The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years

What U.K. pub has anyone bristling with shotguns ?

 

Very good business model. The female security should have earned you a break on your liability insurance.

 

You may be better off NOT shouldering that brace...

 

His (and my) point is your interpretation of Miller and your subsequent argument that Heller overturned Miller is unsupportable - Miller does not in any way hold any of the things you claim; the language in the holding does not support your interpretation in any way.

This has been explained do you several times, in detail.

Why do you refuse to understand?

 

Because it is an issue of interpretation.
Miller certainly does allow for infringement up to the extent of militia use
Heller disallows infringement for all legal firearms uses. Heller was a misinterpretation and overstretch of judicial authority, in my view, which could easily be reversed, as it itself reversed Milller on the issue of the extent of the 2A limit on infringement.

 

Yes... and yours is unsupportable.

This is false.
Miller does not discuss the USE of the firearm in any way shape or form, or relate any such use to the 2nd.
Miller allows for the restriction of weapons not suitable for service in the militia; nowhere does it say the USE of those weapons must be related to the militia.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

This is correct, as "the right to keep and bear arms" is broad.

And so, you have no support whatsoever for your claim that Heller overturned Miller.

Unsupportable.
The SCotUS had full authority to rule on the case, and did so correctly, given preceding jurisprudence.

 

Oh please, the infringement was held valid because the weapon could not foreseeably be used in 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

2A doesn't give any right to bear arms, it only restricts the government's ability to infringe upon it.

 

In no way does this create a requirement that for the weapon to be protected, a citizen must use it in the context of or service in the militia.
It does not matter how many times you argue this non-seq, it remains a non-seq.

And so, you continue to have no support whatsoever for your claim that Heller overturned Miller.

I didn't say it did -- I said the right to keep and bear arms is broad, and thus, the right protected by the 2nd is broad as well.
This, the holding in Heller is sound.

 

Actually you have just made my point for me: that you have no real chance of drawing and using a gun in self defense.

If the offender suddenly points his gun in your direction, you are highly unlikely to get a shot off to defend yourself before he shoots, the researchers documented. Even under ideal circumstances, you probably can fire no faster than simultaneously with the attacker.​

https://www.policeone.com/Officer-S...whats-reasonable-in-armed-suspect-encounters/

On the specific point regarding beating the gun, you might, if you are lucky, duck the first shot but not the second. You would have to be pretty certain about the incompetence of your assailant (and absence of his friends) to try it unless you were certain you were going to die, in which case one would have to ask why you were not already dead.

FOR THIRD PARTY READERS: Please don't take the advice of internet cranks. Here is some actual advice from a real police officer
Note the observation: if someone has a gun to your head, they are probably not intending to kill you.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-respond-if-somebody-holds-a-gun-to-your-head-2013-12?IR=T

To exclude any potential option in tactically stupid.

 

When confronted with a gun, in certain circumstances.
70% of violent crime does not involve a gun, and so, in the huge majority of instances, your statement is unsound.

 

i think we will have to agree to disagree. I have in my view provided adequate substantiation that the principle in Miller was overturned in Heller, but you are not able to accept it. I however, am convinced, as are the minority judges in Heller.

Rights are as permitted by presiding governments. The government suspends / terminates the right to bear arms in many circumstances, such as mental health or imprisonment. Why else doesn't the 2A protect the rights of jailbirds and looneys to carry AK 47s around?

2A determines where the government power to infringe upon the right ends. It is inherently problematic to suggest the 2A provides an unlimited protection.

The "legal uses" terminology in the majority Heller decision is itself paradoxical, because if a law is made restricting use then the use is illegal, but is that law itself ruled out because it is a breach of 2A to restrain "legal uses"? Heller is just bad law.

 

OK- so we're agreed that guns do not present an effective defense to gun crime?

If a gun was a good defense to violent crime, would not the USA have far fewer cases of violent crime than places with tighter gun control?

 

You interpretation relies on a non-seq, a fact you refuse to acknowledge.
Thus, your position is not honestly derived.
As you refuse to engage in honest conversation I see no reason to waste any more time on you.

 

It really doesn't. There's some pretty plain English there...

Just explain to me how this does not relate to the intended use of a weapon for militia purposes:
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.

 

How many people are killed in the UK with firearms?

 

You are completely incapable of basic reading comprehension. You claim I made your point when I did exactly the opposite. In reality, it's becoming clear you are such a blindly ignorant person that any facts contrary to your preconceived notions are simply not processed by your inflexible and limited intellect.

More ignorance. I have seen the articles cited. They are both flawed (and years out of date)... and most law enforcement officers' training is woefully behind the times when it comes to the state of the art. The first article actually supports my point: it is talking about reaction time for an officer standing static, pointed in on a subject with a gun pointed at the ground. Can he shoot before the bad guy can get his gun up and shoot? The article states no. THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENS TO A CRIMINAL POINTING A GUN AT YOU. This article also is based in the utterly discredited tactic of standing static in a defensive situation. We jokingly call it a "Matt Dillon Drill"; trying to beat a guy to the draw while you stand rooted to the ground. In training we have proven that if you put two men of equal skill in front of each other and have them stand static as they each try to draw and shoot the other it simply guarantees both getting shot. What does it matter if you hit the bad guy a fraction of a second faster but he still shoots you? BUT, if you understand tactical movement, incorporate that movement into your defensive response, your assailant will be behind the curve and unable to catch up. Draw, MOVE OFF THE X, and start firing. Do that, and you will win the engagement 90-95% of the time. The article about what to do with a gun to your head is likewise flawed, and is written for the average person without training or knowledge... a person most likely better served by capitulation and being the best witness they can be and hoping their assailant doesn't try to eliminate the witness.

Everything you proclaim is valid responses to violence is tactically stupid. Pry open your brain and try to absorb some reality once in awhile.

 

Proportional to the number of Armed & Desperate Criminals willing to shoot others.

 

What is your expertise or education on or with firearms ?
Google does not count.

"Unneccessary bravado is boring and immature."


Then what is survival ???
Unnecessary ?
Useless ?
Any other gems of wisdom ?

 

There's a question I'd love to see an answer to!

 

As you highlight, Latherty's discussion on this is based on armchair thinking and certainly not on any kind of training, experience, or experimentation. Reminds me of a couple questions I often hear from Liberal aqaintenances... can't you just wound an assailant or shoot the gun out of their hand? The group of instructors I work with and I frequent test senarios against even our own hypotheses to improve both our knowledge and to improve our course content, everything from the best methods to clear a structure, to placing people in restraints, to engaging from the draw, gun and other weapon engagements, etc. Often, one of group will propose a scenario test by a challenge and then we talk throu how to make conduct a test. We sometimes use simunition in the tests. I have many times had my preconceived notions proven incorrect. The learning never stops, and reality often is quite different than what you envision in your head.
Funny, all of us were fans of Myth Busters and that became the name of the 6 of us that participate in these excersize so. Three of the group also tend to do considerable testing on the various of various ammo performance claims. While intellectually challenging, we have learned a great deal about practicality of various solutions.
Many posting here have experience and training and are willing to share. Those with armchair advice can get people killed.

 

I have shot someone. I have had someone try to stab me with a knife (fortunately I have a black belt in pool cue bushido and won that encounter). The guy you are questioning has no training and it is obvious by his posts. I get so tired of people who have no clue telling experts stuff we know is horse excrement

 

Um... right.

In English, that means around fifty people in one year in the entire country.

Not even one weekend here.

 

its the same tactical training facility that Joe Biden attended. You know if you think someone is breaking into your home, you should run to your back porch with a double barrel shotgun and fire two blasts in the air!

 

Indeed.

It is not a matter of intelligence or education. The four dissenting justices of the united state supreme court could be the most educated, most intelligent individuals in human history, but it would still not make a difference. Their perception and interpretation of the matter in the Heller case was simply not shared by the majority of the court. Were they correct? Were they incorrect? It does not matter, because such makes absolutely no difference. Ultimately their interpretation was rejected outright, and thus rendered moot. Their dissenting opinion carries no more legal weight, than a tour guide pamphlet.

It is no different than the latest presidential election. Perhaps Hillary Clinton really was best suited for being president of the united states. But even if such is undeniably the case, it does not matter, because Donald Trump was elected, and Hillary Clinton can never gain the position, no matter how much screaming to the contrary is done.

Which ultimately makes no difference. The dissenting opinion was rejected, thus rendering it null and void. There is no legal basis in the united states where the dissenting opinion of the minority carries legal weight.

The member Bryanva, who has thoroughly eviscerated the delusional ramblings presented on the part of yourself as if they were valid concepts, which they are not. Time and time again it has been explained, in detail, not only that you are incorrect, but why you are incorrect. Simply because you refuse to accept such a fact does not actually render your position as being correct. It merely indicates a stubborn refusal to heed the words of those with far more experience than yourself.

Such is not an indicator of the moral, ethical, or intellectual high ground. Such is no different than the behavior of a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum over not getting their way.

 

In the derry air..derrière.. of the home invader..... lol
Diasambiguation requested, lol