Asshole/Asshelmet With A Gun

[joan1984]

Are you suggesting the SCOTUS ruling is wrong? How can that be?

Can you give another example... I know: Roe v. Wade is wrong..

Is the Heller decision like Roe v. Wade?

Need it be overturned in your opinion? 

Psiberzerker-How was the word “regulated” used in your opinion?

As it applied to the Militia, and the Security of the State.  It never referred to Civilian Self Defense.  At least use all of the operative words in that quote.

[psiberzerker]

Many situations have happened throughout history where the odds were against someone or a group of people, military, police, and civilians where they were “fucked” but even with the odds the came out on top.

Show me one where Magazine Capacity was the deciding factor.  Also, we're talking about Civilian Self Defense.  I'm not saying to limit Military and Law Enforcement.

You speak of experience yet you experiences you use are yours. There are hundreds of accounts that yes you can look up and verify where 3 to 1 odds was no problem.

Again, show me 1 where Magazine Capacity was the deciding factor.

I don’t have to use any experience I’ve had to prove that either but there have been multiple times I’ve take on more than one.

Again, show that Magazine Capacity was the deciding factor.

I don’t give two shit if it’s in battle or in civilian life, when shit hits the fan you want as much ammo as you can and still be mobile.

You want as many Shooters as practical.  Ammunition isn't the only thing critical to the mission, and if your Mission is to grab some groceries from the store, then low capacity is actually better for carry, and bringing it to bear than high capacity.  Because you have to clear the holster, take it off safe, and aim, as quickly as possible.  The first accurate shot is more critical than the 11th, or even the 9th.

"The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair."

~Jeff Cooper in 2002.  2 years before the Brady Bill expired.  Maximum capacity of the "Unfair" 1911 Government model?  9.

[psiberzerker]

Are you suggesting the SCOTUS ruling is wrong?

You'll have to be more specific.  SCotUS didn't rule on the Brady Ban.  It expired, and wasn't renewed.  That's why it lasted for exactly 10 years.

They did rule on Background Checks, but we weren't talking about that.  Yet...

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker- “that isn’t a quote that’s an opinion”...hahaha yet again my left eye looking at my right eye. What kind of stupid are you!! You talk your 10mm and 40 s&w all you want to. I love me both calibers but your shit for brains is oozing out your ears. You are stuck in the Jeff and Elmer Days. Fuck yes they were intelligent but a long shot from the end all be all. Get over it!! Why are LE not limited smart guy? What has the FBI decided in regulars s to 9mm? A summary- rounds on target.

[psiberzerker]

Why are LE not limited smart guy?

Because they're necessary to the security of a free state.  They have an actual need for high capacity, and more importantly, they're TRAINED for crime fighting.

Now, would you like to talk about Regulation?

[Gunnerman19]

The more shooters you have is better. That’s no shit and I couldn’t agree more! Sometimes that’s not available tho so having every advantage possible is welcome unless you like making sure you never win an engagement.

[joan1984]

pic pic pic nit pic...
I mentioned the Heller decision, which recognized the right of self defense.
Nothing new, just noted it as a reason to overrule the statists for the people.
You said the Second Amendment did not mean civilian firearm self defense.
Thus my comment. Is SCOTUS wrong? Or, does the Second Amendment include firearm self defense by civilians... Should Heller be overturned in your opinion regardless of what has or has not been said at KB?

pic pic nit pic... you need not answer.

Are you suggesting the SCOTUS ruling is wrong?

You'll have to be more specific.  SCotUS didn't rule on the Brady Ban.  It expired, and wasn't renewed.  That's why it lasted for exactly 10 years.

They did rule on Background Checks, but we weren't talking about that.  Yet...

[psiberzerker]

I mentioned the Heller decision, which recognized the right of self defense.

You mentioned a lot of decisions.  Thank you for narrowing it down.

Okay, yes DC vs Heller recognized the right of Self (And Home) Defense, it also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

However, the Question (They ruled on) was on Storage of arms.  Gun locks/Safes, the 3 steps to battery, and partial disassembly.  Not Magazine capacity.

(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.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing 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, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights 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.
(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.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker- so the founding fathers didn’t consider self defense ...hahaha what the hell are you smoking over there on your side?? You do understand there are other papers with writing on them from that time right. How do we know what they meant. I would encourage you to look up and read through as many as you can.

[psiberzerker]

so the founding fathers didn’t consider self defense.

Strawman.  No, I said that the word "Regulated" was not applied to Civilian Self Defense. 

[Gunnerman19]

Break down using a dictionary what each word means “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker- I asked what you think regulated means.

[psiberzerker]

Break down using a dictionary what each word means “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

Okay, now look at every instance of the format:  "The right to...  Shal not be infinged."  In the bill of rights.

1:  Freedom of Speech:  With exceptions for Sedition (Speech encouraging Treason, including Threats against the President) Public Threat (Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded Theater)

2:  "Well Regulated Militia."

4:  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."  This provides several exclusions, depending on who (The warrant issuing Judge) determines what's "Reasonable."

5:  "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger"  Shows a clear distinction between the Rights of the People, and the Militia...  "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."  which means that property, including Illegal Firearms can be taken, with compensation.  Hence all of the Buyback programs still being constitutionally legal.

Psiberzerker- I asked what you think regulated means.

Context.  In the context of "Well Regulated Militia," the word Regulated means Supplied, Trained, and Disciplined.

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker- okay so that’s how it was put on paper...okay well good luck. At least you have regulated correct.

[psiberzerker]

What do you think "Militia" means?

[Gunnerman19]

Look if you want me to answer your questions then answer mine. You can play your games but I will just sit here waiting like normal.

[psiberzerker]

Look if you want me to answer your questions then answer mine.

I thought you just agreed that I answered your's, before I asked you one in return.  I'm not playing games, I'm enjoying the discussion.

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker- then look up each work in the dictionary.
Tell me what arms means. Then tell me what infringe means. Please...I mean maybe I’ve been reading and understanding the meanings of those words and words such as keep and bear all this time. Educate me big guy.

[psiberzerker]

Educate me big guy.

<That's my nightgown.  I'm not all that big, either.

Now, if I were a Senator (There's no Anarchist party, what would be the point?) then I would suggest a National Militia Act.  At present, we have the National Guard, and State Reserves.  However, these are impeded by the steps needed to call the national Guard in times of Crisis.  Which is too slow for a domestic terror attack in a school.

So, persuant to that, I would let them handle the Supply (Right to Bear Arms doesn't mean the government has to pay for them, and ammo.)  

Training:  The problem isn't fire, it's Indiscriminate Fire.  If you want Military (In this case Militia) grade weaponry, then you have to go through Training to protect our public places from domestic terrorists.  The problem with the GGWAG defense is they're not Trained to deal with a psychotic gunman.  (Also IFF, Indiscriminate fire, and response times.)

Discipline:  This is also training, but instead of just Firearm Training, it's also Operational Training, and Coordination.  That way there's Qualified Militiamen, with radio communication, and coordination, as well as Uniforms, so that they know who the Asshole with a gun is.  Otherwise, if there's a School Shooting, and 2 self appointed defenders show up, the second responder doesn't have to Identify the Asshole from the Good Guy, when there's too much gunfire to ask questions.

Supply, Training, AND Discipline.  That's what Militia should mean.

"Well Regulated."

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker- were you born with a penis or a vagina?