It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

Now how many of those 376 would be still alive if it was not for your 2nd Amendment.
And a fewer "criminals"




posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by drneville
 


Ohhhh, I love playing the "what if" game with Anti-Gun Rights people.


It really takes me back to my childhood, you know, when I was a child and thought in this manner.

And what-if those murdered at the hands of a criminal were armed? How many of those people would still be alive???

What-if more people were armed so they could, what's it called again.......Defend themselves.

Ahhhh, here is another what-if. What if those that really don't know about the US laws regarding this, quit trying to tell others how to live and using info they glean from CNN.


Lot's of what-ifs here.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

drneville
reply to post by butcherguy
 

Now how many of those 376 would be still alive if it was not for your 2nd Amendment.
And a fewer "criminals"


Wow. I dont even know where to start with such incessant ignorance.

Given that the number of people SAVED by firearms is exponentially greater than that, your point is moot.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

drneville

macman
reply to post by drneville
 


Oh.....The US should care about what other countries think, in regards to our 2nd Amendment?

Yeah, let me get right on that.

No, the US is just doing fine...
How many innocent people are murdered because of your 2nd Amendment (easy gun ownership)
But that's your culture, over here they just can grasp the fact that there is still a country in the 21th century that allows people to walk around with a gun.

I would be suprised if in about 10 years time you will still be allowed to carry in most states.

No hard feelings of course




"Murdered because of your 2nd amendment"???

Ease of access causes murderous tendencies? That's funny I can buy food, alcohol and women's panities. However, I'm not fat, an alcoholic or a cross dresser? Flawed logic



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

TiedDestructor


"Murdered because of your 2nd amendment"???

Ease of access causes murderous tendencies? That's funny I can buy food, alcohol and women's panities. However, I'm not fat, an alcoholic or a cross dresser? Flawed logic


We need more space in our Signature area. You sir are a poetic genius comparable to Shakespeare.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

drneville
reply to post by butcherguy
 

Now how many of those 376 would be still alive if it was not for your 2nd Amendment.
And a fewer "criminals"

Check to see how many people died of heroin overdoses.

Heroin is illegal.

A law doesn't stop the actions of criminals.... by definition, criminals break the laws.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

drneville

But that's your culture, over here they just can grasp the fact that there is still a country in the 21th century that allows people to walk around with a gun.

I would be suprised if in about 10 years time you will still be allowed to carry in most states.

No hard feelings of course




Says the guy from a country that hitler invaded and took in less than 2 weeks.... Too bad the citizens didnt have a means of defending themselves.

You people are so enlightened....hell your country is so great it also has one of the highest tax rates on the planet.

Lets see, confiscatory tax rates and limited personal freedom. It's a wonder Belgium hasnt been over run by people demanding to get in.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by drneville
 




over here they just can grasp the fact that there is still a country in the 21th century that allows people to walk around with a gun.

A true nanny state.

The common person can't be trusted with things that could possibly be dangerous.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where adults could be trusted with having things?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by drneville
 


and we are right back to the whole, "You are narrowing down method of murder as if that was somehow relevant".

Murders in the US are slightly higher than Europe. If you remove the more violent/less educated southern states, it is remarkably spot on with Canada and EU.


The south more violent? No...most everyone is armed. There is VERY little crime in rural areas. Possession deters....period.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

drneville
reply to post by butcherguy
 


934 people have died in mass shootings over the past seven years, the USA TODAY analysis shows.
In the 71 shootings that involved someone killing his or her family members, 376 victims died.
Most of those killings occurred at home.
Dozens more were killed by acquaintances, neighbors and co-workers.

Criminals ???

If I shoot someone or go shoot up a school I'm a Criminal, if my neighbor who might be a good guy shots me he's a criminal. I see you like the what if game so think about all the innocent people America could save if we turned into a police state, the police didn't need warrants to search personal property or to listen in on phone calls, we stopped the sell of Alcohol, and we would arrest people for having dangerous weapons like knives/bats out in public without a good reason. I do have a question would you be for banning the sale of Alcohol to the general public due to the thousands of innocent people killed each year by drunk drivers and domestic violence? Don't forget the number of people each year killed by some who has been drinking outnumbers people killed by assault weapons. My last question is do you believe 9/11 was an inside job or there could be a possibility it was carried out by the government or they let it happen?

Edit: Here are some stats about crime in Belgium compared to the US- www.eupedia.com...
and www.nationmaster.com...

edit on 14-2-2014 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason given)


edit on 14-2-2014 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by drneville
 


ahh the old it takes no skill to shoot argument......sigh you guys dont get it takes time to get good with a gun,what the gun equalizes is size and what not putting a 90 pound woman on the same odds as the 250 mma fighter.

and to you knife part its actually much easier to kill with a blade silently(for civilians) ,sneak up behind your target pop the kidney then when they go into shock slit their throat(that gem comes from the infantry combat manual from ww2),one victim down no one notices....not much skill required other then anatomy knowledge and the mind to kill ruthlessly and its how a lot of french and Philippine partisans got "big boy guns" from the japs and the germans in ww2 and why to this day one of the favorite ways for special forces to take out a sentry is to pop the kidney then open the throat



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

TiedDestructor

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by drneville
 


and we are right back to the whole, "You are narrowing down method of murder as if that was somehow relevant".

Murders in the US are slightly higher than Europe. If you remove the more violent/less educated southern states, it is remarkably spot on with Canada and EU.


The south more violent? No...most everyone is armed. There is VERY little crime in rural areas. Possession deters....period.


Maybe, but percentages are skewed by population centers, and big citys are population centers where rural areas are not.

Statistics speak volumes: south of the mason dixon line has a higher level of murders. There are more homeless people in the south, along with our notorious southern border. I think if you remove those two elemnts, it would likely be fairly level with the northern states.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


ah just wait tell the EU gets on with its seizing of pensions.....then all the anti-gun trolls from Europe wont have any money left to go on the internet after their government takes all their money...


www.csmonitor.com...
www.zerohedge.com...
www.reuters.com...

(Reuters) - The savings of the European Union's 500 million citizens could be used to fund long-term investments to boost the economy and help plug the gap left by banks since the financial crisis, an EU document says. The EU is looking for ways to wean the 28-country bloc from its heavy reliance on bank financing and find other means of funding small companies, infrastructure projects and other investment. "The economic and financial crisis has impaired the ability of the financial sector to channel funds to the real economy, in particular long-term investment," said the document, seen by Reuters. The Commission will ask the bloc's insurance watchdog in the second half of this year for advice on a possible draft law "to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing", the document said. Banks have complained they are hindered from lending to the economy by post-crisis rules forcing them to hold much larger safety cushions of capital and liquidity.


www.reuters.com... seizing of the polish pensions

so by all means lets laugh at them trying to get rid of our second amendment while their own governments pick their pockets



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

drneville
reply to post by butcherguy
 


934 people have died in mass shootings over the past seven years, the USA TODAY analysis shows.
In the 71 shootings that involved someone killing his or her family members, 376 victims died.
Most of those killings occurred at home.
Dozens more were killed by acquaintances, neighbors and co-workers.

Criminals ???


Every last killing is a tragedy, at least to someone. Me? I wasn't involved in any of them. And the notion of "personal liberties" guaranteed by the supreme law of the land would seem to indicate that something bad can happen to everyone else in the country BUT me, and it still would not be right for me to have to go without because of them.

That is mob rule.

now, if we are to talk statistics....it would seem that you are quoting miniscule numbers.

You won't win the argument. It has been going on for decades in the US....and I still have a 9mm sitting next to my bed at home.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


It takes a lot of skill to shot a gun accurately and I know from first hand experience. I have only shot a gun a handful of times and it's hard to hit a target especially if it's moving, the first time I picked up a gun I thought it wasn't going to be that hard (I have great hand eye coordination) but I was wrong . The guy who said that must think shooting a gun is just like playing call of duty or Deer Hunter.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

drneville

macman
reply to post by drneville
 


Oh.....The US should care about what other countries think, in regards to our 2nd Amendment?

Yeah, let me get right on that.

No, the US is just doing fine...
How many innocent people are murdered because of your 2nd Amendment (easy gun ownership)
But that's your culture, over here they just can grasp the fact that there is still a country in the 21th century that allows people to walk around with a gun.

I would be suprised if in about 10 years time you will still be allowed to carry in most states.

No hard feelings of course





Prepare to be surprised! There are more right to carry states today than there were 10 years ago. The trend is towards more, not fewer.

When you take into account the strength of the resolve of the average citizen regarding the right to possess and carry firearms removing those rights would be tantamount to political suicide in most states.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

drneville

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by drneville
 


because method of death is what matters. I mean, it is far more pleasant to die being bludgeoned with a hammer than being shot.

LOL...its always the same: people try to narrow the discussion down to "gun deaths" instead of "deaths" to falsify an argument. As if it really matters how someone kills you. And as if a hammer or knife is more pleasant to die by.

Ah.. the hammer and the knife reply,
Shooting a person requires no special skills, stand 30 feet away, aim and pull te trigger.
Now you try to kill a full grown man with a knife or a hammer, hand to hand combat, many (believe me) would think twice about it.
Kind of a lame comparison...


I guess I'm at a disadvantaged, since I am a 'full grown female' and therefore by design am inferior to a 'full gown male' in physique. I suppose I should just stay home, or only travel outside the home with a full gown male to protect me. No matter the training, whether hand to hand, or with a knife, I will always be half of my husband's weight and strength. He will always be able to overpower me. Your argument tells me that I will never be allowed to have a weapon that would place me on a level playing field.

Back to the kitchen for me!

edit on 14-2-2014 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
This is really an interesting case to be sure. At any rate, this FAR from being over. Read on ATS members....

From the panel:


"The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a particular purpose—confrontation.”



"Our conclusion that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense is perhaps unsurprising—other circuits faced with this question have expressly held, or at the very least have assumed, that this is so. Moore, 702 F.3d at 936 (“A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”); see also, e.g., Drake, 724 F.3d at 431 (recognizing that the Second Amendment right “may have some application beyond the home”)"



"For if self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to “bear arms” and the California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest-balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego County’s policy. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 634 (“The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”).



"California’s regulatory scheme addresses two types of arms-bearing: open and concealed carry. Under California law, open carry is prohibited in San Diego County regardless of whether the weapon is loaded or unloaded. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 25850, 26350. Because California law has no permitting provision for open carry, cf. id. §§ 26150, 26155 (providing licensing only for concealed carry), it is illegal in virtually all circumstances. California law also severely restricts concealed carry, although not to the same extent as open carry. As a general rule, concealed carry is not allowed regardless of whether the weapon is loaded. See id. § 25400. But there are certain exceptions. Concealed carry is acceptable with a proper permit."

"The San Diego County policy specifies that concern for “one’s personal safety alone” does not satisfy the “good cause” requirement for issuance of a permit. Instead, an applicant must demonstrate that he suffers a unique risk of harm: he must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish [him] from the mainstream and cause[] him . . . to be placed in harm’s way.” Given this requirement, the “typical” responsible, law-abiding citizen in San Diego County cannot bear arms in public for self-defense; a typical citizen fearing for his “personal safety”—by definition—cannot “distinguish [himself] from the mainstream.”



"But the County’s argument has two flaws. First, it misapprehends Peruta’s challenge. This is not a case where a plaintiff who is permitted to openly carry a loaded weapon attacks the validity of a state’s concealed-carry rule because he would rather carry secretly. Rather, Peruta and his fellow plaintiffs argue that the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in public for the purpose of lawful self-defense in any manner."


And finally at the end of the day, some form of carry has to be permitted outside the home, and I feel this is where it's going to bogged down and mired in misdirection and fallacious arguments.


"To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

buster2010


Just because you choose to remain ignorant doesn't mean everyone else does. But then again you are from Texas so critical thinking is obviously not involved on your part.


Your credibility and my perception of your intelligence level just took a dump, buster.

Funny how people can claim to be liberal or progressive and then turn right around and make the equivalent of a racist statement and be totally clueless how hypocritical they are.

Lumping all Texans under one description, particularly regarding intelligence, is the equivalent of any racist remark. Only someone lacking in critical thinking skills would do that. That's like saying all Californians are looney liberals. Like saying all New Yorkers are rude liberals. Like saying all from Mississippi are racists (or Alabama, or Georgia). A fallacious and specious argument at best. A rude, insensitive, ignorant lie at worst. You might as well just say all blacks love fried chicken, watermelons and have an IQ under 100. Same difference.

Whatever opinions you have are now, pretty much worthless IMO. Peddle your hate elsewhere, boy.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   

bbracken677

buster2010


Just because you choose to remain ignorant doesn't mean everyone else does. But then again you are from Texas so critical thinking is obviously not involved on your part.


Your credibility and my perception of your intelligence level just took a dump, buster.

Funny how people can claim to be liberal or progressive and then turn right around and make the equivalent of a racist statement and be totally clueless how hypocritical they are.

Lumping all Texans under one description, particularly regarding intelligence, is the equivalent of any racist remark. Only someone lacking in critical thinking skills would do that. That's like saying all Californians are looney liberals. Like saying all New Yorkers are rude liberals. Like saying all from Mississippi are racists (or Alabama, or Georgia). A fallacious and specious argument at best. A rude, insensitive, ignorant lie at worst. You might as well just say all blacks love fried chicken, watermelons and have an IQ under 100. Same difference.

Whatever opinions you have are now, pretty much worthless IMO. Peddle your hate elsewhere, boy.


"And BOOM goes the dynamite!!!!"

I am from Indiana, I moved to Texas a year ago, I have to tell you, that Texans and Hoosiers are not too different really, there are some idiots, there are some intellectuals, there are mostly just regular folks. In Indiana ALOT of folks have and carry fire arms, in Texas ALOT of folks have and carry fire arms. In both places most folks love their families, work hard, follow the rules most of the time, and are just all around good folks.

I am quite put off by that posters comments about Texas, as someone who has lived in Indiana, south Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Texas I have been around and seen a great many different cultures in this country, though to be honest, all these places seemed to be basically the same with a few subtle differences. I have never and will never live in one of the "liberal haven" coastal cities, I think life right here in the interior suits my plenty well.

Never doubt your principles when they provide proven gains for you and yours, and society as a whole.

America is great because we are not like everyone else, they are not great because they are not like us. Americans dont need mommy and daddy to tell them what they can and cant do after their grown, we just need mommy and daddy to remember we are grown now and must do things on our own.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join