Re: Emerson VS U.S.: You have NO constitutional right to ANY Gun!


RD Sandman wrote:
Matt expressed precisely :
RD Sandman wrote:

No, those on "my" side feel that the current spate of gun control laws
is directed at the wrong people, won't affect those people who are the
problem and are the salve for those who are looking for simply
solutions that they don't have to think very hard on. OIne can tell
that by simply discussing those laws with them and listening to what
their answers are on what they will fix.

Shrug. "Your" side thinks concealed carry makes a difference, and that
it will somehow save lives. You and I both know this isn't true,

Depends on where you frame that. I state that my concealed carry may
very well affect violent crime in my *immediate* vicinity but will have
little or no effect on national averages. However, I also feel that
anyone who will *not* carry a firearm to defend thenselves and family
is absolutely their right to make and call. But when they fight to
remove that opportunity from me they become a fucking hypocrite, since
they have to bear no responsibility or accountability for that decision
if I end up in a situation where I needed one. They may make that
decision for themselves, but that decision for me is not theirs to
make.

Okay, I agree with this. I have no interest in taking away your ability
to
defend yourself. I just don't want you to get me or my kids killed in
the
process. Fair?

So far, I don't even think I have scared them or given any reason for
concern. ;)

You don't know that. For all you know, you are the boogeyman I use
to scare them into doing their homework or something. Hm, There's
a thought :)

Columbine lasted for quite some time. I am sure that someone would
have figured out that some students were killing other students.
Perhaps no teacher who was carrying would have been in the area where
they could have done some good. Who knows? You don't.....I don't.
But it was certainly an option that was not available.

Columbine did not last for quite some time. The whole thing was
probably
over in an hour or less.

You don't think that teachers could figure out that some students were
shooting other students within an hour? The average defensive shooting
is 3 rounds, 3 yards or less, 3 seconds. Columbine lasted a lot longer
than that.

The problem was, the only part of it that had any real chance for
"ending"
lasted no time at all. The guard exchanged a few shots, missed, ran,
and
it was over at that point. Would you have high school students carrying
guns
in school? Aside from the one teacher (Dave something, sorry, I'm
really trying
to block that thing out), who was blindsided and shot, I don't think
anyone else
really had a decent shot at them. So, no, it didn't last that long.



There was an armed guard present. He exchanged
shots with the two boys. He lost. It was an option, it did not help.
You can lose the Columbine argument.

As can you.

I'm good with it if you are.

I don't wish to relive it AGAIN.

Sorry, but it is part of our history and we should learn from it.
Should we never revisit 9/11?

Sigh. Ok, you make a valid point. The difference is, 9/11, even though
it was
my hometown and I KNEW some of those people, is still in the abstract
to
me. They were all adults. The kids at Columbine is too scary for me to
think
about. Yes, I know, its one of those things you need to face up to.


FWIW, if those propane bombs had worked as planned, guns would not even
be a topic of conversation in the Columbine subject. Folks tend to
forget that.

Good point.


I agree again. Part of the problem is getting media attention of the
right kind. We do get media attention but if we have a gathering of
folks in suits, doctor's scrubs, nurses uniforms, pilot's flight suits
and one guy shows up with cammies, guess which one will be on the
evening news.

Well, of course. If it leads, it bleeds, and if its a hero, it trumps.
So what
else is new?

Huh? You missed the point. What is a hero doing in a response to some
dude simply wearing cammies and a biased press?

Because the press sees those that "win" as a hero. I agree, though,
upon
re-reading, I missed the point. My apologies.

Fair enough. The point was that even with professional and respected
people being pro gun, the media will focus on Bubba in the cammies.

I know. Sadly, we don't really think things through in most cases. You
make
valid points, and I'm not really arguing with you.


Not at all, but first one has to have a case go to the USSC. So far,
they denied cert to recent 2A cases. The real problem is that when one
reads case law (which I have done a lot of) there are things stated in
there that can be read in either direction. US v Miller is a good
example.

There is probably a reason they are denying cert, but I don't know what
it is.
That might be a good starting point.

Denial of cert says nothing about the merits of the case. That is per
the USSC itself.

I know, and its a sad thing, for any group. There should be a reason
that USSC denies a case, and there seems to be no rhyme or reason anymore.

That applies to a lot of stuff.......like mandatory trigger locks.

I understand the idea behind trigger locks, I just don't see the point.

Matt

.