, magazine sticking out. In that second I decided that because the gun was open, I didn’t have to shoot him. I immediately grabbed him by the wrist, turned the gun in toward him, told him to drop the weapon. He did.

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

Killer Restrained

“The world went into slow motion,” Joe continued. “I assessed the situation. Bill had Loughner by the neck on the ground. Roger stood on the gun and leaned over and grabbed Loughner’s shoulder, holding him down. Patricia had been on the ground when she grabbed the loaded magazine away from him, and she shimmied over his legs. Loughner began to struggle, and Patricia asked me to take her place. I got down onto the back of his knee and put a hand on his hip. A fourth gentleman put a foot on his back, he wasn’t going anywhere. I tried to call 911 but couldn’t get through, tried three times. The police showed up in about four minutes. All Loughner ever said during that time was, ‘Ow. You’re breaking my arm.’”

Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started. Bill Badger was bleeding, the first real blood I saw, and it hit me that this had really happened, all these people got shot. The enormity of it set in.

**************************

So....an actual, detailed account of this man's actions....hmmmmmm...different from the author of that articles report......


Okay, this is an important part of the story which the anti gunner overlooked...or didn't know about because he used an anti gunner journalist as his source...

4 minutes after they had subdued this guy the police show up....after he killed those people....

And the anti gunners only want cops to have guns......

They are so lucky he shot from inside a crowd and allowed people to be close to him when he started shooting....


And another point for you brain and for you bfgrn...the only reason they were able to wrestle him....just plain, stupid luck........otherwise, he would have reloaded and kept shooting...he missed this guy....

Not rushing the guy during a magazine change brain, and Bfgrn...he thought the guy was dead....after he shot him...and let Bill Badger get behind him.......you are wrong again brain....

You don't even know what YOU are posting.

Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him

Where is YOUR link?

The link? I posted from The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

And I quoted his full comments.....where he said Bill Badger had been shot by the shooter but had turned his head and was just grazed....but he fell to the ground and the shooter kept advancing....plain, dumb luck that the shooter missed and then got too close, had he kept his distance he would have kept shooting....

From YOUR link...(NO ONE would possibly call this site unbiased, or "anti-gun")

The takedown of the mass murderer was a study in citizens’ courage. As Loughner attempted to reload after emptying his pistol, one of the intended victims in the crowd reportedly smashed him in the back of the head with a folding metal chair. Retired Colonel Bill Badger, age 74, tackled the killer and brought him to the ground. Already down on the sidewalk herself, Patricia Maisch, 61, ripped a fresh magazine out of Loughner’s hand. Roger Sulzgeber separated him from his gun, and he and Joseph Zamudio held him down, immobile, until the first responding Tucson PD officer arrived at the scene.

Zamudio continued, “I reached into my pocket, put my hand on my pistol, took the safety off, and ran down the sidewalk (toward the shooting scene). That’s when I saw a group of people wrestling with (Loughner). The first thing I focused on was the man closest to me. His back was to me. He raised up with a Glock in his hand, open, magazine sticking out. In that second I decided that because the gun was open, I didn’t have to shoot him. I immediately grabbed him by the wrist, turned the gun in toward him, told him to drop the weapon. He did.

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

You may not like the sites, but most of the time, the information is quite accurate.

 

[ChrisL]

You don't even know what YOU are posting.

Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him

Where is YOUR link?

The link? I posted from The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

And I quoted his full comments.....where he said Bill Badger had been shot by the shooter but had turned his head and was just grazed....but he fell to the ground and the shooter kept advancing....plain, dumb luck that the shooter missed and then got too close, had he kept his distance he would have kept shooting....

You know, 2Aguy? A better question for your thread would be "Why are anti-gunners SO dishonest?"

Here is a REAL question...you and 2Aguy keep using false characterizations like "anti-gunner"

The TRUTH is you NEED to portray reasonable people as extreme to try to defend YOUR extremism. No one has advocated taking away all guns, or even most guns.

The only extremists on this thread are on the right.... the absolutist mentality just doesn't pass for reasonable or intelligent.

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

Lol. Funny. I don't believe you.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"4) That in the face of more people owning guns...the gun murder rate is going down, and the gun accident rate is going down...that makes them angry.."

How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?

Have you looked at the stats...more people own guns and both the gun murder rate and the gun accident rate are going down, not up.....I know, that makes you angry....deal with it....

How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?

I don't know...I'm not a lefty.......

It's true, I guess. I am also angry that children are not dying from smallpox in the USA, that, people still have a little water to drink in California, and that no illegal aliens from Mexico have flown a 767 into the Empire State building. I just can't fool you at all........

 

[2aguy]

"4) That in the face of more people owning guns...the gun murder rate is going down, and the gun accident rate is going down...that makes them angry.."

How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?

Have you looked at the stats...more people own guns and both the gun murder rate and the gun accident rate are going down, not up.....I know, that makes you angry....deal with it....

How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?

I don't know...I'm not a lefty.......

It's true, I guess. I am also angry that children are not dying from smallpox in the USA, that, people still have a little water to drink in California, and that no illegal aliens from Mexico have flown a 767 into the Empire State building. I just can't fool you at all........

See...telling the truth....finally....don't you feel better.....?

 

[Bfgrn]

Blah, blah is your reply?

No, my reply was succinct and on point.

You don't need to be so self-depreciating in acknowledging you don't understand my answer or the Heller quote.

Footnote 26

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Do you need an adult to explain this to you???

I doubt you (age notwithstanding) are capable of explaining it because you are so obviously mischaracterizing it.

I let SCOTUS and courts applying it to explain it to me.

That passage is not a blanket endorsement of gun control. It is a warning to both "sides" to not over-read Heller. SCOTUS is only saying that laws not under review in Heller will be considered "presumptively lawful" until they are specifically challenged or the Court finally undertakes an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment. Your quote of Heller is the victim of selective editing; not only is footnote 26 omitted but the statement explaining the conditional status of your passage was also omitted. As I said, Wikipedia scholarship is lacking . . .

There have been hundreds of laws challenged and upheld by citing 20th Century federal lower court decisions that inserted the "state's right" or "militia right" (including the generalized "collective right") interpretations of the 2nd Amendment into the federal courts. Those lower federal court decisions are now invalidated and abrogated by Heller and all those laws upheld by citing that illegitimate line of legal reasoning are infirm and will be thrown aside when challenged.

In actual legal action, footnote 26 has directed the actions of lower federal courts, placing a larger burden on the government defending challenged laws and has in fact, had the action of bringing into question longstanding prohibitions even those seemingly unquestionable under Heller like felon dispossession laws. This has forced the government to actually present evidence and argument that the law passes constitutional muster.

In 2011 the 3rd Circuit said:

"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted." -- U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011)​

Of course felon disablement of gun rights have been sustained federally because they are deemed founded on legitimate exercises of government authority which have been upheld many times using a wide range of legal reasoning under constitutional and common law.

Now, on the other hand, gun control laws that were upheld by citing US v Tot or Cases v US (and their many illegitimate progeny) and reasoned upon the theories that the 2nd does not secure an individual right, will be struck down.

.

Footnote 26 is an explanatory citation. It does not circumvent the main body of the decision. Scalia was perfectly clear...

Held:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

The Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill;
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; and
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Court noted that this list is not exhaustive (footnote 26), and concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service. In addition, the Court declared that its analysis should not be read to suggest “the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”

 

[Bfgrn]

Where is YOUR link?

The link? I posted from The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

And I quoted his full comments.....where he said Bill Badger had been shot by the shooter but had turned his head and was just grazed....but he fell to the ground and the shooter kept advancing....plain, dumb luck that the shooter missed and then got too close, had he kept his distance he would have kept shooting....

You know, 2Aguy? A better question for your thread would be "Why are anti-gunners SO dishonest?"

Here is a REAL question...you and 2Aguy keep using false characterizations like "anti-gunner"

The TRUTH is you NEED to portray reasonable people as extreme to try to defend YOUR extremism. No one has advocated taking away all guns, or even most guns.

The only extremists on this thread are on the right.... the absolutist mentality just doesn't pass for reasonable or intelligent.

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

Yes, actually it means precisely that. You should take the time to study the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. Self defense wasn't even mentioned. The only way people would be required to give up their "assault rifles" is if our police and military did too.

It is clear YOU have not read the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt


Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

 

[ChrisL]

The link? I posted from The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

And I quoted his full comments.....where he said Bill Badger had been shot by the shooter but had turned his head and was just grazed....but he fell to the ground and the shooter kept advancing....plain, dumb luck that the shooter missed and then got too close, had he kept his distance he would have kept shooting....

You know, 2Aguy? A better question for your thread would be "Why are anti-gunners SO dishonest?"

Here is a REAL question...you and 2Aguy keep using false characterizations like "anti-gunner"

The TRUTH is you NEED to portray reasonable people as extreme to try to defend YOUR extremism. No one has advocated taking away all guns, or even most guns.

The only extremists on this thread are on the right.... the absolutist mentality just doesn't pass for reasonable or intelligent.

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

Yes, actually it means precisely that. You should take the time to study the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. Self defense wasn't even mentioned. The only way people would be required to give up their "assault rifles" is if our police and military did too.

It is clear YOU have not read the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt


Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Sorry, it's a constitutionally guaranteed right. The RIGHT to bear arms. Guns are not the problem. Criminals are the problem. People have ALWAYS had guns in this country.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The link? I posted from The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

And I quoted his full comments.....where he said Bill Badger had been shot by the shooter but had turned his head and was just grazed....but he fell to the ground and the shooter kept advancing....plain, dumb luck that the shooter missed and then got too close, had he kept his distance he would have kept shooting....

You know, 2Aguy? A better question for your thread would be "Why are anti-gunners SO dishonest?"

Here is a REAL question...you and 2Aguy keep using false characterizations like "anti-gunner"

The TRUTH is you NEED to portray reasonable people as extreme to try to defend YOUR extremism. No one has advocated taking away all guns, or even most guns.

The only extremists on this thread are on the right.... the absolutist mentality just doesn't pass for reasonable or intelligent.

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

Yes, actually it means precisely that. You should take the time to study the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. Self defense wasn't even mentioned. The only way people would be required to give up their "assault rifles" is if our police and military did too.

It is clear YOU have not read the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt


Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Nothing about self defense.


As I was saying.

 

[Abatis]

<SNIP>

As if swiped "SmartGunLaws.com" scholarship is any better than Wikipedia.

It is considered good practice to cite the source of your "commentary" if it is just a cut and paste . . .

I cite actual cases; you plagiarize hacky anti-gun sites.

 

[Abatis]

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

Thom Hartmann????

What a laughable premise and conclusion written by one of the kookiest left-wing kooks around.

Have you ever read Federalist 46?

The 2nd Amendment was written to forever preserve the 17-20 to 1 advantage that armed citizens enjoyed over members of the nation's standing army.

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties,. . . "​

That ratio remains spot-on today . . .300 million "souls", >3 million active duty and reserves and 75 million armed citizens. That ratio is what preserves the "free state", not a despotic government monopoly of arms and a disarmed citizenry as asshat Hartmann would argue . . .

And yeah, it stands at 25+ armed citizens to 1 soldier today but hey, we are a bunch of gun nuts huh?

 

[Bfgrn]

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

Thom Hartmann????

What a laughable premise and conclusion written by one of the kookiest left-wing kooks around.

Have you ever read Federalist 46?

The 2nd Amendment was written to forever preserve the 17-20 to 1 advantage that armed citizens enjoyed over members of the nation's standing army.

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties,. . . "​

That ratio remains spot-on today . . .300 million "souls", >3 million active duty and reserves and 75 million armed citizens. That ratio is what preserves the "free state", not a despotic government monopoly of arms and a disarmed citizenry as asshat Hartmann would argue . . .

And yeah, it stands at 25+ armed citizens to 1 soldier today but hey, we are a bunch of gun nuts huh?

Yes, Thomas Hartmann. He is not a kook. He actually deeply researches, READS and understands the documents of our founding generation, from the second amendment to the real meaning of the Boston Tea Party.

Intelligence always trumps dogma and doctrinaire which has become ALL the right wing nuts in this country provides today.

I provided a LINK in my post. So I accept your apology.

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was to protect the state, not protect the citizens from the state.

Hartmann:

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. Want proof? In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

The Founders knew, from watching the history of Europe, that military coups by a standing army were a greater threat to a nation that most other nations. So they required us to re-evaluate our army every two years.

But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?

With a locally-based, well-regulated - under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority - militia. Today, we call this the National Guard.

 

[Bfgrn]

And I quoted his full comments.....where he said Bill Badger had been shot by the shooter but had turned his head and was just grazed....but he fell to the ground and the shooter kept advancing....plain, dumb luck that the shooter missed and then got too close, had he kept his distance he would have kept shooting....

You know, 2Aguy? A better question for your thread would be "Why are anti-gunners SO dishonest?"

Here is a REAL question...you and 2Aguy keep using false characterizations like "anti-gunner"

The TRUTH is you NEED to portray reasonable people as extreme to try to defend YOUR extremism. No one has advocated taking away all guns, or even most guns.

The only extremists on this thread are on the right.... the absolutist mentality just doesn't pass for reasonable or intelligent.

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

Yes, actually it means precisely that. You should take the time to study the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. Self defense wasn't even mentioned. The only way people would be required to give up their "assault rifles" is if our police and military did too.

It is clear YOU have not read the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt


Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Nothing about self defense.


As I was saying.

Take that up with Scalia...

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.

 

[Bfgrn]

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

Thom Hartmann????

What a laughable premise and conclusion written by one of the kookiest left-wing kooks around.

Have you ever read Federalist 46?

The 2nd Amendment was written to forever preserve the 17-20 to 1 advantage that armed citizens enjoyed over members of the nation's standing army.

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties,. . . "​

That ratio remains spot-on today . . .300 million "souls", >3 million active duty and reserves and 75 million armed citizens. That ratio is what preserves the "free state", not a despotic government monopoly of arms and a disarmed citizenry as asshat Hartmann would argue . . .

And yeah, it stands at 25+ armed citizens to 1 soldier today but hey, we are a bunch of gun nuts huh?

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

Thom Hartmann????

What a laughable premise and conclusion written by one of the kookiest left-wing kooks around.

Have you ever read Federalist 46?

The 2nd Amendment was written to forever preserve the 17-20 to 1 advantage that armed citizens enjoyed over members of the nation's standing army.

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties,. . . "​

That ratio remains spot-on today . . .300 million "souls", >3 million active duty and reserves and 75 million armed citizens. That ratio is what preserves the "free state", not a despotic government monopoly of arms and a disarmed citizenry as asshat Hartmann would argue . . .

And yeah, it stands at 25+ armed citizens to 1 soldier today but hey, we are a bunch of gun nuts huh?

The Federalist Papers? One must never forget that the Federalist Papers were a series of arguments FOR creating a strong federal government, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation that had intentionally designed a weak federal government.