Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I didn't mention police, the conversation was about yourself and reasonable Caveman.
I didn't mention police, the conversation was about yourself and reasonable force.
When I was in the Army, we were told that the "winner" of a knife fight is the one who bleeds to death last. We were trained that the only two times using a knife was allowable was when you either needed a nearly silent kill, or you didn't have a pistol or rifle.You're a silly fucker. Come at a police officer with a knife and see if he or she doesn't immediately produce a gun. Knife fights are ugly, and usually both sides end up being cut or stabbed. Knife wounds are also ugly. Chances are you'll either bleed out of set serious infections.
Law enforcement has what they call the "21 foot rule." An attacker armed with a knife can cover 21 feet (7 yards) is 1.5 seconds, which is also the amount of time it takes to unholser a sidearm and fire. And once that attacker is on you, you're fucked. Many people have also been shot multiple times with little or no effect.
If I do not have a knife, but I do have a gun, how is it unreasonable to shoot them?The perpetrator comes at you with a knife, so you pick up a knife to defend yourself, that's reasonable
Bruen requires that the Government PROVE, not just claim, but PROVE, that there were analogous laws in the period of the ratification for a law to be justified. The Judges, the lawyers (on both sides) and even the Supreme Court keeps saying that there were laws against "dangerous and unusual" arms but they never say what law that was; they never prove it.‘A federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”
“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.
The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” the judge wrote. The Massachusetts law prohibits some semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. It was passed in 1998 and was made permanent after a similar federal statute expired in 2004, according to the judge’s order.’
“…not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes…”
True.
And the decision recognizes Bruen and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
For those who disagree with the ruling, Judge Saylor isn’t the villain – that would be Thomas and his ‘historical tradition’ test; a ‘test’ that’s flawed, ham-handed, and poorly reasoned.
He knows.There were no Federal gun laws until 1938. That's far, far, past the ratification era. Therefore there is not a single law that can possibly survive the history of the 2nd Amendment test in Bruen.
The NYPD was the first full-time police force, not a sheriff's department, was created in 1845. At the time of the Founding there were no police departments at all and the Founders would have despised the idea of a police force as much as, and probably more so, than they despise a standing army. In the days of the Founding, nearly every healthy male citizen of militia age, with few exceptions for those in particular service-to-the-public jobs, as you and we all know, made up the militia. But, along with that, they also served on a rotation as Town Watch. When the Town Watch observed a crime, they rang the alarm bell. When the alarm bell was rang, all of the militia within hearing responded with their mandatory owned firearms and ammunition.There is no difference between a weapon carried by a law enforcement officer, and a weapon carried by an American citizen. Police officers don't carry weapons to protect you, they carry them to protect themselves. And a US Court of Appeals ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that law enforcement officers have no duty to protect. Therefore, granted by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, American citizens have no less of right to use deadly force to protect themselves, than do law enforcement officers.
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia
With a gang of 25 armed illegals sanctioned by our own government to come in and throw you out of your own house....a six shooter prolly doesn't cut it.whats ordinary self defense jones?....
There's no such thingReasonable force
UK law states otherwise, and the law is a tad more important than opinion.There's no such thing
UK law states otherwise, and the law is a tad more important than opinion.....
If I do not have a knife, but I do have a gun, how is it unreasonable to shoot them?The perpetrator comes at you with a knife, so you pick up a knife to defend yourself, that's reasonable
UK law states otherwise, and the law is a tad more important than opinion.
That was what the King tried to tell us in 1776. Human rights are more important than the law. My right to life trumps law in the UK and in America. If I am in fear for my life, what threat can the government hold over me that would keep me from defending myself? The guy trying to kill me now or the government in 6 months or 20 years? So what? 20 years is a much longer life.UK law states otherwise, and the law is a tad more important than opinion.
Search for gun nut clichésThat was what the King tried to tell us in 1776.
UK law states otherwise, and the law is a tad more important than opinion.
Yup, both are pretty much fucked up in the head.There is no difference between a weapon carried by a law enforcement officer, and a weapon carried by an American citizen.
In you case the search for a thinking brain is the hard part. Face it, in every country that has the laws that you so love violent gun crime is exploding. It isn't the gun, it is the violentthird world people who commit those crimes. Don't like gun violence, deport those who are committing the violence. So simple a moron can understand.Search for gun nut clichés
Leftists don't want normal people to be able to defend themselves.U.K. law states that having a knife with the intent to use it for self defense is a crime....
t is illegal to carry a knife, even if it belongs to somebody else and if you are caught you will be arrested.
Anyone who is carrying a knife and is intending to use it as a weapon – even in self-defence - can be arrested, go to court and receive a police record or even a prison sentence of up to 4 years.
Search for gun nut clichés
If I do not have a knife, but I do have a gun, how is it unreasonable to shoot them?The perpetrator comes at you with a knife, so you pick up a knife to defend yourself, that's reasonable
Yup, both are pretty much fucked up in the head.
If I do not have a knife, but I do have a gun, how is it unreasonable to shoot them?The perpetrator comes at you with a knife, so you pick up a knife to defend yourself, that's reasonable
