Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

Honest answer to your honest question? Makes no difference because you really don't give a gak. Your position seems clear and folks have already pointed you towards good sources of gun safety info.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.

And your point being?

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

Honest answer to your honest question? Makes no difference because you really don't give a gak. Your position seems clear and folks have already pointed you towards good sources of gun safety info.

See, here is where you are wrong. I do give a gak. I wouldn't have asked if I did not. Also, where are the links to these good sources of gun safety info I have been provided that answer the question I just asked?

If you don't want to answer the question, then just don't reply. Pretty simple.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.

And your point being?

That money talks in politics? I figured that was obvious enough, sorry I didn't spell it out clearer. Unless you were intentionally trying to misinterpret or misrepresent my words? It's a fairly simple and straightforward point, as he asked if the government has given the NRA anything, when it's the other way around.

Well to answer one of your questions the order of the rules is irrelevant.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.

And your point being?

That money talks in politics? I figured that was obvious enough, sorry I didn't spell it out clearer. Unless you were intentionally trying to misinterpret or misrepresent my words? It's a fairly simple and straightforward point, as he asked if the government has given the NRA anything, when it's the other way around.

Wasn't clear to me... but, the fact that the NRA lobbies just like any other issues group is irrelevant to NRA's gun safety programs imo.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

Honest answer to your honest question? Makes no difference because you really don't give a gak. Your position seems clear and folks have already pointed you towards good sources of gun safety info.

See, here is where you are wrong. I do give a gak. I wouldn't have asked if I did not. Also, where are the links to these good sources of gun safety info I have been provided that answer the question I just asked?

If you don't want to answer the question, then just don't reply. Pretty simple.

I guess NRA doesn't fit in your search window.

Start here: http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

Note the text of the rules and it will become clear why there is not a separate rule for 'treat gun as loaded'.

Then go here: http://training.nra.org/instructors.aspx to start looking at what is required of their instructors. From there go to what the counselors and coaches do.

It shouldn't be hard to grasp that the biggest gun lobby/gun safety organization is going to have well set up standards and training.

And as already mentioned, if you're not satisfied with the NRA certified courses, there are others. Make sure you do your research on them.

And, ALL of this has been covered.

If you prefer a gov't program check out: http://thecmp.org

Well actually I may as well direct you here: http://thecmp.org/safety/ so you don't miss the fact they have a safety section.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

Honest answer to your honest question? Makes no difference because you really don't give a gak. Your position seems clear and folks have already pointed you towards good sources of gun safety info.

See, here is where you are wrong. I do give a gak. I wouldn't have asked if I did not. Also, where are the links to these good sources of gun safety info I have been provided that answer the question I just asked?

If you don't want to answer the question, then just don't reply. Pretty simple.

I guess NRA doesn't fit in your search window.

Start here: http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

Note the text of the rules and it will become clear why there is not a separate rule for 'treat gun as loaded'.

Then go here: http://training.nra.org/instructors.aspx to start looking at what is required of their instructors. From there go to what the counselors and coaches do.

It shouldn't be hard to grasp that the biggest gun lobby/gun safety organization is going to have well set up standards and training.

And as already mentioned, if you're not satisfied with the NRA certified courses, there are others. Make sure you do your research on them.

And, ALL of this has been covered.

If you prefer a gov't program check out: http://thecmp.org

Well actually I may as well direct you here: http://thecmp.org/safety/ so you don't miss the fact they have a safety section.

Ahh, ye old passive aggressive "let me google that for you" post. Classy!

Also, the full rules for the NRA were never covered, so not ALL of this has been covered. Just like the NRA Certified Instructors were not covered. Which is why I asked if they are certified by a government agency. (They are not, according to the page)

Anyways, why are there 3 Fundamental Rules, then an additional 9 rules to follow underneath? The 9 rules underneath are all very vital rules. Why not call it the 12 Fundamental Rules? This fits in to what I am saying, their system for setting up rules to follow is absurd. Why have the 3 Fundamental rules when the 12 Fundamental Rules would be much better? If all of the rules are equally important, why are only 3 of them on the Fundamental Rules list?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.

And your point being?

That money talks in politics? I figured that was obvious enough, sorry I didn't spell it out clearer. Unless you were intentionally trying to misinterpret or misrepresent my words? It's a fairly simple and straightforward point, as he asked if the government has given the NRA anything, when it's the other way around.

The fact that the NRA has over 4,000,000 members and it's still just a tiny fraction of the total number of gun owners in the US gives them more power than their money. There are tens of millions of eligible registered voters that own guns and politicians from the states those gun owners reside in don't want to puss them off. Bernie Sanders votes against gun control bills in the senate and it's not because he's paid off by the NRA it's because he represents Vermont the state with the most permissive gun laws in the country. It's just easier for some people to blame lobbyists than to come to grips with the fact that gun ownership is very important to a large portion of our citizenry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

Honest answer to your honest question? Makes no difference because you really don't give a gak. Your position seems clear and folks have already pointed you towards good sources of gun safety info.

See, here is where you are wrong. I do give a gak. I wouldn't have asked if I did not. Also, where are the links to these good sources of gun safety info I have been provided that answer the question I just asked?

If you don't want to answer the question, then just don't reply. Pretty simple.

I guess NRA doesn't fit in your search window.

Start here: http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

Note the text of the rules and it will become clear why there is not a separate rule for 'treat gun as loaded'.

Then go here: http://training.nra.org/instructors.aspx to start looking at what is required of their instructors. From there go to what the counselors and coaches do.

It shouldn't be hard to grasp that the biggest gun lobby/gun safety organization is going to have well set up standards and training.

And as already mentioned, if you're not satisfied with the NRA certified courses, there are others. Make sure you do your research on them.

And, ALL of this has been covered.

If you prefer a gov't program check out: http://thecmp.org

Well actually I may as well direct you here: http://thecmp.org/safety/ so you don't miss the fact they have a safety section.

Ahh, ye old passive aggressive "let me google that for you" post. Classy!

Also, the full rules for the NRA were never covered, so not ALL of this has been covered. Just like the NRA Certified Instructors were not covered. Which is why I asked if they are certified by a government agency. (They are not, according to the page)

Anyways, why are there 3 Fundamental Rules, then an additional 9 rules to follow underneath? The 9 rules underneath are all very vital rules. Why not call it the 12 Fundamental Rules? This fits in to what I am saying, their system for setting up rules to follow is absurd. Why have the 3 Fundamental rules when the 12 Fundamental Rules would be much better? If all of the rules are equally important, why are only 3 of them on the Fundamental Rules list?

The 3 Fundamental rules cover the fundamentals of firearm safety and if followed diligently will greatly reduce the possibility of accidents like negligent discharges. There are additional rules to cover more specificity than the 3 Fundamental rules. 3 rules are easier to remember than 12 and as has been posted the 3 rules cover the most common mistakes.

The rules are in a list, it's just a list, nobody said it was a ranking of importance. The order in which the rules are listed is irrelevant, all are equally important.

The NRA rules cover everything in Jeff Coopers rules the two sets of rules just have different wording. The NRA rules say to make sure the muzzle is always pointing in a safe direction that covers making sure you have a safe backstop behind the target. If there is something doe range that you don't want to shoot, behind the intended target or just in proximity to the target then point the muzzle in that direction wouldn't be safe. Same meaning but different wording from different authors.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.

And your point being?

That money talks in politics? I figured that was obvious enough, sorry I didn't spell it out clearer. Unless you were intentionally trying to misinterpret or misrepresent my words? It's a fairly simple and straightforward point, as he asked if the government has given the NRA anything, when it's the other way around.

The fact that the NRA has over 4,000,000 members and it's still just a tiny fraction of the total number of gun owners in the US gives them more power than their money. There are tens of millions of eligible registered voters that own guns and politicians from the states those gun owners reside in don't want to puss them off. Bernie Sanders votes against gun control bills in the senate and it's not because he's paid off by the NRA it's because he represents Vermont the state with the most permissive gun laws in the country. It's just easier for some people to blame lobbyists than to come to grips with the fact that gun ownership is very important to a large portion of our citizenry.

I'll thank you to keep your baseless and unfounded opinions of me to yourself. I made no accusations of blame. When people move beyond misinterpreting my words to willfully misrepresenting them, that is, quite frankly, insulting (and beneath you). I'm done here.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)

It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.

And your point being?

That money talks in politics? I figured that was obvious enough, sorry I didn't spell it out clearer. Unless you were intentionally trying to misinterpret or misrepresent my words? It's a fairly simple and straightforward point, as he asked if the government has given the NRA anything, when it's the other way around.

The fact that the NRA has over 4,000,000 members and it's still just a tiny fraction of the total number of gun owners in the US gives them more power than their money. There are tens of millions of eligible registered voters that own guns and politicians from the states those gun owners reside in don't want to puss them off. Bernie Sanders votes against gun control bills in the senate and it's not because he's paid off by the NRA it's because he represents Vermont the state with the most permissive gun laws in the country. It's just easier for some people to blame lobbyists than to come to grips with the fact that gun ownership is very important to a large portion of our citizenry.

I'll thank you to keep your baseless and unfounded opinions of me to yourself. I made no accusations of blame. When people move beyond misinterpreting my words to willfully misrepresenting them, that is, quite frankly, insulting (and beneath you). I'm done here.

That wasn't directed at you personally that was directed at the narrative that gets espoused by media and pundits that the biggest impediment to new restrictive gun laws is the NRA's money which deliberately ignores the importance placed on gun rights by the people that live in high gun ownership states. If I had intended to direct you at you personally I would have done so clearly and directly instead of using the phrase "some people." I quoted your post because you brought up the NRA's lobbying which was the topic I was addressing. Interpret my post however you want it's a free country but that was the reasoning behind it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.

Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.

The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.

No, it does not. Because by the time the good guys with guns showed up, people had already made their way out of the night club and fled. The ones left were hiding or already shot and on the ground.

If somebody had been concealed carry at the start of it, they would have been returning fire while people were running and confused. Possibly making things worse by hitting people they did not intend to hit in a dark night club.

However when the police arrived, the night club had already been evacuated and no additional people had been shot by a person with a CC permit trying to be a hero. Sorry for blowing holes in your flimsy argument.

Your opinion on coulda woulda shoulda doesn't really change the fact that this terrorist was, in fact, stopped by good guys with guns. My post was a statement of fact, not an argument.

yellowfever wrote:
I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but 3 to 4 basic rules are not difficult to learn. I was taught (in no specific order)

1 treat every weapon as if it is loaded
2 never point a weapon at anything you don't want to shoot
3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire.
4 be sure of your target and what's in line with it

Now of course people with no training won't know these. But these rules are not difficult to learn.

Deadwinter is what you would call...a troll.

I learned four rules myself when a lad.
1. Do unto others before they do unto you.
2. Never leave a bridge behind you. You don't know who's following.
3. Always have a slower friend with you at all times. The hyenas will go after them first.
4. Bourbon. Its not just for breakfast any more.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.

Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.

The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.

I'm not saying that a person with a concealed gun couldn't stop a bad guy in this type of situation. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be easy, even for a trained marksman.

Tons of panicked people blocking line of fire + dark nightclub + marksman being bumped into by fleeing people = difficult shot for the good guy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.

Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.

The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.

I'm not saying that a person with a concealed gun couldn't stop a bad guy in this type of situation. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be easy, even for a trained marksman.

Tons of panicked people blocking line of fire + dark nightclub + marksman being bumped into by fleeing people = difficult shot for the good guy.

I agree with you 100%. In fact, a concealed carry guy has a couple options. Use the gun to cover his exfil and that of those around him as they attempt to get the heck out (probably smartest course of action for most people). This allows him to fire IF necessary and hope any bullet going towards bad guy buys a few seconds for he and his buddies to un-ass the AO.

Other option is to try to maneuver on bad guy and take him down. Not a lot of folks are built the way you need to be to choose this option, but some are. In this option you are still going after a guy better armed an likely with more ammo, it may be a sacrifice option. But even if not 100% successful while you are engaging the bag guy, others are escaping. If you wound the bad guy you may be saving even more folks. If you do manage to kill him you've likely saved a bunch. But honestly unless a former military or LEO it is not the likely option even among gun owners, and even if former military/LEO not all would take that option.

But I do genuinely believe if ANYONE takes the bad guy under fire, the seconds to minutes gained save lives, even if the 'good guy with gun' ends up dead.

TLDR: Just getting into this little charade but lets start with this

1: the 9th circuit court is infamous for ruling based on liberal/left leaning policy and less on what the constitution says. Do they think they are following the constitution? No, and I know that for a fact.

2: How do I know for a fact that they are not following the constitution? Simple, just read the constitution and it quickly becomes apparent that the court is making up laws that are directly in violation of the US Constitution.

2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I would say that telling someone they aren't allowed to have a side arm is infringing upon that right to bear arms.

This has always been the most ridiculous debates between the left and the right, the 2nd amendment spells out that US citizens have a right to keep and bear arms and yet they somehow find a way to limit our ability to keep and bear arms. Some rules make a lot of sense in regards to gun control and I fully support them. For instance, letting a teenager walk around in Highschool with a gun strapped to his waist is a very bad idea, on a college campus though? not so much. I agree with the highschool idea because kids are over emotional and don't realize the consequences of their actions until it is to late, college kids on the other hand are no longer children, at least under US Law, at 18 they should have every right as an adult, up to and including bearing arms wherever they deem it necessary to do so.

Well...the 9th is the court with the most confirmed rulings. And they did follow the Constitution or did you miss the part that mentioned 'Well Regulated'?

Actually its the court with the most OVERTURNED rulings.

 skyth wrote:
Well...the 9th is the court with the most confirmed rulings. And they did follow the Constitution or did you miss the part that mentioned 'Well Regulated'?

Understand the powah of the Commas!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Also, the founders believed that individuals should be armed:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/FEDERALI.HTM

Additionally, 'militias' equates to 'the people':
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 skyth wrote:
Well...the 9th is the court with the most confirmed rulings. And they did follow the Constitution or did you miss the part that mentioned 'Well Regulated'?

I am not trying to be insulting in the slightest but I don't think you understand what the 2nd amendment says, especially in regards to punctuation.

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

A well regulated Militia, (Introductory Comma) being necessary to the security of a free state, (Independent Clause Comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (a comma near the end of a sentence to separate contrasted coordinate elements or to indicate a distinct pause or shift.) shall not be infringed. (Period end of sentence)

This has sadly become less of a constitutional interpretation and has quickly become a demonstration in why our lawyers and judges need to retake English I-IV.

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually its the court with the most OVERTURNED rulings.

We already covered math in this thread.

Some of us have studied their rulings and actually know something about the court.

How has this not been locked?

 skyth wrote:
Well...the 9th is the court with the most confirmed rulings. And they did follow the Constitution or did you miss the part that mentioned 'Well Regulated'?

I don't think that the 9th Circuit Court's ruling is unconsitutional in the strictest sense but that it is deliberately narrow in a case that is actually much more broad of scope in nature.

The 2nd Amendment codifies the right of US citizens to "keep and bear arms" which means we get to own and carry arms. California state law forbids the open carry of loaded firearms and the open carry of unloaded firearms. California state law also puts county sherrifs in charge of issuing concealed carry permits and requires applicants to show "good cause" to obtain a concealed carry permit. Some CA county sherrifs are denying applicants because of an extremely narrow definition of good cause which is prevening law abiding citizens with clean records from legally obtaining their concealed carry permits. California state law is therefore effectively barring CA residents from exercising their full 2A rights because while they can keep arms they cannot bear them.

While the 2A doesn't specify that concealed carry itself is guaranteed right for citizens the right to bear arms is still constitutionally protected and if CA is going to outlaw any form of open carry then they need to allow citizens to concealed carry. CA can't just revoke citizens right to bear arms completely which is what is happening in some counties.

The 2A doesn't require that every state become a shall issue state for concealed carry but it does guarantee the right to bear arms and that must be respected by the states.

To my mind this case is similar to the Heller case where SCOTUS ruled that DC couldn't allow residents to legally own firearms but then require them to be stored in such a way as to make them unusable. CA is outlawing open carry and making concealed carry impossible for virtually every law abiding qualified resident which is violating their constitutional right.

 Frazzled wrote:
Some of us have studied their rulings and actually know something about the court.

To settle the "most rulings overturned" nonsense:

Rulings per Circuit Court in 2015|SCOTUS reversals per circuit 2014 (just because that's the latest I could find and didn't feel like redoing the math for the 2015 caseloads) | Rough estimate of reversal rate

DC: 374 | 3 | 0.8%
1st: 660 | 0 | 0%
2nd: 2,353 | 1 | 0.4%
3rd: 1,512 | 3 | 0.2%
4th: 2,970 | 3 | 0.1%
5th: 3,961 | 6 | 0.2%
6th: 2,192 | 4 | 0.2%
7th: 1,474 | 3 | 0.2%
8th: 1,749 | 7 | 0.4%
9th: 4,263 | 10 | 0.2%
10th: 1,032 | 3 | 0.3%
11th: 3,252 | 5 | 0.2%

So, as has been mentioned before, if you make more rulings, then more rulings are going to end up at the SCOTUS, and more rulings end up getting overturned. That's simple math, and it means that "they have more cases overturned than any other circuit" is a meaningless argument.

I'm sure there will be complaints about the years not matching, and if someone wants to pull up the actual numbers for the actual years then be my guest.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Some of us have studied their rulings and actually know something about the court.

To settle the "most rulings overturned" nonsense:

Rulings per Circuit Court in 2015|SCOTUS reversals per circuit 2014 (just because that's the latest I could find and didn't feel like redoing the math for the 2015 caseloads) | Rough estimate of reversal rate

DC: 374 | 3 | 0.8%
1st: 660 | 0 | 0%
2nd: 2,353 | 1 | 0.4%
3rd: 1,512 | 3 | 0.2%
4th: 2,970 | 3 | 0.1%
5th: 3,961 | 6 | 0.2%
6th: 2,192 | 4 | 0.2%
7th: 1,474 | 3 | 0.2%
8th: 1,749 | 7 | 0.4%
9th: 4,263 | 10 | 0.2%
10th: 1,032 | 3 | 0.3%
11th: 3,252 | 5 | 0.2%

So, as has been mentioned before, if you make more rulings, then more rulings are going to end up at the SCOTUS, and more rulings end up getting overturned. That's simple math, and it means that "they have more cases overturned than any other circuit" is a meaningless argument.

I'm sure there will be complaints about the years not matching, and if someone wants to pull up the actual numbers for the actual years then be my guest.

So your arguing semantics instead of just yielding the incontrovertible point that they have had the MOST cases overturned. Nobody said they had the biggest percentage, just the most.

Because "most" means nothing, it's a pointless argument if you refuse to actually show what "most" means in relationship to all the other courts.

Stop making bad arguments.

 d-usa wrote:
Because "most" means nothing, it's a pointless argument if you refuse to actually show what "most" means in relationship to all the other courts.

Stop making bad arguments.

I believe that Most has a lot of meaning and since it flies in the face of your opinion and stance you are purposely trying to minimize what it actually means.

The Montreal Canadians have the MOST Stanley Cup wins. That means something. If you want to go by another metric, most cups per year the team has existed then that's another metric, but it does not in any way marginalize or lower the value of the word "Most" in regards to the original statement.

So in other words, your argument is both bad, and invalid.