Guns bad...case closed

[Seth]

Gun enthusiasts and criminals at
-Malls
-Schools
-Theaters
-Sports events (Eutope)

Liar. Those are criminals, mostly gang members or terrorists, not "gun enthusiasts" in the sense of being law-abiding gun owners.

And if and when a terrorist opens fire in a crowded shopping mall and starts killing people right next to you,would you prefer that no one else in the entire mall have a gun (which includes "security guards" who are always unarmed and the police, who respond too late to stop the attack), or would you prefer that someone in the immediate vicinity willing to risk his or her own life have a lawfully-carried firearm with which to at least try to stop the carnage or merely reduce it by engaging the terrorist and forcing him to take cover, thus allowing innocents and you to seek cover or escape?

Answer that question honestly (if you can, which I doubt) and you'll understand why your position on guns is grossly stupid, because if you answer that you'd rather everyone but the terrorist be unarmed for whatever vacuous reason you can dredge up, you demonstrate both gross stupidity and a pathological disregard for the safety of others as a part of a psychotic and paranoid fear of guns. If you answer that you'd rather have some armed private citizen standing up and risking his or her life to give YOU the chance to escape or find cover, then your position is not only grossly stupid but absolutely hypocritical.

[Tero]

It was merely a list where guns seem to appear most often. Add:
- strip clubs
-bars at closing time

For the movies, just wait to buy them. For the malls, visit 10AM sunday when the terrorists are still at the temple. Or Fri at midday.

[Seth]

It was merely a list where guns seem to appear most often. Add:
- strip clubs
-bars at closing time

For the movies, just wait to buy them. For the malls, visit 10AM sunday when the terrorists are still at the temple. Or Fri at midday.

All the more reason for more law-abiding citizens to carry guns for self defense.

[Tero]

There is no defense for someone stalking to kill you with a gun
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/25/us/texas- ... index.html

other than removing the guns and or permits (to take guns from idiots). Some guns are always out there.

[Seth]

There is no defense for someone stalking to kill you with a gun
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/25/us/texas- ... index.html

other than removing the guns and or permits (to take guns from idiots). Some guns are always out there.

Wrong. Just because one person was ambushed and didn't have a chance to defend herself doesn't mean that nobody ever has a chance to defend themselves, which in fact happens 2.5 million times a year or so.

We don't know if the judge had a pistol or a permit, though many judges do, and we don't know the exact circumstances of the ambush, but one of the first defenses against criminal attack is situational awareness, which radically improves one's chances of avoiding a confrontation in the first place.

But, in spite of all precautions one might take which improve one's chances of avoiding a violent confrontation or stopping one in progress, the fact is that sometimes you die. That's not an argument for disarming everyone BUT the criminals, as any idiot knows.

I'll let you ponder your status in light of that fact.

[Tero]

A large part of the criminals are idiots as well. A simple IQ test would weed out about 60% of gun owners as not beneficial to others.

[Seth]

A large part of the criminals are idiots as well. A simple IQ test would weed out about 60% of gun owners as not beneficial to others.

The RKBA is not all about being "beneficial to others." I don't give a flying fuck if my carrying a gun is beneficial to YOU because my primary reason and right to do so are because it's beneficial to ME. It being beneficial to others is secondary or tertiary to my individual safety. It being beneficial to YOU is the last consideration of all, because I don't give a fuck what happens to you.

[Tero]

Oh but the future of guns is not going to be determined by the militia amendment. But no worries, nothing will happen until we've had some 5 democratic presidents, the next 40 years.

The future laws will initially minimize gun ownership. Those determined to present little chance of shooting random persons will have a permit on a yearly basis. A stiff fine system for all those carrying guns without permit.

[Tero]

Heller and other decisions will be reversed by this process:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/opini ... -mind.html

It will not ban all arms. You can start practicing on the cross bow now.

[Seth]

Oh but the future of guns is not going to be determined by the militia amendment.

It never has been, so what's your point?

But no worries, nothing will happen until we've had some 5 democratic presidents, the next 40 years.

Well, you'd have to also have 2/3rds of all of the state legislatures on your side as well, which I'm not too concerned about.

The future laws will initially minimize gun ownership.

They can't unless and until you repeal the 2nd Amendment, and I'm not worried you can accomplish that given the groundswell of support for MAXIMIZING individual gun ownership that is at present driving people like you to distraction.

Those determined to present little chance of shooting random persons...

Which is the vast, overwhelming population of the United States, as determined by the 2nd Amendment and history.

...will have a permit on a yearly basis. A stiff fine system for all those carrying guns without permit.

Well, except it's usually a five-year permit, we already have that system in place in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, to one degree or another. In the large majority of the states, 43 at least, the state legislatures have set forth very precise conditions under which an individual can obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm which prohibit persons who are likely to abuse the right from obtaining such permits, and the fines are stiff and the jail time substantial for violators.

So, shut the fuck up, you've already got what you wanted. Pity those who are wiser and smarter (and have more authority) than you happen to disagree with your delusional and paranoid assumptions about who does and does not "present little chance of shooting random persons."

[Seth]

Heller and other decisions will be reversed by this process:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/opini ... -mind.html

It will not ban all arms. You can start practicing on the cross bow now.

This shows how ignorant you are of the law as well.

Whereas in 1988 the "right to privacy" was not held by the Bowers court to cover homosexual acts in Texas, and the Supreme Court reversed itself in 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, setting forth it's considerations for violating the principle of stare decisis:

In a 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court answered no, stating that ''a decision to overrule should rest on some special reason over and above the belief that a prior case was wrongly decided.'' The court went on to outline four factors to be considered in making the decision to overrule itself: the workability of the rule, the extent to which the public has relied on the rule, relevant changes in legal doctrine, and changes in facts or perceptions of facts.

None of this applies to the right to keep and bear arms because in the first place the "right to privacy" is not an enumerated right, it's a right that the Court found in the "penumbra of rights" that surround the general principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and in the second place because the RKBA is a very specific and explicit right that is expressly enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, which is something quite different from a generalized "right to privacy" upon which the government has some authority to set boundaries, as it says in the quote above.

The Court did not "create" any rights or somehow expand the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment in either Heller or McDonald, it merely invalidated local laws which interfered with an existing fundamental enumerated right whose boundaries and intent were clearly and explicitly expressed by the people who wrote it and those who ratified it. The Court cannot now reverse itself because having recognized the recent scholarship on the intent of the Founders it cannot make that evidence disappear. For the Court to pull the same sort of chicanery on the 2nd Amendment that it pulled on the "right to privacy" would be to violate the very principles they enunciated in Casey, not to mention fomenting an armed rebellion by those who have exercised the RKBA against that precise miscarriage of justice...assuming Congress and the legislatures of the States don't beat them to it by amending the 2nd Amendment to leave no doubt at all about what the government is prohibited from doing with respect to the right to keep and bear arms by private individuals.

So take your best shot, which will miss...and then I get to take mine, which won't.

[Tero]

Oh no, the hand guns will go. No more concealed weapons of any size that you can hide. In 2060.

The guns is not enumerared. It is invented. By the supreme court interpreting.

[Seth]

Oh no, the hand guns will go. No more concealed weapons of any size that you can hide. In 2060.

The guns is not enumerared. It is invented. By the supreme court interpreting.

Nope. The Constitution says "arms," which according to the principles of statutory interpretation is inclusive, not exclusive.

It is a long-held principle of legal statutory interpretation, going all the way back to Greece, that where a law provides a list of things it is improper to add to or take away from that list of things in interpreting the statute.

Therefore, if a statute says that the following things are illegal:

Sex with dogs
marijuana
red hats

it is impermissible to add to that list and make the wearing of blue hats, the possession of cocaine or sex with chickens illegal absent a legislative act doing so.

Likewise, it is impermissible to take away things in that list and make that which the statute declares unlawful to be lawful without a legislative act amending the law. Therefore a court cannot say that even though the law says that sex with dogs is illegal the court rules that it is now legal.

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, what is proscribed is not "arms", and what is described is not specific types or models of "arms" that may be lawfully kept and borne by "the people", what is proscribed is Congress' (and by extension of the 14th Amendment all state and local governments) power to "infringe" upon the right of the people to keep and bear "arms."

The Court cannot, and did not authorize any government, legislature or agent to set forth a list of "arms" that the people are restricted to keeping and bearing that makes others unlawful to keep or bear. The term "arms" is explicitly and deliberately extremely broad in its definition and applicability, as intended by the Founders.

What the Court did say is that "unusual or particularly dangerous" arms may be more closely regulated by the government where the interests of the government and it's regulation of the right to keep and bear quite literally anything that meets the definition of "arms" meets the "strict scrutiny" test for regulations that infringe on a fundamental right such as this. And that already takes place with respect to Class III articles, which includes machine guns, silencers and "destructive devices." But what the National Firearms Act and the registry it created does NOT do is to BAN the possession of any "arms" at all, it merely requires that they be duly registered with the government and that a tax on the transfer of such registered items be paid, and makes it unlawful to possess an NFA article upon which the transfer tax has not been paid by the owner. It doesn't ban the possession or transfer of any "arms" at all, which is why it's perfectly legal to own a machine gun, a silencer (I have two), a hand grenade, a field artillery piece, a main battle tank, a jet fighter, a destroyer, an aircraft carrier, a JDAM, a Hellfire missile and anything associated with the maintenance, operation and use of those "arms." You just have to pay the tax and register the item, which includes the ammunition for any firearm over 50 caliber or explosive ammunition.

So the worst-case scenario for us is that you might get all firearms classified as "NFA articles" by amending the NFA, which would only require that a tax be paid on the weapon if and when it is transferred and that the weapon be registered in the NFA registry at the time of transfer so that in the future the government can track the item to make sure the tax has been paid on all transfers.

But the government cannot ban any "arms" covered by the 2nd Amendment, despite its denial of cert in the recent case of prohibitions on possession of "assault weapons" in certain localities. That the Court denied cert does not mean that it cannot grant cert to a better case in the future, nor is the denial of cert any affirmation of the rulings of the lower courts that would inhibit other challenges to those statutes.

So, anyway, as I said, take your best shot, and then I'll take mine.

[Tero]

As long as there are arms and volunteers, nothing is broken: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You could keep the arms at the fire house locked up. The court overstepped.

The use of arms for protecting you or your house is not in the constitution because it's a state issue.

The whole amendment had to do with evil Federal government vs states and local level.

[Seth]

As long as there are arms and volunteers, nothing is broken: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"The right of the people" not "the right of the militia." Get it?

You could keep the arms at the fire house locked up. The court overstepped

Your opinion is like your asshole...you've got one, but it still smells.

The use of arms for protecting you or your house is not in the constitution because it's a state issue.

Sure it is, and no it's not, not since the 14th Amendment was ratified anyway.

The whole amendment had to do with evil Federal government vs states and local level.

Nope, and not since the 14th Amendment amended the Constitution to apply the 2nd Amendment to the states, along with every other part of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.