How US gun culture compares with the world

Not there

 

you are being untruthful but here is some more stuff that you most likely will ignore, or not comprehend


The Volokh Conspiracy - What is the right protected in the Heller dissent?

Having read Scalia and Stevens in Heller, it's clear that you're on the right track. The Stevens right is a right without an application. It's not even a right in search of an application. It's an individual right to own a gun in the home, but only if the gun mysteriously appears in the home without connection to reality outside the home and that mysterious materialization of the gun.

It is essentially a right that can be so completely and absolutely infringed as to not exist at all. It's rather like a right to freedom of speech, but only if you own a multi million dollar digital printing press manufactured by only one company between July and August of 2006.

and


http://www.cardozolawreview.com/cont...DY_2010_61.pdf

Had the dissent become law, the Court would have informed the American people, seventy percent of whom believed they had an individual right to arms,3 that their rights-consciousness was sadly mistaken. If done on the basis of sound research and reasoning, this would involve no more than the Court performing its duty. An examination of the dissent suggests, however, that the Court would have been taking this position based upon surprisingly thin reasoning and evidence.
As we will see below, the dissent has great difficulty even enunciating its understanding of the Second Amendment. Its treatment of case law, and of pre-1789 history, is replete with glaring errors that suggest hasty and careless research. Its discussion of legislative history omits the most crucial events which, when considered, seriously undercut its conclusions. Its treatment of the early constitutional commentators contains serious errors, where one commentator’s discussion of Congress’ power over the militia is substituted for his discussion of the Second Amendment, and major commentators are overlooked in favor of the opinion of a little-known writer of form books.

 

TD emulates a chicken. He runs around and start squawking lie and lie

 

what lies have a told

using YOUR OWN definitions where you call anyone who thinks its constitutional for state government to ban felons to own firearms, you certainly are a gun banner

 

As are you. Are you finally admitting this now!

 

You lost the argument. Your claim that "all the justices rejected the militia interpretation".is BS.

 

The argument lost was ultimately that of yourself. The militia interpretation was rejected by the majority opinion in favor of the individual right to ownership for all legal and legitimate purposes interpretation. The dissenting opinion carries no legal weight or importance. There is absolutely no legal precedent to be found in the united states that allows for the rejecting of the majority opinion in favor of the dissenting opinion on rulings by the united state supreme court. Their opinions on the matter are ultimately nothing more than that; their own opinions. They can do nothing to overrule not only Heller but also McDonald.

Beyond such, there is the matter of the case Caetano v Massachusetts, and the fact it was ruled on unanimously by all eight justices, in favor of the Heller interpretation of the second amendment. There is not a single dissenting opinion to be found in the twelve pages of the case, arguing in favor of the militia interpretation, or that the prohibition by the state of Massachusetts was constitutionally permissible.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

 

Thank you for admitting that 4 of the 9 justices did not reject the militia interpretation.

 

Yeah you lost this one

 

Those four did reject the militia interpretation in the Caetano ruling of last year, thus further expanding the interpretation set forth by Heller and then again in McDonald. In Caetano there were no dissenting justices claiming that the prohibition on stun guns by the state of Massachusetts was legal, constitutional, or justified. Rather all eight of them agreed that Heller protected the ownership of such devices, for purposes such as self defense, even if that self defense does not occur within the confines of the home.

 

BREYER'S DISSENT

Justice Breyer dismisses the notion of an “untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas" (Id., at 2870). He argues that the Second Amendment protects “militia-related, not self-defense related, interests.”

STEVENS' DISSENT

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Stevens, after conducting his own extensive analysis of the Second Amendment's text, history, and purpose, disparaged Scalia's historical analysis, stating that the Court had based its holding on "a strained and unpersuasive reading" of the amendment. In Stevens' opinion, the amendment protects the individual right to bear arms only for certain military purposes and does not limit the authority of legislatures to regulate private, civilian use of firearms (Id., at 2822).

Stevens contends that not a word in the constitutional text supports the Court's “overwrought and novel description” of the Second Amendment as elevating above all other interests “the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (Id., at 2831). Rather, when each word in the text is given full effect, “the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia”(

 

None of which carries any actual, legitimate weight. Their dissenting opinion holds no more value than the deranged ramblings of homeless individuals suffering from varying types of mental illness.

Beyond such, the member Bryanva, a seasoned an experienced prosecuting attorney for the state of Virginia, pointed out the weakness of the militia argument. That weakness being that absolutely no one can explain just how it is supposed to work. Is it able to be explained by yourself precisely how this argument is supposed to work within the context of being applied?

 

In one case, and accepted the standard view in a later case.

What exactly does the 2nd Amendment protect if not an individual right to keep and bear arms?

 

they essentially did. of course that requires an ability to actually read what the dissents said. You apparently were unable to comprehend what the law review articles I posted said. the difference is that the dissent claimed that the amendment guaranteed an individual right but they couldn't explain what it would be. Your pathetic argument is also eviscerated by what EX Justice Stevens pined for when he wrote an editorial claiming the second amendment SHOULD BE CHANGED to require militia membership that alone destroys your silly and erroneous interpretation


I wonder this I wonder how many people who push the clearly wrong "militia" interpretation came to that conclusion by actually reading the second amendment or rather, as I suspect, started off wanting guns to be banned and then interpreted the second based on on what they want

I assert that honest people cannot possibly claim that the second amendment and Article One section 8 were intended to allow the federal government to disarm private citizens

and my view is consistent with EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT that the founders wrote on this subject

 

Your claim that "all the justices rejected the militia interpretation".is BS. They did not.

 

Of course it protects the right to keep and bear arms. What's in dispute is the scope, and intent, of that protection.

 

If you're supporting Stevens' view, you are supporting:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Where's the individual right in that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.a5e5780c306a

 

so Koppel and those law review articles were LYING? that Stevens admitted there is a right an INDIVIDUAL can assert? Lets be honest, you obviously don't have a law degree and you just make stuff up to agree with your rather peculiar need to ridicule gun owners. Its pathetic but I have seen it before

get back to me when say you author or consult on a few law review articles concerning the second amendment

 

Lets be honest, you're not qualified to discuss the 2nd amendment due to some odd fixation you have.

 

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/gr....4.denning.pdf
In Justice Stevens’s formulation, apparently, the Second Amendmentprotects an individual right. It just doesn’t protect an individual right to own guns if Congress, or the D.C. City Council, feels otherwise. Whether thisconception should be characterized as “tastes great” or “less filling” is aquestion that will be left to the reader. It does raise questions about why,exactly, Justice Stevens felt it important to declare at the outset that theSecond Amendment protects an individual right, given that, ordinarily, the purpose of such rights under the Constitution is precisely to “limit the too ls available to elected officials” who wish to regulate the conduct that thoserights protect. .....

Nonetheless, we are left with a clear declaration that an individual right exists, but with little discussion of what that existence means. In astronomy,unseen planets are often identified by their gravitational effects. In JusticeStevens’s dissent, it is the opposite: we can see the right clearly, it justdoesn’t seem to be affecting anything.

 

Here we go again.

Nice day huh?

"You're a gun banner, a gun banner"!

 

It never ends with him

 

you have no consistency or relevance in your arguments. the only common theme is you want to harass and bait pro gun advocates. You claim you own guns but you want to ridicule and bait people who also own guns who don't buy into the Democrat party schemes to restrict our rights. You insult and make snide comments about people who carry guns in public and pretend that you should decree what the proper use or display of guns are for everyone Its pathetic

 

Oh please. You insult people in almost every post