We all know that only a good random, frightened, angry citizen with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun.

dark crowded theater or bar and all hell breaks loose

was a retired law enforcement officer who is allowed, per LEOSA, to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States or United States Territories, "notwithstanding any provisions of the law of any state or any political subdivision thereof".

But that is what it was specifically designed to do.

be restricted from off duty carry or after retirement?

The point is, he was not an "average Joe". He was legally authorized to carry anywhere in the US. Unless he is convicted he will still be able to carry in any jurisdiction

And that, contrary to NRA fantasy, bad guys are not instantly recognizable.

So the more guns in the general population, the more opportunity for someone to use a gun to settle a perceived problem.

And even presumably trained and vetted people make bad decisions.

And when those people are carrying a gun, those bad decisions can lead to death.

Agreed?

that guns are dangerous items.

What does your hyperbole of " If only everyone in the theater had been armed." have to do with the fact that the shooter was trained, vetted and legally allowed to carry over and above any restrictive local law?

and his famous little lie that paraphrases as: only a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun.

good to know...


Ignoring the question...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172202307#post228

And sarcasm?

Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2017, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Declaring on a Democratic site that Supreme Court decisions may be ignored is not a good thing to
do while Donald Trump et alia are in power on the Federal level.

But I am not suggesting that decisions be ignored.

...just as you discounted my question.

And I do not hold with the concept of redacting 1/2 of the Amendment under the guise of what Scalia called originalism.

Which is now settled law. Thanks

But as the Robert's SCOTUS has consistently demonstrated, precedent can be overturned.

And even under Heller v DC, reasonable regulation is allowed. And what is considered reasonable can change.

It is the lack of deep public support. Stop using Heller as an excuse.

Public support has nothing to do with it.

that there are at least 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation.

Many have a considerable amount of money invested in their hobby and so have money in the game. Even those who don't have a large gun collection realize that many gun control advocates would love our natiion to have gun control legislation similar to that in Great Britain and plan to reach that goal by incrementally banning or prevent the sale of certain classes of firearms. First up are assault weapons followed by all semiautomatic firearms and finally handguns.

A high percentage of gun owners are willing to go to the polls to vote against any candidate who backs strong gun control.

The NRA only has five million members or so but it is able to inform voters of impending gun control legislation and who supports it. In my opinion that has more impact than its lobbying efforts through its political wing the NRA-ILA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.b076da671c7f

32% is a minority of Americans. Meaning of course that most Americans do not own guns.

And the NRA is a lobbying group for the weapons industry.

Some estimates are around 55,000,000 some are as high as 100,000,000.

It's hard to come up with an accurate figure as we do not require all gun owners to be licensed.

Surveys are the main method used to come up with the estimates. The problem with a survey is that many gun owners will simply refuse to tell a survey taker who comes to their door or calls them on the phone that they own firearms. Gun owners when asked if they would admit gun ownership often say, "Hell no, it's none of their damn business."

Many gun owners fear revealing ownership as they suspect the information might end up on some master list and be used when and if the Feds start confiscating firearms. Of course the government could compose a fairly accurate list of firearm owners in an amazing short amount of time anytime it wanted to. A typical gun owner often uses a credit card at a gun store, buys gun magazines, orders from online gun supply stores, belongs to gun forums on the net, goes to gun shows etc, etc, if the government ever desired it could use data mining tactics commonly used by businesses today to compliment a list of gun owners. It's simply amazing what Amazon.com knows about my buying habits. Amazon can predict stuff I might like to buy and when I am on the internet, Amazon is always making suggestions to me.

Even if only 55,000,000 people own firearms in our nation that still is a significant voting block. The 2010 census data shows there are 37,685,848 Blacks or African Americans in our nation and obviously not all are of voting age while most gun owners are.

Ref: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html

Why can't the gun control movement raise enough money to fight back.

And the 1% own the weapons industry.

How did gay marriage work? Wasn't that a well organized grassroots movement that made hugest changes in America? I don't think the 1% was on their side.

Gay marriage is a potential financial windfall for the wedding industry and its associated sub-industries.

Profit before professed ideology is the general rule.

But gun regulation could depress the market for weapons manufacturers and the associated industries.

I have asked a few times what you feel is reasonable, what the RKBA should cover for individuals and, now again, repeating those questions. The best option for progress is finding common ground and working to a compromise on differences. I don't feel we can progress if I don't know what your perspective is. I've seen some things you reject but determining what you actually think from a list of what you reject could take quite a long time.

people to carry firearms in public under the pretext of self-defense. Weapons in the home are one thing, but even there, safety should be a priority.

This is NOT about the 2A unless you believe that all aspects of the RKBA start and end with the 2A. It is my position that not every human right is detailed completely within the Bill of Rights. It has been made clear many times by many others here that they do not see the 2A as specifically protecting the private individual right to arms.

Beyond that, the BoR is not a source for the rights of the people but a detailing of certain rights and an expression of protections for those rights. The 9A and 10A:

I see it as clear that the Founders said with the BoR that the people have rights. That great set of laws bound government to protect the human rights of the people. The BoR protects the right to post this idea now on the internet. If not by extension of the 1A then by the 9A and 10A.

You've said that the 2A "...was never intended to allow people to carry firearms in public." Should there be any provision for public carry? Should a private person, apart from the National Guard, law enforcement and members of the armed services, ever be permitted to go armed beyond the borders of his own property or that property of another from whom he has been permitted? Should hunting be permitted on any public lands?

Thanks in advance.

I would never go hunting with Dick Cheney, or George Zimmerman, but I have no issue with hunting.

Thanks for the continued reasonable tone.

...


Of course some answers would be really cool:
Should there be any provision for public carry? Still waiting...
Should a private person, apart from the National Guard, law enforcement and members of the armed services, ever be permitted to go armed beyond the borders of his own property or that property of another from whom he has been permitted? Still waiting...

Should hunting be permitted on any public lands? thanks back at you...
...and for the record, I don't hunt and hate the idea of killing anything.

As to carrying in public, given that the crime rate has declined, and given that the chance of being attacked is actually quite small, the need to carry is more psychological than anything. A testament to the NRA's ability to frighten people.

...an individual bringing his own gun(s) to the home or property of another, with the owner's permission, for purposes other than hunting.


You say that the "need" to carry is small. Surely you don't suggest that all areas, cities and towns have relatively identical factors of risk and danger. What basis do you have for such an assessment?

Would you be suggesting that say the Cherry Hill area of Baltimore is equivalent to Cherry Hill, NJ?

It's what happens when a deep dislike of guns and gun owners meets the realization that to plainly state
the opinion that multiple Supreme Court opinions are not binding would serve to give political top cover to
right-wing efforts to shit on the parts of the Constitution that *they* don't like.

For that reason, I would strongly urge Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey 'take a dive' on
the following:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172202180

NRA files lawsuit over ban on assault weapons in Mass(achusetts)

...because what is used against Heller and McDonald, if successful, would certainly be used
against Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas.

Playing the "We can defy settled case law because reasons" is not a game Democrats should be playing,
no matter how strongly held their "religious beliefs". It is a two-edged sword that the GOP would be
happy to use against us.

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

Dense skulls can't put together the whole "sword cutting both ways" concept. Just shoot me. Looks like we're going to stay stupid and keep harming the nation with BS culture war.

One day three years ago, retired Tampa police Capt. Curtis Reeves sat in seat No. 9 of theater No. 10 of the Cobb Grove 16 cinemas. As previews rolled, he fired a gun during an escalating confrontation over a cellphone.

On Friday, a circuit judge sat in seat No. 9, and for her benefit, the same previews rolled, starting with Sabotage.

The fifth day of a high-profile "stand your ground" hearing opened at the movies before returning to Dade City's judicial center for an afternoon of testimony. Reeves, charged with second-degree murder in the death of Chad Oulson, 43, did not attend the outing, but attorneys did, and so did Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Susan Barthle.

Dressed in ordinary street clothes — a colorful top and black slacks — she leaned forward in the seat as Reeves had done that Jan. 13, 2014. She pushed on the back of it. She looked at the floor, down the aisle, stood and surveyed the back of the theater. She saw the video cameras that had captured the scene.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/judge-attorneys-visit-pasco-theater-where-man-was-killed-in-cell-phone/2314380

that his self-defense immunity claim will not succeed. Even if we accept all of the material facts that Mr. Reeves alleges, I don't think they amount to a justified shooting. I will be very surprised if he is granted immunity.