Restricting constitutional feeedoms.

[Jason]

The attitude that you are responsible for your defence, not the police or army. Sure they may fail you but life is tough

Gonzales v. Castle Rock ... SCOTUS ...

Why do people like mozg, Seth, and other Black Guards of gun ownership always ignore what is a theoretical question of what should be [subjunctive] and repurpose it to a discussion of what has been?

[Seth]

But mere possession and carrying ("keeping and bearing") of firearms poses no credible threat to anyone else, and therefore restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms must meet a strict scrutiny standard.

OK, prove to me that the idiot carrying a gun is not a bigger risk than the same idiot without a gun.

I don't have to prove anything to you. We do not operate on the "prior restraint" model over here. We allow people to exercise their constitutional liberties as they see fit (within the law) and wait until they violate the law or someone else's rights before we restrict their rights.

Your question is silly because it can be applied equally to any person and any object that's capable of causing injury or death...like an automobile, or a bathtub, or a five-gallon bucket, all of which kill more children in a given year than all the "semi-automatic assault weapons" in circulation.

Life is full of risks that you just have to accept as a part of everyday living, and someone near you being armed with some sort of deadly weapon is just one of the myriad of risks you face...like their having the influenza virus, which kills more people every year than all the guns in the United States.

The only thing you can do is to protect yourself against those risks, like buying a fire extinguisher for your kitchen...kitchen fires kill more people than guns do each year.

Think of my handgun as a criminal-extinguisher that's to be used only when all other defenses would be inadequate and someone's life is in danger.

My right to provide that defense, be it a criminal-extinguisher or a fire-extinguisher, outweighs your paranoid fears that I might suddenly and unprovokedly go berserk and start shooting everyone in sight. If you fear that so much, then carry your own handgun so you can stop me, and/or wear a bullet proof vest everywhere you go to keep you safe.

Oh, wait, you can still get shot in the head.

Oh well, sucks to be you.

[Seth]

The attitude that you are responsible for your defence, not the police or army. Sure they may fail you but life is tough

Gonzales v. Castle Rock ... SCOTUS ...

Why do people like mozg, Seth, and other Black Guards of gun ownership always ignore what is a theoretical question of what should be [subjunctive] and repurpose it to a discussion of what has been?

Because what has been is what should be.

[Kristie]

The attitude that you are responsible for your defence, not the police or army. Sure they may fail you but life is tough

Gonzales v. Castle Rock ... SCOTUS ...

Why do people like mozg, Seth, and other Black Guards of gun ownership always ignore what is a theoretical question of what should be [subjunctive] and repurpose it to a discussion of what has been?

Because what has been is what should be.

Yes, slavery should make a come back.

[Tero]

We have all kinds of restrictions on permits. Nothing there blocks your rights. I'm going to pass strict fines for anyone carrying a loaded gun while drunk. You'll have to drop the bullets in the trash and take a taxi home.

If you shoot the gun while drunk, no gun for 10 years.

[Seth]

The attitude that you are responsible for your defence, not the police or army. Sure they may fail you but life is tough

Gonzales v. Castle Rock and an entire library of other decisions are very, very clear.

The police have absolutely no duty whatsoever to protect any individual citizen from crime. They are not even obligated to stop one they see happening.

The SCOTUS has very clearly defined self defense not only as the right of every citizen, but their responsibility as well.

Will obviously if the holy courts says its true it must be then

Er, yes, that's the way it works unless and until the people amend the Constitution or the law.

It is the government responsibility to ensure you are not murdered,

No, it categorically and legally is not. That's the point of citing Gonzales, in which the Supreme Court said that the police's duty to fight crime is general in nature, not specific, and that they have absolutely NO duty to protect any particular individual against any particular crime. This is true even if they are standing right there watching someone slit your stomach and pull your intestines out.
They cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect you. It's up to YOU to protect yourself. The police are there to deter crime and investigate it when it happens. That's pretty much it.

that doesnt mean they can't guarantee it won't happen but thats tough shit. The alternatives of everyone going around prepared for self defence is far worse

Get back to us the next time the police apologize to you for failing to protect you against a crime.

[Seth]

The attitude that you are responsible for your defence, not the police or army. Sure they may fail you but life is tough

Gonzales v. Castle Rock ... SCOTUS ...

Why do people like mozg, Seth, and other Black Guards of gun ownership always ignore what is a theoretical question of what should be [subjunctive] and repurpose it to a discussion of what has been?

Because what has been is what should be.

Yes, slavery should make a come back.

Strawman. We're not discussing slavery, we're discussing the right to keep and bear arms. Do try to keep up.

[Seth]

There is something seriously fucked with any individual that even thinks of self defence , sod banning guns I would ban any martial arts that advertises itself as 'self defence'. If they want to advertise as a sport or a way of keeping fair enough but if they in any way advertise is a way to hit people outside competitions or an arena is should be banned.



Sheesh. You really are afraid of everything, aren't you?

Only people who go around prepared for self defence

The only people I know who are afraid of people who go around prepared for self defense are criminals who want to prey on them without the risk of being shot dead.

That would explain a LOT about your arguments...

[Kristie]

Strawman. We're not discussing slavery, we're discussing the right to keep and bear arms. Do try to keep up.

Fuck you.
Just because something, anything, has been, that does NOT mean it should be.

[Seth]

We have all kinds of restrictions on permits. Nothing there blocks your rights. I'm going to pass strict fines for anyone carrying a loaded gun while drunk. You'll have to drop the bullets in the trash and take a taxi home.

If you shoot the gun while drunk, no gun for 10 years.

That's about right, except I think you can get a couple of years in jail already for possessing a firearm while intoxicated, which has been a crime for about, oh, 200 years or so.

That's why I don't drink. I'd rather be sober and carry my handgun at all times than get drunk and be out of control of my safety and destiny.

Nice to see you changing your tune about lawful concealed carry though.

[Tero]

Just trying to restrict the idiots. Trying to make it too costly to own a gun, with the risk of fines. Yearly test maybe, for permit.

2 regular beers for alcohol limit while carrying.

[Seth]

Strawman. We're not discussing slavery, we're discussing the right to keep and bear arms. Do try to keep up.

Fuck you.
Just because something, anything, has been, that does NOT mean it should be.

Naught girl, I'm going to have to report you...

Anyway, I didn't say "just because," so this is yet another strawman argument.

I said what was should be because there are already more than 50,000 gun control laws on the books in the US, none of which was successful in stopping the Newton massacre despite it taking place in Connecticut, a state with one of the most detailed and comprehensive gun control laws in the United States.

We don't need any more laws about guns, we need fewer, which is exactly what's been going on for the last 20 years or so with the nationwide liberalization of lawful concealed carry, to the point where a federal judge took judicial notice of the phenomenon in striking DOWN Illinois' complete ban on carrying handguns in public, saying essentially "Forty other state legislatures can't be wrong and Illinois' criminals can't be so different as to justify Illinois anti-gun policy."

One gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, or the Principal at Sandy Hook Elementary could have stopped this attack cold.

That you can't seem to understand this is, well, not at all remarkable.

[Kristie]

Report away. I've been told 'fuck you' is perfectly acceptable.

[Seth]

Just trying to restrict the idiots. Trying to make it too costly to own a gun, with the risk of fines. Yearly test maybe, for permit.

Can't require a permit to exercise a constitutional right. Now, in Colorado, our state Constitution explicitly DENYS the right to carry concealed, so that means that we must apply for and receive a permit from the Sheriff according to state standards, which require a CCW training course as a pre-condition for issuing the permit.

As for recertification, unless you can show some credible evidence that licensed CCW holders are a clear and present danger to the community if they are not recertified yearly, there's really no need to do so. We have to renew our permits every five years anyway, and they are tracked in the CCIC database so they can be revoked if the holder commits a crime.

Nationwide, the revocation rate for CCW permits is less than 5 percent...usually much less...on the order <1%.

This doesn't seem to indicate that annual recertification is needed.

For myself, I recertify my skills every week or so because I know just how much liability I face if I have to use my weapon and do so improperly or inaccurately. It's in my vested self-interest to maintain my shooting skills so as to reduce my financial liability exposure. And I train about 40 times more often than your average street police officer does. At my own cost.

2 regular beers for alcohol limit while carrying.

How about zero alcohol of any kind, and zero recreational pot, and zero prescribed medications that affect judgment or motor skills negatively?

[Seth]

Report away. I've been told 'fuck you' is perfectly acceptable.

Ah, well, good to know. Fuck you too then!