Random Crap Discussion

Sorry. Think my addition today was probably dumb to talk about.  

www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/latest-news-self-defense-firearms-contradicts-gun-control-rhetoric

www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#6231faaa299a

The CDC is reluctant to publish their information the defensive use of weapons because it doesn't fit the gun control narrative. There are multiple references to this, but here is one quote- "One CDC official in the 1990s openly told the Washington Post that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.”  The fact of the matter is that we an inherent right to defend oneself, our families and properties. The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution further cements that right. Contrary to what some say, it has nothing to do with hunting, doesn't delineate the type of "arms" we have the right to use and isn't negotiable. 

Common sense is not a thing around here. You shouldn't waste your time. Find a nice head of cabbage and speak to it. You'll get the same results.

We have multiple examples of regular events where guns are used defensively- Thanks Snore. I would think there are a bunch of potential incidents which don't occur too because the target is armed and crimes which are deterred by risk of being injured  are not going to show up in stats although I wonder if anyone's asked convicted burglars the question as to how often they had been deterred. 

The curious thing in relation to the heritage.org link's list of defensive incidents apart from them happening daily was that in all but one of the events, there was defensive discharge of firearm and hostiles were often shot but not fatally.  This was an eye opener to me. I was under the impression that most defensive incidents wouldn't involve a discharge, let alone wounding and where wounding occurs, fatality would be more common but nope.  The incident in Utah where the axe wielding drug affected crazy was deterred by the presence of a firearm was also curious. In my mind, that fits the profile of someone who might be less deterred and might need to be put down. Anyway, just shows how ignorant I am about the reality of it all. No loss of life. 

The freedoms granted by the second amendment combined with the availability and  lethality of modern day weaponry allows criminals the potential to cause a greater loss of life.  I guess that is the conundrum.
I know that it doesn't delineate the type of arms but how could it have reasonably done so given the choices enforced by the 18th century technology when it was ratified?.  A single person wielding arms from that era has limited shooting spree potential, of course, that's a double edged sword when one looks at the intended purpose of the law when it was written. Which was, as I understand it not self defence in the way we think of it today but for common protection of the community against an unlawful militant threat.   
Modern common law has somewhat expanded on it's purpose and expanded on it's definition I believe, individual's defending their home against unlawful individual's invading it and that does consider the lethality of modern day weapons. 

Sadly, there's nothing really limiting citizen Joe who's had an absolute gut full, using the potential of modern weapons to kill many people who are going about their day before he can be shut down. It matters little if those people are armed or not. The average citizen's stress levels and ability to anger manage seems to be lessening as we go forward and mass shootings are just going to increase I fear. 

I'm really not sure what we do about it but at least the right to shoot a home invader exists. Australians and British who might be licensed firearms holders get sent off to jail for that sort of thing. Reasonable force only is allowed and it's very difficult to prove shooting someone as reasonable when the invader hasn't fired first.

   











 

I based some of my observations about an ever increasing phenomenon of mass shootings on: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

I know how the media likes to advertise this very contentious issue, it sells papers. There is ignorance on both sides of the debate. 

To the point of law. 

Some points of definition have been defined and clarified by the courts but they have been very difficult decisions for the courts to make. 

Thanks for the case files. Researching the case matter material isn't as easy as I would have liked it to be.  This stuff should be public domain, well at least to Citizen's of the USA but damned if I can find the full rulings. The chances are they are massively long winded texts but it would be nice to have the source instead of the summary but that's another area of discussion all together.  

However there have been  rulings to clarify it's scope and especially so in the 21st century.  
There has certainly been an increase in the rights of individuals to self defend. There still exists the conundrum which could not have been thought of when the 2nd amendment was ratified of criminal intent of citizens.
The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling essentially does expand on the scope of all arms including modern being permitted and for protection of home and individual. The conundrum of whether the freedoms of the individual are sufficiently protected or not is not resolved directly by the 2nd amendment itself.  But that has been partially resolved since the court has ruled that the The restrictions imposed by  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  doesn't apply to states and county legislation. 
As far as i can tell it's not illegal for states and counties to have laws which heavily regulate, restrict ownership, usage of and carrying of firearms, except for handguns where the right to own can not be restricted by law.  

I may have misinterpreted, my sources on this are below:

Source of evolutionary changes is: lawsonline.com/LegalTopics/SecondAmendment/judicial-interpretation-second-amendment.shtm
Discussing the complexities with interpreting the 2nd amendment.  lawsonline.com/LegalTopics/SecondAmendment/interpreting-the-second-amendment.shtm

The criminal element that I'm referring to is the increasing number of citizens who seem to snap, become angry, frustrated and fedup so turn on their neighbours, seek death by cop or suicide and these events are a tragic unintended consequence. Then there's the idea that every citizen is armed and dangerous. The rules of engagement for police seem to be, if in doubt, shoot first and question later or risk being shot and killed. 

Due to the lethality of and access to modern "arms", there is no opportunity to exercise a right to defend.

So how does one limit the potential of these scenarios, while maintaining the protective rights of the 2nd amendment?

The answer is regulation and I believe the high court agrees however, the authority for regulation at the federal level breaches the 2nd amendment from what I interpret the law to mean so that responsibility is put back on the states and counties. 

With that said, in the context of the 2nd amendment, the arms definition as defined by District of Columbia v. Heller and government not impeding rights to own and carry, I'm trying to work out how the national firearms act entered into law.

How doesn't that breach the 2nd amendment? 

 

Just do what you've been doing....be friendly, polite, honest, upfront with how you feel (its tough to understand sarcasm and intent online) and attentive. Same things you'd do in person.

Sorry for this crap.