Next SCOTUS case may give ALL Americans a constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public

[Ray From Cleveland]

So this means I can walk around with a gun and if one you right wing pieces of shit threaten me I can shoot you?

Depends on the threat and what state you live in.

Our law states that a CCW holder can use deadly force if they believe that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.

There is no legal or medical definition of the term Serious bodily harm. Also, if a prosecutor is going to charge me for using deadly force in self-defense, he or she must prove that I didn't believe I was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.

So it all boils down to what a court (or jury) thinks if somebody is charged. If somebody walks towards you yelling that he doesn't like your hat and you shoot him, that's different than three young adult males running at you screaming KILL HIM!

 

[JakeStarkey]

So this means I can walk around with a gun and if one you right wing pieces of shit threaten me I can shoot you?

Depends on the threat and what state you live in.

Our law states that a CCW holder can use deadly force if they believe that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.

There is no legal or medical definition of the term Serious bodily harm. Also, if a prosecutor is going to charge me for using deadly force in self-defense, he or she must prove that I didn't believe I was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.

So it all boils down to what a court (or jury) thinks if somebody is charged. If somebody walks towards you yelling that he doesn't like your hat and you shoot him, that's different than three young adult males running at you screaming KILL HIM!

Ray, the prosecutor has to present evidence particular to the case that no reasonable person would have perceived they were in danger. Defense may rebuttal that evidence but does not have to. The Judge will instruct the Jury that the defendant's sole belief in absence of all of the evidence cannot be a barrier against prosecution.

 

[Crixus]

Watch Gorsuch vote to eliminate the right.

Could happen. After all, super Neoconservative Boosh appointed John Roberts made Bammer care happen.

 

[yiostheoy]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

The "correct way" or the way the right wants people to vote?

I've stated the facts on the 2A many times, and almost every time people will IGNORE the facts because they don't suit their agenda.

The correct way, as in the way that is mandated by a thorough reading of the Constitution on this issue.

Okay, which would mean that the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Seeing as this is how the founders decided it should be, seeing as this is how the Supreme Court has ruled it, and seeing as this is the only way for it to make any sense.....

I reject your interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly in District of Columbia v. Heller that there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun, and that the Founding Fathers didn't just intend it for militia purposes. I doubt that self-defense was blank from the Founders' minds when they drafted the Constitution.

Well it's not surprising that you reject my interpretation. Everyone does. Why? Well because they have an agenda.

The point is, ALL THE EVIDENCE points to what I have said. I had a debate with someone on here, and they presented nothing, but managed to just ignore everything I presented, which included the Supreme Court both past and present, the Founding Fathers including George Washington.

Also, you don't understand my interpretation, so again, hardly surprising you're rejecting it.

There is an individual right to own a weapon. This is NOT reliant on Militia service. The reason it is protected in the 2A is so that the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need. Rather than relying on govt arms, it relies on those in the general populace.

There is an individual right to be in the militia. This is NOT reliant on militia service. You don't need to be in the militia to then, in a time of need, to then join up the militia.

There is other evidence of this. In the early 20th Century there Dick Act was passed, which made the National Guard. Now, if everyone has the right to be in the militia, then the National Guard would be as ineffective as the militia was at dealing with more modern threats and wars. So they made the "unorganized militia" so that all males aged 17-45 would automatically be in the "militia", but technically rather than in reality, so then these people could demand to be in the militia, which would in effect be the National Guard. There is not other reason to make an "unorganized militia" which has, in over 100 years, never done a single thing, never met, never operated, never called up, never done one thing. It exists for one reason, and that, as I explained, is because the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia, or as the Founding Fathers said "render military service" or "militia duty".

Militia service is a DUTY not a RIGHT.

Keeping arms in your home is a RIGHT.

 

[yiostheoy]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

The question is where does Neil Gorsuch stand compared with Scalia -- further to the "right" or not?

Scalia in Heller interpreted "bear arms" as bringing them from your home to your militia duty when mustered out.

Will Gorsuch take the same view? Or will he interpreted the word differently.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So this means I can walk around with a gun and if one you right wing pieces of shit threaten me I can shoot you?

Depends on the threat and what state you live in.

Our law states that a CCW holder can use deadly force if they believe that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.

There is no legal or medical definition of the term Serious bodily harm. Also, if a prosecutor is going to charge me for using deadly force in self-defense, he or she must prove that I didn't believe I was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.

So it all boils down to what a court (or jury) thinks if somebody is charged. If somebody walks towards you yelling that he doesn't like your hat and you shoot him, that's different than three young adult males running at you screaming KILL HIM!

Ray, the prosecutor has to present evidence particular to the case that no reasonable person would have perceived they were in danger. Defense may rebuttal that evidence but does not have to. The Judge will instruct the Jury that the defendant's sole belief in absence of all of the evidence cannot be a barrier against prosecution.

The bottom line is you have to follow the law. There have been juries in the past that voted against their own judgement because the instructions to the jury always include ruling based on the law---not personal or political feelings.

So as our law is written, to charge a person, they have to have evidence what the shooter believed at that time. Unless they can find a Facebook post or some sort of admission by the shooter that he really didn't believe his life or health was on the line, it's up to the prosecutor to get evidence of what the shooter actually believed. That's nearly impossible.

We have had cases since our law passed where the CCW holder did end up being charged and imprisoned, but the evidence was clear the shooter had no reason to believe they were in any kind of danger.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The "correct way" or the way the right wants people to vote?

I've stated the facts on the 2A many times, and almost every time people will IGNORE the facts because they don't suit their agenda.

The correct way, as in the way that is mandated by a thorough reading of the Constitution on this issue.

Okay, which would mean that the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Seeing as this is how the founders decided it should be, seeing as this is how the Supreme Court has ruled it, and seeing as this is the only way for it to make any sense.....

I reject your interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly in District of Columbia v. Heller that there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun, and that the Founding Fathers didn't just intend it for militia purposes. I doubt that self-defense was blank from the Founders' minds when they drafted the Constitution.

Well it's not surprising that you reject my interpretation. Everyone does. Why? Well because they have an agenda.

The point is, ALL THE EVIDENCE points to what I have said. I had a debate with someone on here, and they presented nothing, but managed to just ignore everything I presented, which included the Supreme Court both past and present, the Founding Fathers including George Washington.

Also, you don't understand my interpretation, so again, hardly surprising you're rejecting it.

There is an individual right to own a weapon. This is NOT reliant on Militia service. The reason it is protected in the 2A is so that the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need. Rather than relying on govt arms, it relies on those in the general populace.

There is an individual right to be in the militia. This is NOT reliant on militia service. You don't need to be in the militia to then, in a time of need, to then join up the militia.

There is other evidence of this. In the early 20th Century there Dick Act was passed, which made the National Guard. Now, if everyone has the right to be in the militia, then the National Guard would be as ineffective as the militia was at dealing with more modern threats and wars. So they made the "unorganized militia" so that all males aged 17-45 would automatically be in the "militia", but technically rather than in reality, so then these people could demand to be in the militia, which would in effect be the National Guard. There is not other reason to make an "unorganized militia" which has, in over 100 years, never done a single thing, never met, never operated, never called up, never done one thing. It exists for one reason, and that, as I explained, is because the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia, or as the Founding Fathers said "render military service" or "militia duty".

Militia service is a DUTY not a RIGHT.

Keeping arms in your home is a RIGHT.

Well in a manner yes. The Founding Fathers looked at it that a person could be compelled to be in the militia, but also that a person could demand to be in the militia, ie, have the right.

It works both ways. But the 2A prevents the US federal govt from stopping people from being in the militia, because they said there was a right to bear arms.

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
George Washington

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"


"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

George Washington also used the term "bear arms" to mean militia duty, and yes, they did use militia duty as a duty.

However, how do you protect the militia from attack from the Federal government? You protect the two things a militia needs. Arms and personnel.

 

[yiostheoy]

Ok -- on the subject of when to shoot ... .

You need to be in fear of your life or of severe bodily harm.

A black eye or a bloody nose is not enough.

Having a gun or knife pointed at you IS enough.

Having someone trying to knock you unconscious IS enough.

Seeing someone start to stomp on someone else who is unconscious IS enough.

Best thing is to keep your distance from someone else and shout at them to keep their distance too. If they keep coming at you then that IS enough.

 

[yiostheoy]

The correct way, as in the way that is mandated by a thorough reading of the Constitution on this issue.

Okay, which would mean that the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Seeing as this is how the founders decided it should be, seeing as this is how the Supreme Court has ruled it, and seeing as this is the only way for it to make any sense.....

I reject your interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly in District of Columbia v. Heller that there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun, and that the Founding Fathers didn't just intend it for militia purposes. I doubt that self-defense was blank from the Founders' minds when they drafted the Constitution.

Well it's not surprising that you reject my interpretation. Everyone does. Why? Well because they have an agenda.

The point is, ALL THE EVIDENCE points to what I have said. I had a debate with someone on here, and they presented nothing, but managed to just ignore everything I presented, which included the Supreme Court both past and present, the Founding Fathers including George Washington.

Also, you don't understand my interpretation, so again, hardly surprising you're rejecting it.

There is an individual right to own a weapon. This is NOT reliant on Militia service. The reason it is protected in the 2A is so that the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need. Rather than relying on govt arms, it relies on those in the general populace.

There is an individual right to be in the militia. This is NOT reliant on militia service. You don't need to be in the militia to then, in a time of need, to then join up the militia.

There is other evidence of this. In the early 20th Century there Dick Act was passed, which made the National Guard. Now, if everyone has the right to be in the militia, then the National Guard would be as ineffective as the militia was at dealing with more modern threats and wars. So they made the "unorganized militia" so that all males aged 17-45 would automatically be in the "militia", but technically rather than in reality, so then these people could demand to be in the militia, which would in effect be the National Guard. There is not other reason to make an "unorganized militia" which has, in over 100 years, never done a single thing, never met, never operated, never called up, never done one thing. It exists for one reason, and that, as I explained, is because the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia, or as the Founding Fathers said "render military service" or "militia duty".

Militia service is a DUTY not a RIGHT.

Keeping arms in your home is a RIGHT.

Well in a manner yes. The Founding Fathers looked at it that a person could be compelled to be in the militia, but also that a person could demand to be in the militia, ie, have the right.

It works both ways. But the 2A prevents the US federal govt from stopping people from being in the militia, because they said there was a right to bear arms.

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
George Washington

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"


"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

George Washington also used the term "bear arms" to mean militia duty, and yes, they did use militia duty as a duty.

However, how do you protect the militia from attack from the Federal government? You protect the two things a militia needs. Arms and personnel.

Sounds like a duty to me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ok -- on the subject of when to shoot ... .

You need to be in fear of your life or of severe bodily harm.

A black eye or a bloody nose is not enough.

Having a gun or knife pointed at you IS enough.

Having someone trying to knock you unconscious IS enough.

Seeing someone start to stomp on someone else who is unconscious IS enough.

Best thing is to keep your distance from someone else and shout at them to keep their distance too. If they keep coming at you then that IS enough.

Not really. The law is you have to escape danger if you can when outside of your home; inside your home is different.

You cannot be an aggressor in a situation and then use deadly force. If somebody cuts you off on the road, you can't tailgate them for a mile, and then when the person gets out of the car, shoot him. You have to not be the aggressor.

Bloddy nose and black eye? Sure, that's enough if you are attacked. Check out the George Zimmerman case. The jury (some against their own conscience) voted not guilty when Zimmerman was getting beat up by Trayvon Martin. He used his gun to kill Martin who was 17 years old at the time. Perfectly legal in the state of Florida.

There is no law that an attacker has to be armed for you to use deadly force yourself. You can legally kill an unarmed attacker if justified by the laws of your state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ok -- on the subject of when to shoot ... .

You need to be in fear of your life or of severe bodily harm.

A black eye or a bloody nose is not enough.

Having a gun or knife pointed at you IS enough.

Having someone trying to knock you unconscious IS enough.

Seeing someone start to stomp on someone else who is unconscious IS enough.

Best thing is to keep your distance from someone else and shout at them to keep their distance too. If they keep coming at you then that IS enough.

The first such case was in the Dallas area involved "A black eyes or a bloody nose", which was enough for the defendant to shoot and kill the attacker. The case involved road rage. The attacker got out of his car and leaned in the defendant's window and started battering him. Attacker was shot and died. Shooter was charged and was acquitted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, which would mean that the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Seeing as this is how the founders decided it should be, seeing as this is how the Supreme Court has ruled it, and seeing as this is the only way for it to make any sense.....

I reject your interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly in District of Columbia v. Heller that there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun, and that the Founding Fathers didn't just intend it for militia purposes. I doubt that self-defense was blank from the Founders' minds when they drafted the Constitution.

Well it's not surprising that you reject my interpretation. Everyone does. Why? Well because they have an agenda.

The point is, ALL THE EVIDENCE points to what I have said. I had a debate with someone on here, and they presented nothing, but managed to just ignore everything I presented, which included the Supreme Court both past and present, the Founding Fathers including George Washington.

Also, you don't understand my interpretation, so again, hardly surprising you're rejecting it.

There is an individual right to own a weapon. This is NOT reliant on Militia service. The reason it is protected in the 2A is so that the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need. Rather than relying on govt arms, it relies on those in the general populace.

There is an individual right to be in the militia. This is NOT reliant on militia service. You don't need to be in the militia to then, in a time of need, to then join up the militia.

There is other evidence of this. In the early 20th Century there Dick Act was passed, which made the National Guard. Now, if everyone has the right to be in the militia, then the National Guard would be as ineffective as the militia was at dealing with more modern threats and wars. So they made the "unorganized militia" so that all males aged 17-45 would automatically be in the "militia", but technically rather than in reality, so then these people could demand to be in the militia, which would in effect be the National Guard. There is not other reason to make an "unorganized militia" which has, in over 100 years, never done a single thing, never met, never operated, never called up, never done one thing. It exists for one reason, and that, as I explained, is because the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia, or as the Founding Fathers said "render military service" or "militia duty".

Militia service is a DUTY not a RIGHT.

Keeping arms in your home is a RIGHT.

Well in a manner yes. The Founding Fathers looked at it that a person could be compelled to be in the militia, but also that a person could demand to be in the militia, ie, have the right.

It works both ways. But the 2A prevents the US federal govt from stopping people from being in the militia, because they said there was a right to bear arms.

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
George Washington

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"


"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

George Washington also used the term "bear arms" to mean militia duty, and yes, they did use militia duty as a duty.

However, how do you protect the militia from attack from the Federal government? You protect the two things a militia needs. Arms and personnel.

Sounds like a duty to me.

Good for you.

The point is, all over the place there is this "right to bear arms", and it comes out as "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Bill of Rights protected specific things, and the 2A clearly protected the militia, seeing as the first half of the Amendment talks about... about... the militia, oddly enough.

So, you have this Amendment... It starts with "the militia is really damn important and protects the people from the horrible government", then you have the second part which says "And to protect the militia we're going to stop the govt from being able to take guns away from individuals so they can't **** the militia over by taking away all their arms"

Now, this is where it gets interesting. Your version of the Amendment would go like this "and we're going to protect the right of people to walk around with guns in their pockets for no ******* reason other than we're bored today".

Or my version which is "and guns don't kill people, people do, so we're going to stop the nasty old government from preventing individuals from being in the militia, so the people can use those guns we can take away, and then the militia is safe".

Have a guess which one makes sense to you.

 

[yiostheoy]

I reject your interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly in District of Columbia v. Heller that there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun, and that the Founding Fathers didn't just intend it for militia purposes. I doubt that self-defense was blank from the Founders' minds when they drafted the Constitution.

Well it's not surprising that you reject my interpretation. Everyone does. Why? Well because they have an agenda.

The point is, ALL THE EVIDENCE points to what I have said. I had a debate with someone on here, and they presented nothing, but managed to just ignore everything I presented, which included the Supreme Court both past and present, the Founding Fathers including George Washington.

Also, you don't understand my interpretation, so again, hardly surprising you're rejecting it.

There is an individual right to own a weapon. This is NOT reliant on Militia service. The reason it is protected in the 2A is so that the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need. Rather than relying on govt arms, it relies on those in the general populace.

There is an individual right to be in the militia. This is NOT reliant on militia service. You don't need to be in the militia to then, in a time of need, to then join up the militia.

There is other evidence of this. In the early 20th Century there Dick Act was passed, which made the National Guard. Now, if everyone has the right to be in the militia, then the National Guard would be as ineffective as the militia was at dealing with more modern threats and wars. So they made the "unorganized militia" so that all males aged 17-45 would automatically be in the "militia", but technically rather than in reality, so then these people could demand to be in the militia, which would in effect be the National Guard. There is not other reason to make an "unorganized militia" which has, in over 100 years, never done a single thing, never met, never operated, never called up, never done one thing. It exists for one reason, and that, as I explained, is because the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia, or as the Founding Fathers said "render military service" or "militia duty".

Militia service is a DUTY not a RIGHT.

Keeping arms in your home is a RIGHT.

Well in a manner yes. The Founding Fathers looked at it that a person could be compelled to be in the militia, but also that a person could demand to be in the militia, ie, have the right.

It works both ways. But the 2A prevents the US federal govt from stopping people from being in the militia, because they said there was a right to bear arms.

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
George Washington

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"


"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

George Washington also used the term "bear arms" to mean militia duty, and yes, they did use militia duty as a duty.

However, how do you protect the militia from attack from the Federal government? You protect the two things a militia needs. Arms and personnel.

Sounds like a duty to me.

Good for you.

The point is, all over the place there is this "right to bear arms", and it comes out as "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Bill of Rights protected specific things, and the 2A clearly protected the militia, seeing as the first half of the Amendment talks about... about... the militia, oddly enough.

So, you have this Amendment... It starts with "the militia is really damn important and protects the people from the horrible government", then you have the second part which says "And to protect the militia we're going to stop the govt from being able to take guns away from individuals so they can't **** the militia over by taking away all their arms"

Now, this is where it gets interesting. Your version of the Amendment would go like this "and we're going to protect the right of people to walk around with guns in their pockets for no ******* reason other than we're bored today".

Or my version which is "and guns don't kill people, people do, so we're going to stop the nasty old government from preventing individuals from being in the militia, so the people can use those guns we can take away, and then the militia is safe".

Have a guess which one makes sense to you.

You have an antecedent problem -- we don't know who your "you" is.

Various people have interpreted the 2nd Amendment differently.

Of note, Scalia interpreted it as a right to keep a gun/guns in your home and bring them to militia duty. He says the two rights are separate.

Also of note Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and the ever mercurial Kennedy agreed with him.

Of further note Ginsberg, Souter, Sotomayor, and the former justice Stevens interpreted it as only related to militia duty which erroneously according to them does not exist anymore.

Some homespun readers interpret "keep and bear" also meaning to carry in public. Scalia did not agree. He deferred to the States under the 10th Amendment the power to regulate public possession outside of the home.

Question is will Neil Gorsuch see it any differently?

Kagan is herself untested on 2A issues. I would be shocked if she turns out to be pro 2A however. I would even kiss her feet and fat azz if she is.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A piece of paper doesn't protect your right to own a gun. Only your gun protects that right.

Tell that to a cop, when you don't have a CCW, aka piece of paper.

Follow the Money

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to relieve the plutocracy from having to pay taxes to finance a standing army's training, weapons, and salary.

 

[yiostheoy]

Ok -- on the subject of when to shoot ... .

You need to be in fear of your life or of severe bodily harm.

A black eye or a bloody nose is not enough.

Having a gun or knife pointed at you IS enough.

Having someone trying to knock you unconscious IS enough.

Seeing someone start to stomp on someone else who is unconscious IS enough.

Best thing is to keep your distance from someone else and shout at them to keep their distance too. If they keep coming at you then that IS enough.

Not really. The law is you have to escape danger if you can when outside of your home; inside your home is different.

You cannot be an aggressor in a situation and then use deadly force. If somebody cuts you off on the road, you can't tailgate them for a mile, and then when the person gets out of the car, shoot him. You have to not be the aggressor.

Bloddy nose and black eye? Sure, that's enough if you are attacked. Check out the George Zimmerman case. The jury (some against their own conscience) voted not guilty when Zimmerman was getting beat up by Trayvon Martin. He used his gun to kill Martin who was 17 years old at the time. Perfectly legal in the state of Florida.

There is no law that an attacker has to be armed for you to use deadly force yourself. You can legally kill an unarmed attacker if justified by the laws of your state.

So you don't believe in "stand your ground" then huh?

I personally always try to escape before shooting someone else.

But this is not the legal requirement everywhere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ok -- on the subject of when to shoot ... .

You need to be in fear of your life or of severe bodily harm.

A black eye or a bloody nose is not enough.

Having a gun or knife pointed at you IS enough.

Having someone trying to knock you unconscious IS enough.

Seeing someone start to stomp on someone else who is unconscious IS enough.

Best thing is to keep your distance from someone else and shout at them to keep their distance too. If they keep coming at you then that IS enough.

Not really. The law is you have to escape danger if you can when outside of your home; inside your home is different.

You cannot be an aggressor in a situation and then use deadly force. If somebody cuts you off on the road, you can't tailgate them for a mile, and then when the person gets out of the car, shoot him. You have to not be the aggressor.

Bloddy nose and black eye? Sure, that's enough if you are attacked. Check out the George Zimmerman case. The jury (some against their own conscience) voted not guilty when Zimmerman was getting beat up by Trayvon Martin. He used his gun to kill Martin who was 17 years old at the time. Perfectly legal in the state of Florida.

There is no law that an attacker has to be armed for you to use deadly force yourself. You can legally kill an unarmed attacker if justified by the laws of your state.

So you don't believe in "stand your ground" then huh?

I personally always try to escape before shooting someone else.

But this is not the legal requirement everywhere.

No, I was speaking on behalf of my state who has yet to adopt Stand Your Ground. They were working on it when the George Zimmerman case brought so much uproar in the MSM, so they tossed the idea until a better time.

I do believe in Stand Your Ground.

 

[yiostheoy]

No, I was speaking on behalf of my state who has yet to adopt Stand Your Ground. They were working on it when the George Zimmerman case brought so much uproar in the MSM, so they tossed the idea until a better time.

I do believe in Stand Your Ground.

I believe "stand your ground" is a dumb idea.

it goes against all the principles of fighting explained by Bruce Lee in his books.

You always want to keep your distance/interval from your opponent.

You never want your opponent to violate that interval.

You only close distance when you are striking.

And so if you are not striking you never stand your ground.

Stand your ground is some redneck law devised by rednecks who have no idea of how to defend themselves or how to fight.

Amazon.com: Bruce Lee: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Massad Ayoob from/in NJ believes it is a privilege not a right to carry a gun in public.

I tend to agree with him on that.

The privilege requires some level of training.

Massad Ayoob - Wikipedia

He's wrong, and so are you. The Second Amendment explicitly identifies it as a right, not a privilege; and forbids government from infringing it.

I don't agree with you.

What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

They just threw in well regulated militia to make it confusing?

Vigilantes Would Be a Legal Militia to Stop a Riot

That means people have to be allowed to use guns for private reasons, such as hunting and self-defense, in order to make them more experienced soldiers if called up to wipe out gangs or other savages, and foreign enemies.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

He's wrong, and so are you. The Second Amendment explicitly identifies it as a right, not a privilege; and forbids government from infringing it.

I don't agree with you.

What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

They just threw in well regulated militia to make it confusing?

Who are the militia?

They would defend country. With a standing army they are no longer needed.

Even with skilled instructors, an army will be stronger if recruits already have had experience with guns in private life.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Know-It-All Nobodies

Jurinalism is trickle-down thought.