Gun Control & RKBA

We_Have_A_Problem

(2,112 posts)

102. Oh dan....

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:40 PM

Dec 2011

You should realize a single judge is not going to change a thing. First off, you'd have to actually have a case make it to the USSC showing actual harm caused to another by someone legally exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Good luck with THAT one. Even if it did happen (and I really am at a loss as to what possible events could even occur in the first place), the USSC is extremely reluctant to overturn itself, especially on an issue addressed in 2 separate cases in 2 years. I would honestly have to say Heller and McDonald are nearly etched in stone, and the more cases to hit the court which rely upon them, the stronger the decisions become.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

102 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lawmaker wants military patrols after child's murder [View all] ellisonz Dec 2011 OP

another business dispute gejohnston Dec 2011 #1

100% agreed. burrfoot Dec 2011 #3

I've always wondered if perhaps Gary Kleck wasn't inspired to some degree by liberal criminologists Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #4

I would add pipoman Dec 2011 #71

Who was the shooter? Remmah2 Dec 2011 #2

They don't know. ellisonz Dec 2011 #5

No, it is a proper and needed question. oneshooter Dec 2011 #6

Innocent people are already being punished. DanTex Dec 2011 #7

But we have registration and licensing, yet anti 2A persons continue to call for more legislation. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #10

What is an anti 2A person? DanTex Dec 2011 #12

Gun culture or drug culture? Remmah2 Dec 2011 #20

gun culture, no gejohnston Dec 2011 #23

Oh, thats easy. beevul Dec 2011 #55

It's always curious that so many pro-gunners really don't know the basic facts surrounding 2A. DanTex Dec 2011 #60

The Scalia interpretation is what? gejohnston Dec 2011 #61

Umm... no that's not what Heller basically amounted to. DanTex Dec 2011 #63

pretty much the end result. gejohnston Dec 2011 #65

Even more curious, that others with less knowledge about it, would be so presumptuous. beevul Dec 2011 #67

Please... spare me the naive grammar lesson... DanTex Dec 2011 #68

Do you know how to diagram a sentence? PavePusher Dec 2011 #83

Get back to me once you graduate from third grade. DanTex Dec 2011 #87

I will, IF you spare me and everyone else, your ignoring of fact. beevul Dec 2011 #85

As I mentioned above, there's more to constitutional interpretation than grammar. DanTex Dec 2011 #88

When I read the post, I didn't see much of anything worth responding to, but just for you... beevul Dec 2011 #90

"That war is over. YOU lost. Get over it." DanTex Dec 2011 #91

Yep, its over. Your side lost. beevul Dec 2011 #92

Ignoring the substance. Citing opinion polls. Again. LOL! DanTex Dec 2011 #93

What substance? beevul Dec 2011 #94

LOL. You crack me up dude. DanTex Dec 2011 #95

The substance is this: We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #96

What is it with you guys and being wrong! DanTex Dec 2011 #97

Problem for you is.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #98

Do you believe equally strongly in, say Bush v Gore, or Citizens United, etc. DanTex Dec 2011 #99

Whether or not I agree with it... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #100

Actually, reverting to the natural and original... DanTex Dec 2011 #101

Oh dan.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #102

We really don't have registration or licensing We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #17

You have confused "victimized" with "punished". ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #13

So why punish more innocent people? Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #30

That whole argument depends on the assumption that licensing and registration wouldn't do anything. DanTex Dec 2011 #35

Its not assumption We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #36

Fact? LOL. DanTex Dec 2011 #37

It isnt "NRA propagand" We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #39

Actually, the issues are far more complicated than you would like them to be. DanTex Dec 2011 #41

back to your patronizing self I see? gejohnston Dec 2011 #42

Speaking of cognitive issues, have you really forgotten our previous discussions about Kleck et al? DanTex Dec 2011 #43

since he addressed that gejohnston Dec 2011 #44

Would you be so kind as to find exactly where he addresses the points I made? DanTex Dec 2011 #47

while you are waiting gejohnston Dec 2011 #49

Let the tap dancing begin! DanTex Dec 2011 #52

it was awhile ago since I read it gejohnston Dec 2011 #53

How did I know this was going to happen... DanTex Dec 2011 #54

about three or four years gejohnston Dec 2011 #56

Well it's not working in places like Illinois and New York. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #74

You have your facts wrong. DanTex Dec 2011 #78

Good information Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #79

Probably has nothing at all to do with a lot of poverty, drug abuse.... PavePusher Dec 2011 #84

"Tens of thousands of people lose their lives every year due to gun violence." PavePusher Dec 2011 #45

31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 DanTex Dec 2011 #48

How many due to actual "gun violence", i.e. crimes? PavePusher Dec 2011 #50

Ah yes, the old "suicides don't count". One of the classics! DanTex Dec 2011 #51

No, they do not count as "violent crime". Stop conflating the two. n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #57

Funny how you just swapped out "gun violence" for "violent crime". DanTex Dec 2011 #59

"gun violence" is a buzz term to add suicides gejohnston Dec 2011 #62

Actually, the "suicides and accidents don't count" talking point was devised by gun propagandists... DanTex Dec 2011 #64

more likely we are both right gejohnston Dec 2011 #66

By "rather absurd", I assume you mean that it is the consensus opinion... DanTex Dec 2011 #69

as usual you are wrong gejohnston Dec 2011 #86

Suicides DON'T count. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #75

It's no surprise that you don't care about suicide victims. DanTex Dec 2011 #77

That's right. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #80

Now you are morphing an argument against including suicides in an inappropriate statistical count... PavePusher Dec 2011 #82

Still waiting. n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #89

Correction.. pipoman Dec 2011 #72

Exactly. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #76

Not hyperbole, more like high school discipline. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #8

False analogy. ellisonz Dec 2011 #15

More like... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #18

"guns are no different than anything else" ellisonz Dec 2011 #19

The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify guns, does it? We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #25

Semantics. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #26

No, not just semantics We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #27

Semantics. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #28

Say it however much you want We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #29

I have to write in simple terms. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #22

Not hyperbole We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #9

Describe specifically how real gun control... ellisonz Dec 2011 #14

Asked and answered more times than I care to count We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #16

Why are you here in the first place? ellisonz Dec 2011 #21

Nope - did you? We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #24

How gun control punishes legitimate owners: Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #32

guns keep corrupting innocent people... ileus Dec 2011 #11

For even making the suggestion We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #31

No, it's not an appropriate request. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #33

The National Guard call up ain't likely burf Dec 2011 #34

It would be a violation of Federal Law to have Federal troops doing police duty. oneshooter Dec 2011 #38

To many here We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #40

Actually, it means a lot to them.... PavePusher Dec 2011 #46

Um, hello? Posse Commitatus, anybody? BiggJawn Dec 2011 #58

Not just a "gun" problem in NOLA. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #70

Just what I want pipoman Dec 2011 #73

Option 1: krispos42 Dec 2011 #81