The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years

After its been reinterpreted, yes.

 

No. Repealed.
You have a better chance of repealing the 2nd, as Heller is universally recognized by both sides as 'settled law".

 

Sure now, a calm mugger, with a gun and rational demands... does your fantasy universe have a name?

 

The 2! As the Constitution was written so any common person could understand it. Any so called 'reinterpretation' would be bench legislation and apparent to all rational citizens.... remember, GC advocates p, I say rational.

 

Any interpretation other than that in Heller runs contrary to any and every bit of history and jurisprudence surrounding the issue.
This, of course, means nothing to the left.

 

People can choose to be a criminal, but once they victimize another, they are violating rights of others... that is he logical limit to freedom from which most rational law is based.

 

You can beat an opponent of much lower competency only. An equal with a gun? no chance. You'd want to be very confident of the opponent's lack of competence before attempting, and even so, probably only as a last resort. The first and best option is usually that no shots are fired, especially if you are uncertain of the number of assailants.

But you would actually surrender.... presumably after making some sort of loud noise.
Or did you intend to say you would never surrender?

Surrender is rational at times. Living to fight another day, or just living. Living to give your kids a father.
Unneccessary bravado is boring and immature.

 

Yep, conflict zones, especially ones where you are an external

 

It would appear from the decision in Heller that it has been massively misunderstood. Further a 5-4 majority is hardly convincing, indicating quite an absence of common understanding.

 

Positions change as the makeup of SCOTUS changes over time. Look at the history of labor laws through SCOTUS.

 

You chart is of firearms offences. That's not the point. The point of the chart I posted is that violent crime increases in Western nations when they implement strong gun control and gun bans. Australia is the best case, violent crime increased 33% when their 1996 gun ban went into effect.

 

That is quite wrong. Heller overturned the principle established in Miller that the 2A limitation extends only so far as an infringement on the capacity to form a militia:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

​

and added all lawful uses to the protected applications

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​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

so was yours, though .

All intentional deaths declined in Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/heal...ed-since-the-gun-buyback-20160622-gpp4wp.html
Long term trends don't seem to back that. Big spike in robbery on trend from the year before, but that calmed down presently.

Way way way below USA figures.

 

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Action beats reaction. Faced with opponents of varying competency in the real world, and even against equally well trained "opponents" in training, when they wait for me to react - even knowing how I'm going to react - I win. Even a person with their finger on the trigger takes up to three quarters of a second to react to stimulus, and literally cannot react quickly enough to prevent an effective response when that response is based in valid tactics. It's been proven in training and real life on a great many occasions. Your ignorance doesn't change the fact you're wrong.

Surrender is not an option for me. Never has been.

Well, the only "surrender" I ever practice is to my wife's opinions for the most part. Not bravado, just the way I live my life. I will not surrender when doing so means my execution. I will die on my feet fighting; not on my knees hoping and praying someone will save me or take mercy on me. You can make your own choices, and you have the right to decide how you wish your life to end. I have the right to make different choices, and you have NO right to force your choices on me.

 

We've been through this.
You're wrong.
Miller says nothing about the capacity to form a militia in any way.

 

Regarding Miller vs US and 1934 NFA act...

Legal or Illegal... it has a 10" barrel?


If you think illegal under the 1934 NFA ACT, you'd be wrong.

 

I love that they have evaluated the laws and ruled that these new class of PDW shotguns are legal. A more effective close range defensive arm would be hard to find.

 

Also Legal...

 

You have been making this argument for quite some time now. However not once has your argument ever been regarded as correct. You are not a legal expert on matters pertaining to the constitution. You are not an attorney whose employment requires you to be an expert in matters of law and supreme court rulings. However those such individuals have pointed out, time and time again, that you are incorrect in your position. You lack credibility to be believable when compared to those who are indeed experts on matters such as the united states constitution. You are doing nothing more than wasting your time, by repeating the same debunked and discredited nonsense over and over again, to individuals who have concluded that you are simply wrong in your position. You are engaging in the equivalent of addressing a brick wall. Simply stop wasting your time, and move onto something new.

 

liberals believe repitition manufactures truth don't you know.

 

Anyone in law enforcement or who runs a bar should do everything they can to improve the odds. Many do not. I try very hard to avoid high risk situations now. As you clearly know any violent encounters of any kind, even a fist fight can end very bad - doctors, lawyers, police right away are always likely to get involved - then friends families and maybe a coroner. Better to stay down on the farm - if it is an option.

 

It was a learning experience. One thing many that went to my blues pub (yes blues, not Irish music) found it unusual, after my first year, that I discriminated with hiring my door employees; I had only women working my door and security, once I made that move, I never had another bar fight. I was once asked, what happened if someone hit one of the women...I just pointed at the men in the bar, but that contingency was never needed; the ladies tended to spot problems quick, de-escalate them and eject a problem with a free drink chip for their next visit. The men working for me were instructed to be nearby if they were motioned for backup, but let the ladies handle the problem. The system worked great.... it was proposed by my youngest employee, a lady, that eventually became my manager... brilliant on her part.
All my employees received martial arts training, some by me, but all paid by me and trained in how to de-escalate situations, always maintain politeness, and maintain dedication to the customer... then too, on weekends, I hired a detail to stay close by.
I ran a safe, drug free place to hear good music and the music and a sense of familiar faces was my real product...along with food and drink. It didn't hurt that my place was a hangout for off duty LE, attorneys, and musicians.

 

Oh really, the Supreme court minority are just bumbling fools with no legal education?

It is simply the case that SCOTUS was poised on a knife-edge majority in Heller.

And what legal experts have pointed out any error? You?

 

I could say the same for conservatives.

 

Simple question: why weren't your security staff armed?
Was it not a dereliction on your part not to have them bristling with shotguns?