Why do criminals in other countries obey gun laws?

...Aaaaand once again you demonstrate you don't even had a tertiary grasp of how rights work.

 

Wow. There's a statement of ignorance. Have you ever seen what a knife can do to someone?? I have. Someone pulls a knife on me I'm going to shoot him in the face repeatedly to prevent him from getting anywhere near me with it.

 

"The government isn't allowed to search your house or hard drive without a warrant, but only if you made them yourself".

 

Hardly. Nothing in Miller supports a collective right view.

 

The five dissenting judges in MacDonald disagree.

 

And if he pulled a gun on you you'd be dead already.

 

Regardless of the case you refer to, this does not change the soundness of my statement.
Of course, as you haven't read the holding in Miller, you would not know.

 

Miller did nothing of the kind.

First understand what the fraudulent collective rights interpretation claims: The RKBA is a “collective right” to participate in an armed militia or to have and use arms only while in militia service.

So somehow we take the phrase “the right of the people” in the 2nd Amendment and turn it into a “collective right”—wording which itself is never satisfactorily explained beyond the anti-gunner’s claim “it means we win and you can’t have a gun outside the militia.”

A significant problem with this argument is the phrase “the right of the people” is used in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments. And so the collective arguments attempts this feat of mental gymnastics: The phrase “the right of the people” means an individual right in the 1st Amendment, is magically transformed into a “collective right” in the 2nd Amendment, and then as the clock strikes midnight magically transforms back into an individual right in the 4th Amendment. How? Because we say so (since we have zero evidence otherwise).

Really now? How does the exact same phrase mean two completely different things? (unless you want to argue the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is also “collective”—so I and my fellow Red Sox fans are protected when we are “collectively” watching a game at Fenway, while the police kick in our home doors because it’s not an individual right….)

Don’t you see how foolish this is? Is it any wonder the Heller Court rejected the collective rights view 9-0? (Yes, they all did)

Back to Miller. Jack Miller was a bootlegger who got caught with a sawed-off shotgun. He possessed it as a private citizen and not as a member of a militia. If the court believed in the “collective right” interpretation, or even if it believe the right was limited to militia service, then it would have dismissed his case outright for lack of standing. It would have said “Jack Miller, as a private citizen and not a member of any state-sponsored militia, has no standing to claim the protection of any right recognized by the 2nd Amendment.” But it didn’t. It assumed that as a private citizen he had an individual right to keep and bear arms outside militia service, and it then went on to decide the case based upon the issue of whether the type of weapon he possessed was one that he would be protected in having.

Heller did not overturn Miller. Heller cited it with approval and used it to help shape its holding. Ask me and I will show you where.

Now I’m out for the rest of the weekend camping with my son’s Scout troop. While I’m gone how about you give me your best argument for why the 2nd Amendment right (whether you want to call it collective or individual) applies only to militia service, and I’ll come back and tell you my reasons for why it is wrong and we can compare them as well.

 

Five?

 

Not always the case:

South Carolina, June 2016

“Deputies said 32-year-old Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun after getting into an argument with another man and fired several rounds toward a crowd that had gathered out in front of the club.

"His rounds struck three victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg," Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

Bobo said the man who shot Thompson has a valid concealed weapons permit, cooperated with investigators, and won’t be facing any charges.

"Thompson was still on the scene when deputies arrived, but the initial scene was chaotic," Bobo said. "It wasn’t until victims and witnesses were interviewed, and video from the scene was reviewed that Thompson was identified as the suspect."

Thompson was charged with four counts of attempted murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and unlawful carrying of a weapon.”

 

When you make things up, you tend to get confused from time to time.

 

You must play lots of online games.

 

Thank you for once again for demonstrating your ignorance of how things work in the real world. Someone pulling a gun on you does NOT mean you're dead. It means the fight's just begun, and if you've been trained in the proper tactics you have a very good chance of prevailing. If having a gun pulled on you means "you'd be dead already" then I wouldn't be here typing this.

 

I'm sorry, but you are full of it. Someone pulls a gun on you and what are you going to do? Catch the bullet with between you palms then "karate chop" him somewhere between the shoulder and the neck and he falls down unconscious? Saw that in a movie once? Please.
Someone points a loaded gun at you and either you do what you're told or you're dead. End of.

 

Getting shot does not mean you are dead either, somehow too many assumptions are made.

 

Ooops, Four. Five were with the majority

 

That is a load of fertilizer, I have had people pull a gun on me and I had enough time to pull mine and shoot first.

lol, you palms ? not your palms ?

 

OK that's fair. I did lean on hyperbole there.

 

No sht, really? The story of dumb and dumber. Him: dumb to respond so slowly, You: dumb to try it. What the hell were you thinking?

 

You really need to stop talking about that which you clearly know nothing about. All you're doing is making yourself look foolish.

Bad guy pulls a gun. You move explosively off the X and draw your sidearm. His shot goes where you were, not where you are, as your unexpected action has thrown him off and now forces him to react to you. Before he has gotten caught up to what's happening you fire multiple rounds into his chest and face. He dies. You live. That's how it's done when you know what you're doing. I would elaborate on situational awareness as well, but such is clearly beyond you to comprehend.

 

He was thinking about survival. Action beats reaction.

In training, again and again and again there are drills where one participant points a firearm at another and is told to pull the trigger the moment he sees the other participant move. Inevitably the armed participant fails to pull the trigger in time... EVEN WHEN HE KNOWS HIS TARGET IS GOING TO MOVE.

 

We have to assume that if someone pulls a gun on a cop, it isn't to take his wallet.

 

Working U.C. making buys, the suspect pulls a Davis pistol and yells, you five oh !!!
He has not fired yet, and I hear a siren in the distance, I yell, Cops are here !
He looks startled and looks away from me in the direction of the siren, I draw and fire centermass 5 times, I am alive, the perp, not so much.....

 

How does a dissenting opinion, held by a minority of judges, carry any actual weight?

Under the laws of the district of columbia, such activities would be illegal.

Attempts at prohibiting firearms in society, however, are far more difficult at carrying out. Even attempting to locate firearms is all but impossible in most cases. Speaking metaphorically, it is not unlike trying to keep the tide from coming in, by collecting the water in a bucket, and throwing it back into the incoming water.

It suggests there is not an actual interest in preventing prohibited individuals from illegally acquiring firearms, as they are almost never punished for such offenses.

In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, it is a highly complex subject that requires discussion of numerous minute details in an in depth manner?

The above assumes that such is actually a physical possibility. It is not believed that such can actually be done. It would be like trying to make a knife that can cut through whatever medium it is used on, other than flesh and bone. It is a physical contradiction, attempting to make an item perform its specific function, but only under circumstances in which such is desired or acceptable.

Under united states law, there are two recognized militia parties. The organized militia, which is the national guard, and the unorganized militia, which consists of the public at large that can legally own and use a firearm. If membership in the national guard cannot legally be compelled as a requirement for firearms ownership, for example on the basis that it would discriminate against those who cannot meet minimum standards for physical fitness, how would militia service and duties be defined? What degree of definition would be used, since service in the military does not exclusively involve armed combat?

 

NG troops to desegregate the schools after the Supreme Court decision