Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right

Oh yeah? The latest figures I can find were published this April.It's funny how many things you "know" that aren't true, isn't it? We British have a whole set of contingency plans for stuff that will never happen. That one's #11017(f).We'd unleash the robotic winged monkeys.

How will what happens in the future have any bearing on your statements about what is happening now? And it isn't, good heavens, you're wrong again.Let's quote this again: That does kinda suggest a downward trend, does it not? And now the figures are falling. What a strange non sequitur.We have armed response units because it is best for the police who use firearms to be thoroughly trained in their use, is there any other aspect of the bleedin' obvious you don't understand?We've had specialized firearms officers for ages, I don't know where you're getting this "1992" stuff from, apart from your fertile imagination.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That is talking about the new vehicles they brought in. We have had firearms units for much, much longer. It suggests that who is believing what the media tells them?The survey is produced by asking people whether they have been crime victims. Did the people who answered "no" do so because "the media" told them to? And I notice that the statistics you presented do not confirm your claim that "the crooks are getting more plentiful in UK".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It is talking about the ve-hi-cles.Do you suppose that until the introduction of these vehicles our firearms units spent all their time in police stations? What has this statement got to do with (a) the survey that was actually carried out (b) the year on year differences in the results of the survey (c) your fantasies about "the media"? So, we don't have "more crooks". As you can see from the article I cited, this is because police are now issuing more warnings for the possession of cannabis, not because of an increase in the posession of cannabis.

Does the same apply to Americans talking about Britain? Or are you guys allowed to do that? Oh, I see you are.Hypocrite much?

Yes. For example, in post #105, you disparage Britain for being a monarchy, which is a part of our constitution just as the Second Amendment is a part of yours.Could you be more hypocritical?

There is a slight flaw in this argument, which is this.If you have a society (such as my own) in which only bad guys, plus the police and the Army, own guns, then you can use possession of a gun as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.Of course, you don't have to follow this example. But here are a few more suggestions.If you have a society in which only bad guys plus the police and the Army and licensed gun-owners own guns, then you can use possession of an unlicensed gun as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.Or if you have a society in which only bad guys plus the police and the Army and licensed gun-owners who have to do a course on gun safety before they get their license own guns, then you can use possession of an unlicensed gun as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.Or if you have a society in which only bad guys plus the police and the Army and licensed gun-owners who have to do a course on gun safety before they get their license and who have to use chemically marked ammunition own guns, then you can use possession of an unlicensed gun or unfingerprinted ammunition as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.And so forth. Which brings me on to my second argument, which is that only the first of these propositions involves repealing the Second Amendment. The rest of them don't really infringe on personal liberty any more that the legal requirement that if you drive a car you have to have passed a driving test; and the car needs to show numberplates; and you can't drive if you've been found DUI a few times, and so on.---Of course, as has been pointed out, America is not my country, but these are my thoughts.

I'm not sure that I follow you. Is your point that the U.S. would do better if it came to guerilla warfare against an invader under your present laws than if you didn't have ex-servicemen with guns?Here's a thought: why not break out the guns when the invasion actually happens, and distribute them to ex-servicemen?But it's not going to happen, is it? 'Cos it's actually your regular armed services that keep you safe.

You haven't really argued with my point. 'Cos such concepts as firearm safety, not letting felons have guns, chemical fingerprinting of ammunition, and so forth, don't prevent a guerilla uprising against an invader, do they?All you need to do is to trash every database the moment the Chinese arrive as your new overlords, and there's no harm done.

This seems to me to be a self-defeating argument. According to this narrative, German and Russian gun-owners didn't use their guns to defend liberty and oppose tyranny, and when asked for their guns by the tyrants, they handed them over.This is hardly an example of guns being a bulwark against tyranny. If your story had ended "... and then Hitler decreed that gun-owners should hand over their weapons, so they shot him", then you'd have a point. I'm not arguing. So I gathered, and no-one's saying "... than only criminals will have unliscenced guns". I don't think you've grasped how the technology works. It's actually rather easy, and no laboratories are involved until the point where you dig the bullet out of the murder victim. I guess we'd better just hope that the police officers conducting homicide investigations aren't complete idiots then.Actually I was kinda hoping that anyway.Yes, obviously every scientific method available to the police is suceptible in principle to a sufficiently cunning fraud. But that is not a reason to hope that the police should not have scientific methods available to them.

You're getting good at this hypocrisy thing, aren't you? Have you ever seen a monarch up close or lived under a constitutional monarchy?Have you ever seen heroin up close or injected it?Have you ever seen a murder up close or committed one?Does driving too fast make a man especially qualified to set the speed limit?

It seems that your doubts were ill-founded.