No it's not.

Go back to sleep.

I agree.

My post was sarcasm. I guess it didn't translate really well.

"In a city of 2.7 million people, about 1,400 are responsible for much of the violence"

Mr. Johnson said, and all of them are on what the department calls its Strategic Subject List.

So far this year, more than 70 percent of the people who have been shot in Chicago were on the list, according to the police, as were more than 80 percent of those arrested in connection with shootings."

In a broad drug and gang raid carried out last week amid a disturbing uptick this year in shootings and murders, the Police Department said 117 of the 140 people arrested were on the list.

“We are targeting the correct individuals,” Mr. Johnson said. “We just need our judicial partners and our state legislators to hold these people accountable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/us/armed-with-data-chicago-police-try-to-predict-who-may-shoot-or-be-shot.html?_r=0

Nationwide, gun murders are down 50% since 1994.

MSM's bleeds-it-leads coverage of this greatly reduced number of murders is full-blown, however.

Than every non-flu pandemic/epidemic.

And that includes AIDS.

Nor could they.

But it IS typical in that you focus on the guns rather than the people, less than 1 percent of gun owners, who misuse them.

However I'd HAPPILY remove the human equation by confiscating them all and locking them up somewhere safe.

Problem solved.

As for the 1% it does matter. The 1% are responsible for killing as many people every 5-6 weeks as died on 9/11. I don't care what percentage of gun nuts did that. Because. As long as there's hundreds of millions guns in America the death spree will continue. And gun nuts everywhere will continue to make excuses for thousands of dead kids a year, just so they can keep their deadly toys.

...than decades of gun violence. You get that, right?

Unless you think it would over half a million people in 20 years. Which it wouldn't.

Entirely hypothetical, obviously, as such an attempt will never be made.

Americans are extremely ok with the number of children gunned down annually. That won't change.

And I seriously seriously seriously doubt that 30k people would die a year - for decades - as a result of gun confiscation. Many many many millions of people are absolutely not willing to die to own a gun. Most gun owners I'd suggest wouldn't even be willing to go to prison to protest, much less die.

And as it became obvious that removing millions and millions of guns off the street was ACTUALLY lowering gun deaths a lot of people would cop on; not being dead and lowering the number of toddlers killed by guns is better than shooting it out with the Feds and ruining you and your family's life.

Just what "Feds" do you believe would be enforcing such a plan? The military? That would probably require a constitutional amendment, and definitely a massive change to US law (and the current military is skewed alarmingtly conservative is is extremely pro-gun in general...). The ATF? There are under 5000 total ATF employees. The FBI? c. 35k, only a portion of whom are trained in arms. Hell, there are only about 850k LEOs (armed and with arrest powers) of any type in the country.

There are, however, c. 85 million gun owners. It wouldn't take a huge number electing to resist confiscation to outrageously outnumber the available manpower to conduct those confiscations...and that's assuming all of the latter would follow such orders (and extremely dubious assumption). Nightmare scenario, all around, obviously...

So yeah, actually you're probably right about confiscation producing fewer deaths: they'd quickly run out of cops willing to die for that cause.

I am more optimistic about our nation's ability to change than you... people said the same thing about school desegregation and yeah it wasn't pretty, but... I'm glad enough brave people tried and made it happen.

I know you think it's totally normal for a country to lose thousands of children a year to gun violence, but it's not - nor should it ever be. Outside of the US Americans' attitudes toward guns is seen as borderline mentally ill, which it is. It's akin to any other cultural shift though, like gay marriage or segregation, etc., etc.; eventually people will wake up and realise that there's nothing freeing about many thousands of civilians dying for no reason annually.

*sigh*

Ah, well...it was a lovely rarity (a civil conversation with a gun ban advocate), but I should have known it couldn't last.

Bye.

actions tell the whole story... you rail against the only avenue available to stop an epidemic. I don't need your words to know what you think.

That you don't seem to realize that is telling, really...

It's also insulting, so off to Ignore you go. Bye, Felicia...

ignored by a gun nut... probably the safest I'd be around you.

This was my thoughts originally...that most people are lawful and lawful people would turn them in (if a plan to ban & confiscate was enacted) rather then face the legal consequences.

But then you see the results of a law like the NY Safe Act AWB, where only like 5% complied to a fairly unpopular law - and that was just mandating registration. There will be attrition of course, but nationally we are talking 80 million owners and 350 Million guns - and counting.

Then you have what should be the primary targets of confiscation - the criminal elements which are 70-80% of the gun violence problem, who aren't going to do shit about suddenly becoming lawful. Obviously consequences don't matter to them. And like illegal drugs and alcohol that enough people want, if there is a market there will be criminal organizations and suppliers, along with the associated violence. Guns will be available, with the majority possessed and used by the worse people.


Tough situation.

You think it would phase a banner to see a half million of their enemies vanquished?

You are happy for thousands of kids to continue to die each year so that you can have access to a gun.

I am not.

I am an anti-gun extremist aka a normal person everywhere but America.

You obviously can't stop crime but by removing 300,000,000 guns off the streets you can reduce gun deaths to the levels they are in other Western countries. I see no harm in that tradeoff. Because I value 30k Americans live a year more than you having a gun. By a very very wide margin.

Wouldn't do a damn thing to reduce gun violence because they aren't shooting people. You want to reduce gun violence then we need to figure out what to do to reduce poverty so that people aren't committing crimes. We also need to get guns out of the hands of felons. Doing those two things would vastly reduce gun violence.

That's not true.

A huge number of gun deaths are suicides and any mental health professional will tell you that taking away guns will DRASTICALLY lower that number almost instantly.

Second, another source of gun violence is domestic violence. And that's certainly NOT all about the gangs.

Third, accidental gun death and injury - and that's thousands of kids a decade - would drop dramatically.

I know you probably don't care about the hundreds thousand plus people that would save in a decade but I do.

Finally, if the only people that had guns were gangs, and no legal guns could be purchased, the number of actual guns in the hands of criminals would collapse relatively quickly. Obviously. Right now buying an illegal gun is relatively trivial, because there's 300,000,000 guns in circulation. Lower that number to even 150,000,000 in 10 years and so so so much violence - especially accidents and suicides - would disappear.

But I know I know. Ya gotta have yer gunz.

Is that it ignores the root causes of most of the murders and suicides that occur. "Gunz" don't shoot someone on their own. We should hold people responsible for their actions, not inanimate objects used to commit a crime. With respect to suicides, guns aren't causing someone to kill themselves. Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US but almost no private guns. Are you going to blame "gunz" for Japan's suicide rate?

And we know wht you've said is wrong because in Western countries without guns murder rates are lower.

As for suicide, what your saying is based purely on ignorance, so I won't take offense, but a little research will show you that guns play a HUGE part in a countries suicide rate. If Japan had hundreds of millions of guns it's suicide rate would be much higher, and when guns are removed from the equation suicide rates drop and successful suicide attempts drop dramatically. And of course most people attempt suicide once. And usually within a few minutes of deciding to try. If they fail they don't try again. They don't get that option if a gun is involved.

With the focus on who dies by suicide, these experts say, not enough attention has been paid to restricting the means to do it — particularly access to guns.

“You can reduce the rate of suicide in the United States substantially, without attending to underlying mental health problems, if fewer people had guns in their homes and fewer people who are at risk for suicide had access to guns in their home,” said Dr. Matthew Miller, a director of Harvard Injury Control Research Center and a professor of health sciences and epidemiology at Northeastern University.

About 90 percent of the people who try suicide and live ultimately never die by suicide. If the people who died had not had easy access to lethal means, researchers like Dr. Miller reason, most would still be alive.

Numerous prevention efforts were launched, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on studies and task forces, resilience programs and increasing access to mental health care.

Yet eight years and hundreds of deaths later, the suicide rate hasn’t improved. The number of suspected suicides in 2012 among active-duty soldiers was 166 at the end of October, surpassing the 165 total for all of 2011.

What’s gone wrong? Why hasn’t the Army or Defense Department been able to reduce the number of suicides?

Experts say it’s because efforts have ignored the most evidence-backed, proven prevention method: making suicide harder by restricting access to lethal means.

“There are two ways to reduce suicide: You can make it harder for them to die in an attempt, or you can heal underlying distress,” said Dr. Matthew Miller, the associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health.

“The idea is to restrict methods that are the most lethal, to provide a second chance,” Miller said.

“Means restriction,” as it’s called in public health, has been proven to reduce the suicide rate in a wide variety of places.

In 2006, after years of suicides among young men in the Israel Defense Forces, authorities forbade the troops from bringing their rifles home on weekends. Suicides dropped by 40 percent, according to a 2010 study by psychiatrists with the IDF and the Sheba Medical Center.

Those attempting suicide for the most part act on impulse, often after surprisingly brief periods of deliberation. But the impulse also passes. A survey of people who deliberated about killing themselves but did not act found that for about half, the suicidal period lasted less than an hour, according to Miller.

Among people who made near-lethal attempts, 24 percent took less than five minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt. Seventy percent took less than an hour, according to a 2001 University of Houston study of 153 survivors.

Although people who attempt suicide often suffer from psychological distress, Miller said, they don’t act until a “last straw” — a loss, a humiliation, an arrest.

“That’s the time when you can lose control of your ability to act in a sensible way,” he said. “When you are at your wits’ end, what you can reach for determines whether you live or die. All you have to do to die is lose control for one minute.

“If you’re in a house with a gun, there’s a lot more of a chance you’re going to die,” he said.

Living in a home with a gun increases the suicide death risk two- to 10-fold, Miller said.

Japan's suicide rate is much higher than the US's, despite the fact that they have very few guns. Would you agree that this fact proves that guns are not causing suicides?

Look at all the data. If Japanese people had access to guns like Americans their suicide rate would shoot up.

Time and time again experts in suicide say removing guns will greatly lower the number of suicides. You can choose to ignore that data but it's you ignoring it, not the data being wrong.

Suicide is often impulsive. Guns make it almost a certainty. Poison is frequently survived as is wrist slitting. People that survive almost never try again.

A common location to kill yourself in Japan is in a forest near Mt Fuji:

"Police records show that, in 2010, there were 247 suicide attempts (54 of which were fatal) in the forest'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

If everyone of those people had used a gun you'd be look at 5x more suicides in that one location. You can PRETEND that isn't true but only gun nuts believe it's not. Even STRIPES magazine says access to guns greatly increases suicides. The Israeli military said the same thing and greatly reduced troop suicides by preventing troops from bringing home their weapons.

The data is extensive and incontrovertible... Unless you value your toys more than 15000 US lives a year... Then it's nothing but another thing to have to ignore so you can sleep.

sons will have them for many years. And so on, and so on........

It;s been a very long time since I last hunted. The biggest threat I pose now is to those paper targets at the range.

The CDC report in 2013 acknowledges

How many of those defensive uses were against other people with guns, and how many less defensive gun use would there be if America got rid of 300,000,000 guns?

There's LOTS of countries with poverty and crime and LOWER murder rates than America, that have no guns.

What DOESN"T exist is countries with hundreds of millions of loaded guns like America and really low murder and gun violence rates.

A defensive gun use is a legal action in reaction to a crime? Reducing DGUs alone simply increases crime at a 1:1 ratio?

Or do I misunderstand and you are opposed to self-defense?

Because I live in a country now with no guns, and guess what, no defensive gun usage, and a much lower murder rate and a much lower suicide rate.

If the person you're defending yourself against doesn't have a gun, you don't as often need a gun to defend yourself. And of course a criminal without a gun is MUCH less likely to break into a house full of people. Those sorts of crimes barely register in Europe, because of the scarcity of guns.

And of course, don't forget that plenty of people pull a gun only to have it turned on them by a criminal. Or stolen and then used in a crime. Or be used accidentally (or deliberately) by a family member.

Having lived away from guns for over a decade, and being much much safer, and knowing my kids will NEVER see a gun ... well... let's just say I know what's possible.

Of murder, but all violent crime. Robbery, sexual assault, attempted murder by means other than gun... you may very well have a decrease in murder rate but how much of an increase in these other areas do you consider acceptable?

Actually countries with low gun ownership, such as England, experience higher per capita robberies of occupied homes simply because the criminals know the homeowners are not armed. A cricket bat is sufficient to give the criminal superiority over the occupants.

If neither person has a gun, it is simply strength versus strength. Criminals having an acute sense of self-preservation typically choose targets that they have a physical superiority over. That leaves the victim at a disadvantage even versus and unarmed attacker.

We often hear about the "criminal just takes the gun" but never seem to see any statistics supporting that claim. Do you happen to have any?

Many things are possible. However we must start with reality. The United States is a nation with high crime rates and high gun ownership. A change in the first may change the second, however a change in the second does not necessarily mean any change to the first.

Lot's to unpack here:

First, Ireland is largely rural. And almost all of those guns are shotguns owned by farmers. I have NEVER seen a handgun in Ireland and this year there's a GANG WAR in Ireland that has resulted in a BLOODBATH which basically means 6 people have been shot.

This has resulted in calls for a special police task force, because in Ireland when 6 people get shot the country is outraged. In America that happens every two hours and people like yourself just shrug.

If America's biggest problem was the odd elderly person being beaten to death by linebackers, it'd be an incredibly safe country. See you're willing to trade thousands of dead kids a year for some illusory sense of safety.

The Australian had 516 gun deaths the year it banned guns. Last year it had 230. Imagine saving more than 15,000 people a year in America. But I know I know... elderly people attacked by footballers means thousands of kids have to die.



http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths

Actually those kind of crimes AREN'T more common in the Europe.

United States has ranked in the top 11 for violent crime > rapes per million people since 2003.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Rapes-per-million-people

It's got much more violent crime:

EU: 283.3
US: 386.9

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Assault-rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

And a higher robbery rate than most of Europe:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Robberies

Imagine in the US had the same murder rate as Vermont. If it did no one would be calling for guns to be confiscated. But Vermont is such an outlier in America that it's statistically noise.

On the OTHER hand the Irish murder rate is HIGH for Europe. It's not anomalously low.

Ireland - with it's 6 gun deaths in its gang war is seen as violent by Europeans. Not America violent - but European violent. Literally there's no accidental shootings here. No kids finding guns here. No mass shootings here. No school shootings. And that's the same for all of Europe.

Let's put that another way.

US murder rate: 4.5 murders per 100,000 people
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/murder-topic-page/murdermain_final

Ireland murder rate: 1.1 murders per 100,000 people
France murder rate: 1.2 murders per 100,000 people
Germany: 0.9
Austria: 0.5
Switzerland: 0.5
Spain: 0.7
Croatia: 0.8
Denmark: 1.0
UK: 1.0

etc etc etc

You might say that American society is just more violent - all the more reason not to have 300,000,000 guns.

gang war usually means machine guns.

Yet there are numerous countries with very high ownership rates -- guns in the millions -- that do not suffer from the murder rates that the US does (suicide and murder simply should not be lumped together when talking about gun deaths because they have very different causes and solutions). For example, Canada, Norway and Sweden all have about 31 guns per 100 residents but don't have near the same level of murders.

Last edited Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

you don't have to say you're happy for all those kids to die, because your actions say all anyone needs to hear. You think that the status quo is grand, and have no interest in any meaningful gun control.

Americans - en masse - that includes you - can't be trusted with guns. We know this because of the hundreds of thousands of gun deaths. It's a shame that you have to lose your deadly toys, but you do, if you want to stop 30K people a year dying.

You guys are so coddled in US society that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that you're not part of the problem, but outside of America people look at you like your basically part of ISIS, playing your part in helping keep guns legal, no matter how many toddlers have their heads blown off... for freedom bro.

I am an anti-thousands of kids being shot and dying a year for no good reason ideologue. You're a thousands of kids dying can't be solved because America so keep your hands offa my toys ideologue.

As far as I can tell I'm also the only one with any sort of idea about how to low the gun death in America to say 2000 a year instead of 30k. Background checks and loophole closing won't come close to that, and that's all your type will support...

On the plus side, if you want a good stock tip, invest in children's coffin manufacturers, because your fellow gun owners are driving demand through the roof!

Never once did I encounter anyone who suggested guns owners are like ISIS. In fact, where lived and worked, many expressed an interest in the shooting sports and wished they could participate. Especially the better educated young folks. However, firearms possession is forbidden.

Saying the words "like ISIS". But extremists who kill 10s of thousands of people - including endless children - annually. That I have heard from dozens of people. That Americans are lunatics when it comes to guns (and politics). And that they have no idea how Americans can just stand by and watch all that death and shrug - or offer solutions which are so weak and meaningless.

There are some shooting sports around Europe but it would be the equivalent of bow hunting in the US. Most people don't know bow hunters. Most people don't have bows. It's a sport but it doesn't impact society.

I have lived in Ireland and the UK and traveled all over Europe for work, and - after being bewildered by our politics and our love of war - the third most common thing people want to talk about is all the gun violence. It's part of what Americans are known for: violence.

Has been used against me hundreds of times by gun nuts - who have reminded me multiple times in this discussion alone that my views are not mainstream in America - as a way to attack their validity.

My response to that has been: they aren't mainstream in the US but if we're gonna play "what's more mainstream?" then my views are certainly more mainstream everywhere BUT America. They're like universal health care. Or access to education. Americans are waking up to the first two and one day they'll wake up to meaningful gun control.

In your opinion, should the various courts have deferred to the views
of the majority of California voters, as expressed in that election?

Ahhh, yes, the sainted Europeans, well the western anyway. A subject very dear to my heart. Encountered a good number when I was living and traveling in Asia. As a group, a majority were self-righteous assholes openly contemptuous of Asia and its people. Some oblivious of the roles their predecessors played in inflicting colonialist misery on that continent. Ha! Had one prime specimen, a German, who claimed that life in the German concessions in China was so much better for the Chinese there as the Germans were such capable colonial administrators. There were those whose behavior and interactions with the local people were not dominted by their sense of moral and political superiority, but sadly they seemed the exception.

In another thread/topic you resisted the idea of segregating criminals from others in society over possibly rehabilitating them. I infer that you think people have some basic rights including life and liberty that make respecting those rights a primary purpose of government where ever possible as much as possible.

In the US our penal system apparently lags behind some in the world in its ability to rehabilitate criminals. As I've said before, I can accept that the system needs work prioritizing a budget to fix broken people but, until they are fixed, not segregating them is just asking for trouble.




Now on to the other matter. Self-defense is absolutely a right. Whatever adjective you want to add (human right, natural right... yes, all of the above) works for me. So along with respecting the general rights of those we've charged, tried and convicted to be fixed, the rest of us have the right to defend ourselves. Confiscating the most efficacious tool for that purpose is just as wrong as locking up the all of convicts and throwing away the key.


Trying to "confiscating them all" will:
- not work
- create millions more criminals that, as you note, our system already doesn't deal with correctly
- motivate some folks to liquidate their investments unwisely

If my suggestion to sentence violent offenders to life w/o parole is unreasonable in the short run, your idea of "confiscating them all" is completely absurd and counterproductive.

Exempt from most gun laws anyways.

My city, Columbus OH has 12 times more murders w/guns in one year then the
country of Japan.

...if one kills his family of 5 and then himself, it's tallied as 6 suicides.

learn to use them, and protect themselves because protecting them is beyond him and his department.

around these parts we seem to get the world we vote for... "Milwaukee girl, 5, shot dead sitting on grandfather’s lap, watching TV: cops"

and they know it. In a recent poll in DC, the support for returning to the ban was strongest in all white affluent areas like Georgetown and weakest in poor areas.
If Milwaukee is anything like Chicago, the gangs own the cops and the city council. This child wasn't killed with grandpa's pistol by negligence, it was a gang hit. If you think people who retail heroin and cocaine can't get or make guns, there is a job waiting for you at the Creation Research Institute.

Almost at a historical low overall in this country.


It is far from a national crisis.


Not one statistic the FBI or any other organization that tracks criminal activity supports that there is a national crisis of gun violence in this country.

Facts will not be tolerated!

There is hyperbole! AND a letter from a famous victim!

Facts are irrelevant.

* Shootings were 4 or more people are killed and or wounded.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/us/americas-overlooked-gun-violence.html?_r=0

358 Shootings
462 Dead
1,330 Injured
Dead and injured include suspects and victims. A New York Times analysis of 358 shootings with four or more casualties in 2015.

I give up. I am sure the 1,792 dead and wounded along with their famalies
and friends really care about historical trends?

Because people die from other things as well.

2 20 guage pump shotguns, 1 .22 HR bolt action, & 1 30-30 winchester.

I am sick of the blood, the NRA, and the gun humpers.

doesn't that make you a gun humper. besides that 30-30 winchester is more powerful than an ar-15 and can be reloaded faster than a CA compliant "assault weapon" with a bullet button.

39 are injured enough every day to be classified as "reportable accidents".


No one cares.

BTW, there has never been a mass shooting using the FBI's definition in Wyoming, let alone in my city in Sweetwater County. That one is probably someone going nuts with a airsoft, since the last gun homicide was a couple of decades ago, and the only murder this year was a stabbing.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/foghorn/shootingtracker-com-owner-admits-site-is-pure-propaganda/

They are not actual crime statistics used by any branch of government or the FBI, you know, the actual people who are mandated by the government to track this stuff , they are from one person who created that subreddit.


Reddit user BillySpeed includes kids shot with a BB or airsoft gun as "mass shootings".

One guy in his mom's basement.

I laugh at how gullible the NYT is anymore.


*On Edit: Those "statistics" also includes suspects shot or wounded by LEO while the suspect was in the act of committing a crime.

Unless you want to accuse LEO of "mass shootings", these "statistics" are all but nonsense.

Because you are believing something that is not based in reality.

remember this duzy

'He's a terrorist!' Outrage as anti-gun group names slain Boston bomber as one of VICTIMS of gun violence during rally memorializing Sandy Hook massacre

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344866/Anti-gun-group-names-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-VICTIMS-gun-violence-rally.html#ixzz4AZjzSwJs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

462 for "mass shootings" agaisnt c. 20k suicides and c. 10k ordinary homicides.

Mass shootings are horrible events...but are not even close to being the big problem with misuse of firearms.

nothing.

...the Wilhelm Klink of gun-control. What useless excuse he is.

...Clyde Barrow, St Valentine's Day and recently (1997) the North Hollywood bank robbery.
While there are no convictions, the incident with Larry Cooper in Northern Idaho is open to conjecture.

In Australia they make them from scratch. the easiest homemade gun is the single shot zip gun, the second easiest is the open bolt machine gun.

Just steel tubing, and some high school shop class level metal working. Criminals all over South America and Australia have gotten pretty good at it...full auto, open bolt, smoothbore.

You know, the same kind of place some folks around here want all personally owned firearms stored.

...if everyone's firearms are stored at an NG armory except when in use for things like hunting, competitive events, practice and defensive carry and everyone has armory access as needed so as experience the use and enjoyment of their property, it might be nice to have a place to meet people and make friends.

Would come anywhere near the place.

the DC v Heller decision that overturned SCOTUS precedent on the Second Amendment by choosing to effectively delete the entire first clause of the Amendment so that the so-called originalists could arrive at a decision that was never intended by the Founders.

The 30,000 gun deaths a year are merely collateral damage.

And the NRA and the weapons manufacturers prosper. Truly the American way.

I have lived here for many years and still cannot understand the fascination, bordering on obsession, that some Americans have for gun possession.

and the first clause is not the operative part of the sentence.

there is no SCOTUS precedent pre-Heller supporting an individual right to carry.

Second, the first clause determines how the second clause is to be read. It sets the stage for the second clause.

I know that many of the gun types like to believe/pretend/argue that Heller merely reaffirmed existing precedent, but wishing does not make it so.

If the Founders had intended that the right to carry be an individual right they would not have needed to reference the militia, which is referenced elsewhere. They could have simply said that all American s have a right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Scalia was determined to find, or more properly create, an individual right. So he created one by effectively deleting words that contradicted his intent.

The Founders intended the militia to be the defense for the new nation, thus the need for a well regulated militia. And the right to keep, meaning store, and bear arms, which means bear arms under orders.

There was no provision for a standing army. Only a well regulated militia.

Because Scalia crafted a decision that supports what you already want to believe his decision becomes the proof that gun enthusiasts need to show original intent.

It was alive until Heller and can easily be overturned again by another activist court that respects precedent.

The Second Amendment plainly states that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Georgia supreme court in 1846:

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

the ultimate judicial authority, not any state Supreme Court. This Georgia ruling that NRA types are prone to quote has no bearing on the SCOTUS. And no bearing on the Federal Constitution.

Read the entire Amendment, including the half that Justice Scalia dismissed as "merely prefatory", and explain why, if the Founders had merely wanted to codify an individual right, they did not simply state that. Any attempt to separate the militia issue from the Amendment, as Scalia did, is done to ignore the original intent, not enhance it.

Is the ultimate arbiter on the Constitution. I also understand that when interpreting the meaning of the Constitution that courts look to prior rulings, although the Georgia Supreme Court ruling is in no way binding.

The first half of the amendment is prefatory. It in no way limits the operative clause that prohibits "infringement" on the right to keep and bear arms. And (we may have had this discussion before) the "people" in the 2d Amendment is the same "people" referenced in the 1st and 4th, which undoubtedly protect individual rights. Why would the 2d be any different? Do you think that Madison, et al. would use "people" in the 1st, 2d and 4th Amendments but in the 2d only the "people" really means the "militia"? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear to me.

The crisis your interlocutor refers to, is not being able to ban guns.

MSM is in an ungraceful position. One of its chief articles of faith is that more guns=more crime. And they are the custodians of the gun-control outlook, charged with propagandizing for the controllers. Yet, when they do so now, in conjunction with anti-gun pols, the result is:. More guns (we all remember the lines). Rock meet hard place. Yeah, that is a crisis.

Kind of hard to gin up all that faux moral outrage, with violent crime half what it was in 1990, still falling and at a level not seen since the '60's.

Your challenge is struggling to keep the public ignorant of the actual facts on Defensive Gun use, the results of the 2013 CDC gun control study and trying to stem the Tsunami of concealed carry licenses in all 50 states.

The more people know, the less likely they are to support gun control it seems.

Of course you'll always have 3 or 4 hard core types in your own Group. So there's that.

Half of what it was 20 years ago, yet they're pushing twice as hard for things which the reduction can not be attributed to.

That kind of destroys the contrived Cockamayme justifications they come up with for doing it, and lays bare their intent, motivations, and goals, for all to see.

Even with Bloomberg footing all their bills, they still can't get anything done.

They have spent so much of their time demonizing the "Evil NRA" and creating personal memes (fewer gun owners all the time; 90% agree with us; epidemic of school mass shootings; there are no background checks; gun show loophole, et. al.), they totally missed the millions of dedicated new gun owners they helped create each year by demanding bans, a new AWB, local regulation etc.

Funny, the one thing they do have a clear constitutional path to try is repeal of the 2nd. But bring it up or suggest they start circulating petitions and they all kind of fade away then come back with another laughable meme; "Well, we just need one more SCOTUS justice to make the right decision".

They know damn well if they tried to repeal, they'd get laughed out of court and every state legislature where they tried it. I don't even want to guess at how many seats it would cost and how long we'd be out of any kind of power in DC if they did.

Ultimately they are guilty of the worst thing any group (or candidate) can do ... believing their own press releases.