danb
dont be a dumbass
I don't think either of you get it.
The point of the appeals is to change the laws and prevent the government from infringing on our rights. In order to change the laws you can either go through the legislature or through the courts. The legislature made the laws so I do not see the laws becoming less infringing on our rights. The only option is to go through the courts. You need to actually win in order to get the courts to change the laws.
The government does not really care what happens to you as an individual and has no duty to protect you as an individual. This means there is a very low burden of proof and the court cases to date have demonstrated this. While SCOTUS has said that it does not like interest balancing, it has done nothing to stop it. There have been numerous cases where this has occurred.
You don't even believe that self defense is part of public safety since you don't believe that is the point of the argument.
The point of the appeals is to determine who provides public safety. Whether it includes the ability of people to provide their own safety or whether only the government can provide it. The whole point of the 2A is to make sure that the people themselves are able to provide that safety.
"Public safety" is not the appropriate grounds for debating restricting a right. Every right can be restricted in the name of public safety. I have no doubt we would all be safer if the police could search your house at any time for no reason, or judges could compel people to testify against themselves (else we assume they are guilty of the worst offense). The recidivism rate for inmates is over 50% so lets just keep people in jail forever for small offenses. Heck, lets just execute them and be done with it. Especially the morons who post hateful bigoted ideas on Twitter. Execute the Twitter Nazis first and the antifa next.
In short, I dont give a crap about the "evidence" for public safety and nor should you. Not even if you have a double blind controlled randomized trial where some people get guns and some dont, and show the impact on public safety with a p value of 1%. Which you dont, by the way, have that study. And if you dont even know what I just said there, you are not qualified to assess the evidence either. Which would be most judges and lawyers. The "evidence" for public safety is purely based on correlation, not science, and we all know correlation is not causation. So, the correlative "evidence" can in truth be read either way.
Sounds like you think I dont get it, but also SAF, David Kopel, CATO, and a bunch of legal scholars. Write your own amicus brief. My money is on Kopel and SAF, not random internet opinion. They have a good track record. But I could be wrong, so I encourage you to write one.