The “Right and Duty to be at All Times Armed”

[TPaine7]

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the morality, immorality or neutrality of self-defense (or the defense of other innocents). The idea that one normally has a moral duty to defend oneself seems strange and alien to many. But it was not always so. In the founding era, the duty was enjoined from the pulpit and taken for granted in politics.

Here’s a gentleman you may have heard of, Thomas Jefferson, bragging on his country to an Englishman:

Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

Source: Jefferson letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. http://history.liberatedtext.org/confounders/tj_bergh/v16/18240605johncartwright.html

That’s a strange concept to modern ears—a “duty to be at all times armed.” Uncivilized. Barbaric. Primitive. And out of the mouth of a slave owning hypocrite.

Well the last part is certainly true. But while Jefferson was undoubtedly a slaveholder, a hypocrite and a dishonest sneak (he undermined Washington’s administration from within by leaking papers to the press) he had some profound political insights. In contrast to some of his personal flaws, Jefferson’s political and philosophical musings should not be lightly dismissed.

Even so, I don’t quote Jefferson as an authority, but as a representative of early American thought. I could have quoted ministers and philosophers if I wanted to hunt down references.

Ok. So early Americans thought there was a right and duty of self-defense. Did they have a point? In other words, should we rank this idea with slavery and exclusive white male suffrage, or should we rank it, as Jefferson did, with “freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press”? Only we can answer that.

Let’s try. First some definitions.

Duty is, according to dictionary.com, “something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation.” Moral means, according to the same source, “conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to IMMORAL )...”

Putting it all together, a duty is something one is required to do because it conforms to the rules of right conduct. (I left off the legal part because there clearly is not a legal duty to defend oneself in most of America today.)

One of the most elementary rules of right conduct is to choose the best option. If there are two equally effective ways to save the patient’s life, but one gives him a 95% chance of walking again and the other gives him a 42% chance the emergency room surgeon has a duty to choose the better option.

This rule is easy for most to see when defense of others is involved.

A father kills a home invader who is pointing a gun at his daughter. He makes the best available choice. Not the best choice available in an imaginary perfect world, mind you, just the best choice available in the world he inhabits.

What gives him the right to choose his daughter over the criminal? How can he stand as judge over the value of human life? Is he playing God?

I maintain that the innocent child’s life is worth more than the criminal’s. From a strictly utilitarian view, society is better off populated with innocents than with predators. This is society’s judgment. It’s why we have prisons.

If I were to invade another man’s home, point a weapon at his daughter and die as a result it would not be because he had condemned me. It would not be because his daughter had condemned me. No, I would have condemned myself.

Society has judged some people worthy of death because of race, religion, culture, class, and political leanings. Society was wrong. But in this case, society’s judgment seems, to me at least, to be perfect. In fact, for a father to allow a criminal to kill his daughter when it was in his power to prevent it—even by killing the attacker—would be profoundly immoral. Criminal, even.

I think most people will agree so far, but here comes the interesting part. Let’s say that dad has left his little girl at home, safe with mom. He is threatened on the street, and either he or the criminal will likely die. If it is in his power to choose, it appears that he has several clear moral reasons to choose to live himself (over and beyond his clear instinct for self-preservation):

1) It is better that his little daughter’s daddy live to support her and to raise her with love than that a predator live to attack other innocents.
2) It is better that his wife’s husband live to love and share her life than that a predator live to attack other innocents.
3) In any dispute between guilty and innocent, the innocent should prevail. This is why we have courts.
4) Society is better off populated with innocents than with predators. This is why we have prisons.
5) There is nothing arbitrary about concluding that he should prevail, if necessary by force, even deadly force. The choice was not made by the victim but by the perpetrator.

This is not a close decision. It is not morally neutral. Perhaps the early Americans had a point?

<fixed link>

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. If you see something bad going down in front of you, which of us would not try and stop it?

Pick any scenario you want, but most all of us would do something. Call 911, intervene directly, take videos, whatever we felt would be the right thing to do under the circumstances for us as an individual..

One of the behaviors that is much more common in Americans than most if the willingness to do *something* rather than wait for the *authorities* or someone else to solve the problem.

Its not just about guns, its about national personalities.

[jeepnstein]

12. I've witnessed crimes before.

And I've know plenty of men and women who have done the same thing. Ask yourself some questions before you stick your nose into something too deeply. "Do I know what I'm seeing is a crime?" "Is it safer for the suspect to escape?" "Will anyone die if I don't act?" "Is this just over "stuff" or is it a matter of life or serious bodily injury?" "Is this something worth dying over?" Some times it's just as important to be a reliable witness.

As far as a citizen's duty to be armed. Sure, I'm all for it. That doesn't mean we all have to go around strapped all the time. A reliable rifle of a common caliber securely stored in one's home for a time of emergency can be a very good thing. Every lawful citizen should be free to exercise this right if they choose to do so.

[jmg257]

2. You might enjoy reading this. The duty to be armed for defense of self and state...

http://www.constitution.org/consprin.htm

"...
Upon establishment of the social contract, the natural right of what in the state of nature would be self defense is transformed into the duty to defend the state and the constitution, including oneself as a member of the state.

Defense of the state and the constitution includes defense against threats of all kinds, including invasion or attack, insurrection, criminal acts, natural or manmade disasters, or public ignorance or apathy.

The duty to defend the state and the constitution entails the right to acquire the means and the skills to exercise that duty, including the skills of the soldier, the policeman, and the fire and rescue worker, to be organized to act alone or in concert with others to exercise those skills to meet any threat that may arise, and the power to exercise those skills and use those means, alone or in concert with others, with or without official direction or participation.

In a republic, all citizens are soldiers, policemen, and fire and rescue workers, with the default rank of private. Delegation of official powers to agents of government is the conferring of higher rank to those persons, and persons of lesser rank are subject to the lawful orders of persons of higher rank when persons of higher rank are present and exercising their authority legally and effectively. If not, their rank ceases and highest rank devolves on the person present who most effectively represents that authority, whatever his previous status. A citizen with the default rank of private also outranks any person who is acting in violation of law, for the rank of lawbreakers is lower than that of private, whatever their previous status.

A citizen not only has the duty to obey the law, but to help enforce it, within his ability, and to do what he can to prepare himself and others to do so.
...
"


I definitely would agree with the vital role the people had in defense of the state as mandated in the constitution; certainly there was a duty to be armed for militia service. It seems those militias were always sanctioned by a governmental authority, not just individuals acting on their own. Of course the right exists and is secured to be armed for self-defense and other legal "selfish" reasons, but I would wonder about a duty to be armed for these purposes.

[rangersmith82]

3. Good stuff

I just got my concealed carry permit here in Florida.

I hope I never have to use my firearm, but its good insurance.

Also its cool, as it is signed by Charles Bronson.

[iverglas]

5. hmm

"A citizen not only has the duty to obey the law, but to help enforce it, within his ability, and to do what he can to prepare himself and others to do so."

And THIS duty is enforced ... how, then?

A duty without an enforcement mechanism is ... well, a bunch of meaningless words.

But hey, maybe you can get some non-gun owners arrested. After all, don't you gun owners harbour visceral hatred for non-gun owners?

Failing to perform their citizen duties as they do, prison should be too good for them.

[jmg257]

9. "Visceral hatred"? For people just because they don't own guns? Naa - way too many people

that would be, way too much hate. And just plain stupid.

Must be another one of those "gun myths".


The rest of your post re:duty to be armed I tend to agree with.

[Howzit]

17. You post on this forum like it is your duty to do so

No one is forcing you to do it. That means you believe it is the right thing to do.

The duty in the OP works the same way.

Where did you ever get the idea that gun owners hate non gun owners? I thought it was the other way around, but only with a small fraction of people.

[iverglas]

21. yeah

I also eat pizza like it is my duty to do so.

Cripes.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Then please phrase it differently.

Seriously, can we stop with these silly euphamisms? It's Justifiable Homicide, not Righteous Shooting, it's apparently 'nice thing to do', not 'duty' to aid another in distress, etc.

Quit playing games with the words to impart spin.

[TPaine7]

68. I honestly don't understand the "spin" issue.

"Righteous Shoot" is jargon. I dislike jargon and acronyms. (Working for the Army as I once did will give you your fill of acronyms for a lifetime). So aesthetically, I am as offended as the next person.

If the military says they "terminated the target", the euphemism is a psychic shield. It is a verbal game to avoid saying we "killed all of the people and destroyed their building and equipment." Such psychic shields can be used to help soldiers who are doing what must be done. It can also be used to help them do what should never be done. I understand strenuous objections to such tactics when they are used for evil.

But how is it spin to use jargon, even threadbare jargon, in this case? A "righteous shoot", as I understand it, is simply a justified shooting--it does not necessarily mean anyone died. Since justified and righteous are synonyms, what is the problem? What message is conveyed by "righteous" that is not conveyed by "justified"? And how is that message underhanded, deceptive, or malevolent--how is it spin?

I suspect that to some ears, "justified homicide" sounds incredibly stuffy. "Righteous kill" (to use a term that is actually equivalent) sounds less academic, or less like legalese.

Also, depending on one's conscience, one could feel profound guilt if one failed to help another in need. Had I driven or walked by a victim of hit and run and not even bothered to call 911 (as I saw on TV) I would have experienced severe guilt. And I am grateful for that fact.

To me it is a duty to help others in extremities--much more so than to avoid jaywalking or to claim a $10.00 bill I find when I file my taxes. Some laws are marginally significant; helping others in serious distress is a profound duty, self-imposed though it may be. Having read many of your posts, I'll go out on a limb and predict that you agree.

[iverglas]

69. and now, grab that dictionary

and look up "disingenuous".


This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter.
-- into which the justified shall enter??

The Lord hears the prayer of the righteous.
-- the prayers of the justified??

I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
-- 99 justified persons who do not need to repent??

For the LORD knows the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
-- the lord knows the way of the justified??

The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree.
-- the justified shall flourish??


And let us not forget ...

You never close your eyes anymore when I kiss your lips.
And there's no tenderness like before in your fingertips.
You're trying hard not to show it, (baby).
But baby, baby I know it...

You've lost that lovin' feelin',
Whoa, that lovin' feelin',
You've lost that lovin' feelin',
Now it's gone...gone...gone...wooooooh.

-- by that popular duo, the Justified Brothers.

[TPaine7]

70. If you knew enough theology, you would realize that you've helped my case.

Righteousness and justification are often interchanged. As in "righteousness by faith" and "justification by faith." Read Paul.

Righteousness is more poetic and less technical, and there are shades of difference. But the words can be, and often are, used interchangeably.

Here, let me use one of your examples to help you:

I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance. Luke 15 v7,
Source: New King James Version

(It's a shorter form, but the same root. I really hope even you aren't going to quibble over that.)

If I cared enough, I could almost certainly find several Christian groups named "Justified" or something similar. As a matter of fact, I believe I vaguely remember that name from somewhere. You must admit, the term is too theological /legal / technical sounding for most secular bands. Righteous is better sounding. And I admit that's an actual, minuscule point.

So is that what you're accusing them of--malevolent poetry?

[iverglas]

71. false hopes

Same root, but "just" and "justified" mean completely different things. As you are well aware. Even if they might not in fundie-speak. I'm afraid I don't speak that language.

Mea culpa, of course, for never having been a fundie and not having used the terms interchangeably in my progressive Christian upbringing.

We all know you're just equivocating anyhow.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justify

1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.
3. Theology. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.

5. Law.
a. to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.


The concept being bandied about here is a concept of LAW. The definition that applies is the definition that is applicable in LAW. And the law does not deal in righteousness or sin. The law does not even declare "innocence".

The law deals in liability for conduct. Liable or not liable. Justification is an escape from liability.

Actually, you will notice that I ordinarily refer to self-defence as an "excuse" for, rather than a "justification" of, an assault or homicide. Because that is what it actually is, in law. As noted in the definition above.

Nonetheless, "justified homicide" is not too inaccurate a term, "justify" being defined as "offer a satisfactory excuse for".


So is that what you're accusing them of--malevolent poetry?

I'm sure it was clever, but I have no idea what you're on about.

[TPaine7]

72. I guess Martin Luther was a Fundie,

as was the apostle Paul and the translators of the Bible, King James as well as New King James. To Martin Luther, as well as many Protestants, the terms have very large overlap. Apparently it did to the translators of the KJV as well, long before modern American Fundamentalists came into existence. And the Bible was obviously in on the Fundamentalist plot, too. Good thing your church protected you.

Yes, theologically, "justification" means the act of declaring or making just or righteous, or the act of forgiving. I wouldn't expect precise harmonization with secular use. But you've already shown that the words are synonyms in normal language.

The people who use the term righteous shoot primarily mean legally justified, I agree, but to many of them it has serious religious connotations too. (Lots of folks think law is founded in religious principles, and not all of them are Fundamentalists. If you've ever seen our Supreme Court, you probably noticed the carved figures of ancient lawgivers, including religious ones like Moses. Who knew--the architects were fundies too.)

"Excuse"

Justification in law means to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.

Self defense is a right. "It was self-defense, your honor" is a "reason" for one's actions. Naturally you prefer "excuse" as that carries strong implications of guilt and inadequacy. (From your source):

Excuse

–noun
8. an explanation offered as a reason for being excused; a plea offered in extenuation of a fault or for release from an obligation, promise, etc.: His excuse for being late was unacceptable.
9. a ground or reason for excusing or being excused: Ignorance is no excuse.
10. the act of excusing someone or something.
11. a pretext or subterfuge: He uses his poor health as an excuse for evading all responsibility.
12. an inferior or inadequate specimen of something specified: That coward is barely an excuse for a man. Her latest effort is a poor excuse for a novel.

Given a choice between reason and excuse, you chose according to your beliefs.

[iverglas]

74. code words

We all know that we don't speak the language of Martin Luther, or King James's translators, let alone Paul (who actually spoke Greek, of course), and that religious types who do, are fundies, speaking their own code, or perhaps sometimes theologians, speaking theirs. Those codes are not actually relevant to our subject. We aren't dealing in theology.

But you've already shown that the words are synonyms in normal language.

"The words"? Just and justified? Nope. Righteous and justified? Nope. Why would you say that I have shown something I have not shown?

The people who use the term righteous shoot primarily mean legally justified, I agree, but to many of them it has serious religious connotations too.

Actually, as we all know full well, to many of you it is part and parcel of the attempt to normalize, legitimize and in fact glorify gunplay.

If you've ever seen our Supreme Court, you probably noticed the carved figures of ancient lawgivers, including religious ones like Moses. Who knew--the architects were fundies too.

Really? Is the term "righteous shoot" engraved on Moses's tablets? No? Then what are you yammering about?

Self defense is a right.

No, it isn't. It is an exercise of the right to life. As are eating and breathing. Eating pizza, in fact, which of course is also an exercise of the right to liberty.

We don't need no stinking "natural law" here, ta. We really have moved on. We don't let blood to cure disease, either, or claim that the gods approve of slavery. Progress. It's a good thing.

Natural law and any other suchlike crap you might dredge up -- including your own words, the sound of which you are so fond of -- are of no relevance to our subject. We deal in positive law. And in positive law, self-defence is an excuse for the commission of an offence, and precludes punishment. This is because prohibiting the use of force in self-defence would violate the right not to be deprived of life without due process.

"It was self-defense, your honor" is a "reason" for one's actions. Naturally you prefer "excuse" as that carries strong implications of guilt and inadequacy.

No, it's an excuse, in law, and we're dealing in law, and I prefer "excuse" because it's the correct term, and I'm not a silly undergraduate with a little bit of larnin' and an overweening ego that interferes in my learning anything more.

Funny how you emphasized the wrong meaning; equivocation is such fun, isn't it?

9. a ground or reason for excusing or being excused

There you go. With, in addition:

Ignorance is no excuse.

In our context -- law -- of course, ignorance of law is no excuse. Ignorance of fact may demonstrate absence of mens rea.

Random results in the Criminal Code of Canada (feel free to find your own; I have no doubt they're there):

145. ... (5.1) Every person who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on the person, fails to comply with any condition of an undertaking entered into pursuant to subsection 499(2) or 503(2.1) ...

742.6 ... (9) Where the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the offender has without reasonable excuse, the proof of which lies on the offender, breached a condition of the conditional sentence order, the court may ...

794. ... (2) The burden of proving that an exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the defendant is on the defendant, and the prosecutor is not required, except by way of rebuttal, to prove that the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification does not operate in favour of the defendant, whether or not it is set out in the information.

A person who commits an offence may have a ground or reason for excusing or being excused for doing so.

It's just my strange and inexplicable fondness for ACCURATE TERMINOLOGY. My livelihood depends in large part on it. The success of the gun militant agenda depends in large part on obfuscation. The livelihood/success of an undergraduate ... well, what is a successful undergraduate? One who graduates, I suppose. Not a particularly difficult feat.

[TPaine7]

94. Think again. Or get help.

We all know that we don't speak the language of Martin Luther, or King James's translators, let alone Paul (who actually spoke Greek, of course), and that religious types who do, are fundies, speaking their own code, or perhaps sometimes theologians, speaking theirs. Those codes are not actually relevant to our subject. We aren't dealing in theology.

Which is why I didn't introduce quotes from a religious text into this discussion. Of course, now the irrelevancy of your own source is your point.

Me: But you've already shown that the words are synonyms in normal language.

You: "The words"? Just and justified? Nope. Righteous and justified? Nope. Why would you say that I have shown something I have not shown?

And yes, one dictionary definition of "righteous" is "morally justified". If that were the impression that the use of the word were intended to convey, I can't think of why someone would not simply say "justified".

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x196259#196501

"Morally justified" is synonymous with "righteous." The subject matter shows we are talking about the moral dimension, as any fool can see. But feel free to play on that missing word. Knock yourself out.

Me: Self defense is a right.

You: No, it isn't. It is an exercise of the right to life. As are eating and breathing. Eating pizza, in fact, which of course is also an exercise of the right to liberty.

That's just pathetic. You yourself have said such things, and you were correct when you did. I have a right to life, but not a right to breathe?! Hypertechnical BS.

We don't need no stinking "natural law" here, ta. We really have moved on. We don't let blood to cure disease, either, or claim that the gods approve of slavery. Progress. It's a good thing.

Natural law and any other suchlike crap you might dredge up -- including your own words, the sound of which you are so fond of -- are of no relevance to our subject. We deal in positive law. And in positive law, self-defence is an excuse for the commission of an offence, and precludes punishment. This is because prohibiting the use of force in self-defence would violate the right not to be deprived of life without due process.

I see you've crowned yourself. Last I knew, you were Revered Teacher of Bull Style Kung-Fu. Now you're "we."

It's quite a step up to Empress of Bull. Congratulations.

Now that the festivities are over, let's get back to reality.

We don't need no stinking "natural law" here, ta. We really have moved on.

LOL

"We" needs to understand that "we" has absolutely no authority here. As a matter of fact, part of the reason America has the Second Amendment is to protect the security of this free state against pompous, illegitimate foreign dictators. And it seems to be working. Your serene majesty, the Empress of BS, has stated that she won't come to America because of our gun laws. This citizen, for one, is pleased. The system works.

And don't think I didn't notice you making yourself an authority when you decry it when you imagine you see me doing the same. Hypocrite.

Naturally. Hypocrisy is definitely in your realm.

Me: "It was self-defense, your honor" is a "reason" for one's actions. Naturally you prefer "excuse" as that carries strong implications of guilt and inadequacy.

You: No, it's an excuse, in law, and we're dealing in law, and I prefer "excuse" because it's the correct term, and I'm not a silly undergraduate with a little bit of larnin' and an overweening ego that interferes in my learning anything more.

Funny how you emphasized the wrong meaning; equivocation is such fun, isn't it?

If you say so. Or it could be illiteracy. Or stupidity. Or the gun control reality distortion field.

I'm sane, so I don't think I rule the world. Or America. Or DU. But I did start the thread; the thread is about a philosophical question, with law explicitly excluded:

Duty is, according to dictionary.com, “something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation.” Moral means, according to the same source, “conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to IMMORAL )...”

Putting it all together, a duty is something one is required to do because it conforms to the rules of right conduct. (I left off the legal part because there clearly is not a legal duty to defend oneself in most of America today.)

That's what we're talking about in reality.

As you've demonstrated over and over again, you are incapable of reading when the subject is gun control. You've cited sources to support points 180 degrees away from what they actually say. Repeatedly.

Learn to read, iverglas. Or to think. Or get a friend to help you. It's hard explaining stuff to a pompous, condescending, functionally illiterate online character. It's not that I would mind explaining things down to the intellect of a child if I were faced with the humility and curiosity of a child. That would be fun. Being condescended to by one is tough.

And even if you were right on the subject matter being law, you would have been wrong on the rest:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justify

1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.
3. Theology. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.

5. Law.
a. to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.

That's your source, exactly as you cited it. It says that in law it is a "reason or excuse." I based my comments on your source. You don't get to cite a source and then impeach it when convenient by quoting law from the Klingon Empire, the Criminal Code of Canada, the Laws of the Empire of Bullshit, or any other source. Really. That stuff may fly in your realm, but this isn't your realm. We aren't your subjects here.

(Ok, you have a few agents.)

It's just my strange and inexplicable fondness for ACCURATE TERMINOLOGY. My livelihood depends in large part on it.

Does your livelihood depend on literacy? Critical thinking? Logical skills?

If so, it better not have anything to do with gun control. I wouldn't want even you to starve.

[iverglas]

95. sorry

Gotta go home for pizza. Actually, beef stew. I cook in my off hours.

While you were composing that, I made about $648. Yeah. About three hours is what it took. Thankfully, that's less in yankee dollars these days. If our dollar had stayed up too high there, up above yours like it was a little while ago, you people wouldn't be able to afford any of our stuff, and we wouldn't have as many of you traipsing the streets in your NRA ballcaps all summer. ... Hmm. Mixed blessings.


Oops! typo

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

25. I'm not sure I follow your logic (if any) ??

"And THIS duty is enforced ... how, then? A duty without an enforcement mechanism is ... well, a bunch of meaningless words."

Do you then suggest that our civic duty to vote in addition to exercising other enumerated rights are simply collections of meaningless words?



"After all, don't you gun owners harbour visceral hatred for non-gun owners?"

From the sounds of it ("you gun owner") it sounds like you're the once with anger issues.
If you're not a gun owner, why are posting a gun subforum? Just here to argue?
Otherwise, I would have to assume you're speaking from experience.

On a side note... you're spelling of "harbour"... are you American?

[iverglas]

27. ditto

Do you then suggest that our civic duty to vote in addition to exercising other enumerated rights are simply a collection of meaningless words?

Well now, "civic duty" isn't exactly the same as "duty", is it? It has a meaning, anyway. It does NOT refer to an enforceable duty. It's actually just a matter of opinion, anyhow. Reasonable people of goodwill can perfectly well disagree.

Are you saying there is a civic duty to exercise "other enumerated rights"? What the hell does that mean?

No one has ANY DUTY to exercise ANY RIGHT. Period. I believe this was pretty much my entire point.

A right to do something includes a right not to do it. The right to speak includes the right not to speak. The right to associate includes the right not to associate. So hmm, yes, by not speaking, I am exercising the right of free speech.

So I guess someone who chooses not to possess firearms is exercising the right to keep and bear arms. Hmm?


From the sounds of it ("you gun owner") it sounds like you're the once with anger issues.

The person to whom it was addressed seems to have got the joke.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196948&mesg_id=196948

Sometimes, people blinded by anger and hate fail to do so.


If you're not a gun owner, why are posting a gun subforum?

Oh dear oh dear. I guess I must exercise my right of free speech by shutting up now.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. 'duty' implies a legal requirement.

Such as a 'duty to retreat'. If there is a law compelling it, there should be an easily citable law on the books, and a penalty for non-compliance?

If you have a source for such a requirement, please share, it would shed light on this discussion.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. There's a host of disparate court decisions

and varying state laws that 'encourage' bystander intervention when witnessing a felony, or protection for a 'good samaritan' from accidental harm when acting in good faith, it's a huge mess in this country really.

Bottom line, no law or court decision I am aware of requires you to intervene when witnessing a felony (but I think you are required to report it). Beyond that, I don't believe there is an absolute on this. I've heard tell of a court decsion that required an observer to interfere if they witnessed a particularly heinous felony, such as an arson at an inhabited building, but I've never found it. Perhaps someone could enlighten if they are aware of such a thing..



An individuals mode of self-defense is their own damn business. If a pacifist chooses not to react when physically accosted, that is their own decision. In a way, I have a grudging respect for it. I don't consider it a good way to resolve a conflict, per se, but I am impressed by the restraint. It's easy to get mad, and get physical in self defense, or to flee. It's an evolutionary imperative. It is NOT easy to exercise restraint. That's an aspect of civilization, and takes effort.

[iverglas]

53. ah, you ain't been to Quebec

Very odd little provision in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Right to assistance.

2. Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance.

Aiding person whose life is in peril.

Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason.

Pretty much nonsense.

The Quebec Charter totally muddles up rights vis-à-vis the state and rights vis-à-vis private actors. It is a mishmash of what, in other provinces, is found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Part I of the 1982 Constitution, which Quebec refused to ratify) and provincial Human Rights Codes (which govern the private sector).

I don't know of any case where that duty has actually been enforced. ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

55. It seems like a highly problematic thing to require of a person.

Especially since it most likely entails significant risk to the person attempting to aid, otherwise the person in distress wouldn't be in that much distress, right?

I'll have another look through our laws, and see if any court decisions stand out, but I doubt we even have anything as blatant (even if unenforced) as that.

Edit: Curse you, split infinitives!

[reggie the dog]

81. not odd at all

"La non-assistance à personne en danger" is against the law in France. Basically if you can help someone without risking harm to yourself you have to help them. For example you see a car hit a tree and it is about to roll down a hill. You do not have to risk your own life by trying to save the person yourself, but if you have a phone you are legally obliged to call for assistance.

[iverglas]

85. thanks, I do know

it's of European origin.

The examples you give are obvious ones where the duty could be enforced (post facto, as with all duties: by prosecution, or civil proceedings).

I guess what I meant was "odd" about it is the framing:

"Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance."

The statement of the right -- essentially creation of a right -- is what's odd. A right to assistance from whom? Rights, as we know, at least in this sense, are things that apply as between individuals and the collective, generally the state nowadays. But the rest of the section makes it clear that the right is a right to have other individuals do something. It really is unique, in that aspect.

The provision you cite is in the form of a standard criminal prohibition: a prohibition on failing to come to the assistance of someone in danger, with liability to punishment for people who violate the prescription. Kind of like the Criminal Code of Canada's prohibition on leaving holes in the ice unattended. ;)

If you're interested:

http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/c-12/20050513/whole.html

you'll see what I mean by mishmash of classical rights:

1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.

and different types of rights, such as the right against private sector discrimination in the provision of goods and services:

15. No one may, through discrimination, inhibit the access of another to public transportation or a public place, such as a commercial establishment, hotel, restaurant, theatre, cinema, park, camping ground or trailer park, or his obtaining the goods and services available there.

The two things just don't belong in the same "quasi-constitutional" document.

Then you have things like:

7. A person's home is inviolable.

which would, uh, kinda preclude executing search warrants ...


Browsing for instances where the courts have considered the provision, I ran across a coincidentally interesting one. Valery Fabrikant is the individual who invaded the Quebec National Assembly and started shooting, killing four people before being persuaded to surrender by the heroic sergeant at arms, some years back.

http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2008/2008qccs1079/2008qccs1079.html

He argues that having advised me, presumably in my capacity as a "person" as opposed to a judge, that his life is in peril every time he is transported, that I now have the obligation to "… come to his aid…". The Court rejects this argument. Article 2 addresses a situation where a human being is presently and imminently in peril of losing his or her life. It does not address speculative situations which might arise in the future.

Nice try. But it does illustrate the problems with vaguery.


Heh, what you don't find when you google "duty to rescue". This was a fairly recent and notorious case when I studied it in law school.

http://www.sarbc.org/goodsam.html

The facts were that once the first guy fell overboard (it's illegal to drink on a boat in Ontario now) the boat owner tried to back the boat up, contrary to all the rules of how to drive a boat. The second guest basically went omigawd you're fucking it all up and jumped overboard to save the first guest. This being October or some such on Lake Ontario, they both died shortly after hitting the water, not by drowning but by heart failure, as I recall it, i.e. the first guy was likely dead when the second guy was trying to rescue him.

The Ogopogo Case

The case of Horsley v MacLaren, 1970, represents a controversial example of the right to compensation. A guest (Matthews) on a power boat (the Ogopogo) owned by the defendant (MacLaren) fell overboard into Lake Ontario. MacLaren tried to rescue Matthews but was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the plaintiff Horsley (another quest) attempted to save Matthews but both men drowned. The court held that MacLaren had a duty to rescue Matthews because of a special relationship - a power boat operator owed a duty of protective care to the passengers - and if negligent, MacLaren would be liable to Matthews (or his dependents).

Horsley, on the other hand, was a good samaritan with no duty to rescue Matthews. His only recourse was against MacLaren and his right to compensation depended on whether MacLaren had been negligent to Matthews, which the Supreme Court found not to be the case. Since MacLaren was not liable to Matthews, he could not be liable to Horsley.

Huh, I thought it had turned out that MacLaren was negligent because of the backing up business. Oh well. Wouldn't pass that torts exam today.

[SteveM]

78. You hate white men because they are gun owners? Why is this? (nt)

[iverglas]

79. pretty much the same reason you beat your dog twice a day, I guess

I've spotted two instances of this idiocy from you now.

Perhaps you would like to reread the rules of this site.

Three would be too many.

[SteveM]

80. But my dog is white. Why should I beat my white dog? (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

59. A lot of the things on this site are in fact, quoted historical documents...

But the page you just linked to, seems to be rather opinion, not historical or legal fact.

Do you have a better source for this list?

Edit: I smell a rat.

"It is unconstitutional for a state agency to delegate to a federal agency the power to make a determination that will affect the way a state law will be applied. This includes letting the IRS determine the tax status of a corporate entity, or letting a federal agency determine the legality of an element of commerce under state law. All such determinations must be made by agents of the state government, accountable to the people of that state through their elected state officials."

Ok, maybe, but THIS one is laughable on it's face:

"The U.S. Congress has no power to withhold funds from states or other legislative jurisdictions as a way of coercing them into adopting legislation. Such coercion is a violation of the requirement for equal protection of the laws."

Congress uses federal highway funds, and other monies like a baseball bat against the States all the time, so at best, this is an 'idealized' list, not an actual functional interpretation of meanings.

[iverglas]

60. sometimes I just don't bother

Fortunately, someone else sometimes does.

At the top of the page initially linked to, we find:

Declaration of Constitutional Principles

Whereas, during the course of history usurpers have attempted to misconstrue certain principles of constitutional republican government for their own ends, and that the original language of the Constitution for the United States did not anticipate all the ways it might be misinterpreted, we hereby set forth some of those principles with greater clarity, using more modern language:

Well duh, eh?

(Who let this outfit make off with the name constitution.org??)


Oh, quelle surprise.

The prime mover behind the site appears to be Jon Roland (his email address is the contact).

http://www.jonroland.org/

"As a U.S. Senator or Representative from Texas I would vigorously pursue my Constitutionalist Platform, which would involve the repeal of much existing legislation."

Does the word Loonytarian spring to mind? Well it might ...

Voters can expect that I would play a role in the U.S. Senate similar to that of Dr. Ron Paul in the U.S. House of Representatives, with perhaps more of a focus on review of the constitutionality of legislation proposed by other members.

... Previously the Texas Libertarian nominee for Texas Attorney General in 2002 and 2006. Here is the page from that contest.

Delegate to the Libertarian Party national conventions in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. Served on Platform Committee for the 2006 and 2008 conventions. Member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus that produced and got adopted the shorter Platform in the 2008 convention.

And once again, a Guns forum poster has hit the slime jackpot.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Yarp.

That's the one.

Domain ID:D2800891-LROR
Domain Name:CONSTITUTION.ORG
Created On:06-Feb-1996 05:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:09-Dec-2007 10:58:26 UTC
Expiration Date:07-Feb-2017 05:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:31046672-NSIV
Registrant Name:Constitution Society
Registrant Organization:Constitution Society
Registrant Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
Registrant Street2:care of Network Solutions
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Herndon
Registrant State/Province:VA
Registrant Postal Code:20172
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:[phone]
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:
Admin ID:31046673-NSIV
Admin Name:Jon Roland
Admin Organization:Constitution Society
Admin Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
Admin Street2:care of Network Solutions
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Herndon
Admin State/Province:VA
Admin Postal Code:20172
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:[phone]
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:
Tech ID:31046673-NSIV
Tech Name:Jon Roland
Tech Organization:Constitution Society
Tech Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
Tech Street2:care of Network Solutions
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Herndon
Tech State/Province:VA
Tech Postal Code:20172
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:[phone]
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:
Name Server:NS1.DREAMHOST.COM
Name Server:NS2.DREAMHOST.COM
Name Server:NS3.DREAMHOST.COM

[jmg257]

82. A "better source for the list"? It is some guy's opinion that a search

eventually revealed happen to match/coincide with the OP here re:the topic of "duty to be armed".

I pointed out my wonder (i.e. questioning) of the whole "duty" thing as described - in both places. (again, my take being Jefferson's use of duty would = militia service, and militia typically meant some govt sanction).

Other than that? No further interest, no real study involved.

edit: typo expansion

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Seemed more like an appeal to (questionable) authority.

I seem to have mis-interpreted your intent. I apologize.

[jmg257]

84. Oh, no sweat - apology not necessary - but thanks! I do see your point - I could have been clearer.

But wasn't concerned enough on the details!

:blush:

Cheers!

[rrneck]

4. WWJSMD?

Actually, the way I understood the debate the primary concern was not self defense, but homicide. Self defense can be attempted in any number of different ways. But since this is the gun forum it is reasonable to assume that we are talking about self defense with firearms, which are wonderfully efficient when it comes to killing people.

Your post is very interesting and thought provoking, but I would still respectfully disagree. Here's another way to look at the issue.

The preservation of one's own life is a biological obligation. Self defense is the exercise of that obligation. Those who wish their own death are usually considered mentally ill, although even then there are situations where suicide can make sense. But for all intents and purposes, your thoughts regarding self defense are so stipulated. And, of course, in this world when a software engineer with a spare tire may be eyeball to eyeball with a hardened criminal who preys on people for a living, self defense means a firearm. That means we are talking about killing someone.

It is my position that it is wrong to kill anyone, anytime, for any reason, period. Sometimes it is unavoidable. Astute readers will notice that I am using the term unavoidable instead of the previous term necessary. Live and learn.

I would consider the fulfillment of duty through the exercise of right conduct to be the preservation of human life at all times. Granted, choosing the best option is part and parcel of right moral conduct, but self defense through the use of lethal force presumes the absence of any option at all. If one had the choice to do otherwise, homicide will always be the wrong thing to do.

WWJSMD (What would John Stuart Mill do?)

To my mind, arguing the use of deadly force from a utilitarian point of view is the wrong way to go. In your scenario it is clear that the death of the criminal is a benefit to society. But there are important details that could be imagined (since it's an intuition pump ) that show that utilitarianism fails when applied here.

Given the circumstance where a home invader is found pointing a gun at an innocent child, clearly he should be shot dead. But what if the child, after having been saved, grows up to be another Countess Elizabeth Báthory? She killed over 600 people. John Stuart Mill would give you the thumbs down on that math. And what if the home invader was handing a cell phone to the innocent rather than a pointing a gun at her? Would the fact that the father shot him still be a moral act? It seemed like a good idea at the time is not much of a moral imperative.

Now, at this time, in this country, it certainly seems to be a good idea to get rid of the criminals as quickly as possible. That's because we have a constitution that includes the fifth and sixth amendments as well as the second. But, what if you had been born in, say, 1902? In Berlin? The definition of who is a criminal and who is not becomes pretty problematic. If you don't like that one, of course we could put you in Cambodia with Pol Pot, or Moscow with Stalin. You get the picture.

Now, you mention something that is pretty rare in discussions of the use of lethal force. You put yourself in the position of the assailant. That's unusual and refreshing. People tend to think in terms of their own experience. I think that's why gun owners feel insecure with the discussion of the removal of guns, because they wouldn't want to shoot anybody anyway. And non gun owners might like all guns removed because they are afraid they will get shot even by accident. But to continue to use that scenario, what if you were not pointing a gun at someone, but you had a cell phone in your hand? Would you want to be facing someone who misunderstood your intent and felt that it would ever be the right thing to kill somebody? Would you feel any better if there were a bystander there who felt the same way? Or a half dozen bystanders? I wouldn't like those odds. Once again, it seemed like a good idea at the time would be cold comfort.

The use of these scenarios points up the problems of assuming any flexibility regarding the morality of deadly force. Death (on this plane for those of you with a religious bent) is irrevocable. Along the time line of any assault, the assailant begins as a potential threat and then becomes an imminent threat. The exact moment when that change occurs can only be determined by another individual under incredible pressure with a very narrow window of opportunity to act. That is no time to determine the morality of anything. And the awareness of the potential of that situation presents a powerful incentive to justify acting sooner with deadly force to avoid those pressures. Or to inflate one's ego. Or to further political objectives. We just had eight years of the Bush Doctrine which advocated preemptive war. How many Dick Cheneys do you want running around loose? To my mind, we just can't afford that type of moral relativism nationally or personally.

Fortunately, we have a remedy for the kind of moral absolutism I am advocating. Yes, it is always wrong to kill. But the unavoidability of killing is also taken into consideration. That's why they call it justifiable homicide. That's also why we have clergy, shrinks, and bartenders to help us deal with doing something wrong even when we have to.

True enough, you are exactly right that we have courts and prisons to punish wrongdoers. I would assert that it is up to them to mete out punishment when they do wrong, not private citizens with a mere fraction of a second to consider the ramifications of their actions.

[jody]

7. Interesting post. When confronted with a violent criminal and seconds count, police are only minutes

away.

[iverglas]

8. and you should always carry a gun

because a cop is too heavy.

BRAAWWK!!

[bertman]

18. You keep on thinking that will save you, jody. You're wrong. I can name countless

incidents where violent criminals killed, maimed and wounded innocent people in minutes. The police arrived just in time to kill or capture the criminal, survey the carnage, and call the first responders.

I am assuming that you have not read/listened to/watched any media for the last 50 years, or you would be aware of this.

Do you anticipate that the violent criminal is going to allow you or your companions to dial up the police, give your situation and the address, so the police can be summoned? Or is this going to be done telepathically?

[jody]

19. Please reread my post. I'm a pro-RKBA, Yellow Dog Dem.

[bertman]

22. Okay. Got it. Seconds count. Minutes away. Please pardon my misunderstanding, Jody.

I'll chalk it up to Monday morning.

Pro-RKBA Democrat. I like that.

[jody]

24. Happy New Year!

:hi:

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

26. Excuse my ignorance, jody...

What is a "Yellow Dog Democrat"?

I assume RKBA = Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[jody]

28. Its origin is Alabama politics. See quote and link below.

http://www.yellowdogdemocrat.com/history.htm

History of the Yellow Dog Democrat.
A Yellow Dog Democrat is a staunch loyalist to the Democratic Party. These days, the term is widely recognized as an expression of regard and, as such, it is only used in a manner of praise. Yellow Dog Democrats embody loyalty. This is a trait that should never ever be taken for granted by any Party nor by any individual for that matter. The Democrat Party recognizes this, thus correctly acknowledges the Yellow Dog Democrat as some of their "Best Friends".

The term, Yellow Dog Democrat, blossomed during all of the Hoopla which surrounded the 1928 elections, when Al Smith ran for President against Herbert Hoover. During that campaign, Senator Tom Heflin, of Alabama, declined to back his fellow Democrat, Al Smith the Governor of NY. In fact it was much worse than that, Senator Heflin decided to back Herbert Hoover, who would then go on to become President- a Republican President no less. Heflin's controversial actions were considered heresy, especially in the South. As you can imagine, quite a large number of Alabamans vehemently disagreed with Senator Heflin's decision to cross his "Party Lines". Hence, the popular saying, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket" was born! It was adopted as the proud slogan of the staunch party loyalist.

At the time, this phrase certainly did not reflect well on Senator Heflin.

[bertman]

20. "It is my position that it is wrong to kill anyone, anytime, for any reason, period."

My experience has proved to me that there are people who SHOULD be killed. Our society has evolved, and I use that term loosely, to the point where we codify the prohibition against killing others, while at the same time doing exactly the opposite of what our law decrees.

I understand why we codify the "sanctity of life"--because it makes for a much more functional and manageable society than the one where each citizen makes his/her own decision about who he/she might kill, for whatever reason.

BUT, there are predators among us. There are murderers, torturers, rapists, child abusers, slavers, arsonists who destroy the lives and livelihoods of others for their own personal gratification or financial gain. The deaths of these types of human beings would be a blessing for humankind.

[iverglas]

30. lordy

My experience has proved to me that there are people who SHOULD be killed.

And you wonder why I said:

Understand, it is curious that some DUers proclaim their support for all inalienable rights except
... the right not to be deprived of life without due process

?

Perhaps, unlike others here, you are not actually advocating/celebrating the killing of people who you think SHOULD be killed.

[TPaine7]

34. I missed the part where bertman said or implied...

that they should be killed without due process of law.

[iverglas]

35. you miss a lot of things

On the other hand, you are wondrously inventive.


I missed the part where bertman said or implied...
that they should be killed without due process of law.

Evidently you also missed the part where I said or implied that he did.

That, of course, would be because I didn't.

When you butt into other people's conversations, you would do well to know what the fuck you are talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196970&mesg_id=197108

[TPaine7]

38. If he didn't, your comments make no sense...

And I guess I have my answer.

BTW, what does this...

tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan-12-09 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #37
50. The right to not be deprived of life without due process goes both ways

And if someone is trying to deprive you of your life for their own gain, why should you just go along with it? Do you consider saving your own life at the expense of your attacker's depriving them of life without due process? Last I checked, the constitution is a list of protections for individual citizens rights against encroachment by the government. It is a list of things the government has no right to do, not a list of things individuals must abide by in their personal interactions. Killing someone who is attempting to cause grievous bodily harm to yourself or others is hardly depriving them of life without "due process", since individuals are not courts, they are not government bodies, they don't have the luxury of giving their attacker a trial.

...have to do with bertman's comment or your reply?

you are wondrously inventive.

Why thanks! *blushes*


And for the record:

you miss a lot of things
Posted by iverglas



On the other hand, you are wondrously inventive.


I missed the part where bertman said or implied...
that they should be killed without due process of law.

Evidently you also missed the part where I said or implied that he did.

That, of course, would be because I didn't.

When you butt into other people's conversations, you would do well to know what the fuck you are talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[iverglas]

39. oh dear oh dear, I oopsed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196970&mesg_id=197080

and following the dots on from there.

My comment was about the many people in this forum who obviously don't give a shit about the provision of the US Constitution guaranting the right not to be deprived of life without due process ... and at the same time yammer on about how they love their Bill of Rights -- all of it.

You could have found that link from the other one with little difficulty, but that would have been admitting too much.

More evidence of the wisdom of knowing what you're talking about before butting into other people's conversations, anyway.

[rrneck]

31. Our civilized behaivor is the result of our morality. It's opposite occurs

when we disregard our morals.

Those predators rehabilitation, no matter how unlikely, would be a greater blessing. But if they must die, they should enjoy the constitutional rights afforded every citizen which include a trial before a jury of their peers. Sometimes they lose both life and justice because of their own mistakes. That doesn't make killing them right, just unavoidable.

There are no evil babies. Something happens to these people between the moment of their birth and the moment of their death. A trial does more than dispense justice. It is an investigation into the causes of the crime. Those who dispense that justice need to know not only that a dangerous person has been removed from the body politic, but also that the body politic failed the condemned.

There should be no moral absolution for those who commit outrages against humanity. To allow ourselves moral absolution for causing in others the same result for which we condemn them - death - is to start down a path that will lead to horrible injustices. Allowing ourselves moral absolution is to excuse ourselves from the consequences of our actions. We cannot allow ourselves that hypocrisy.

Killing another human being, no matter what they have done, is not a moral act. It is a moral dilemma.

[bertman]

45. I respect your right to these beliefs, rrneck, but I think they are just that--beliefs.

To say there are no evil babies is quite the assumption. How do you know that to be a fact? That has never been scientifically proven and I doubt that it ever could be.

My personal opinion is that there are evil people. For all I know it may be due to something in their genetic makeup or their body chemistry or their brain patterns. Or, as you assert, it may be due to something(s) that happened to them during their formative years, or even something that happened to them as an adult. But, that is a belief, not a fact. And regardless of why they did it, they did it. If a dog kills a person we eliminate that animal from the life cycle. To me, humans are only better than some animals in that they have the ability to reason at a higher level and to use tools that most animals cannot. So, when a human animal becomes a killer, enslaver, etc. it's time to take action.

You think that predators can be rehabilitated. Again, another belief. Certainly some sick individuals may be candidates for rehabilitation, but IMO there are others who are not rehabilitatable, but that's just my belief.

In the animal kingdom there are animals who kill for pleasure. Mostly they are rare, but they have been proven to exist. They killed not for food but for some other reason. We can anthropomorphize the reasons all day long, but we will likely never know what causes that behavior. Likewise, in the human population there are human animals who kill for pleasure or for some other reason, but it's not for food. And, as in the animal kingdom, those types of killers are rare. Yet they still exist.

I don't buy all the moral absolution arguments. To me that's just someone's mistaken assumption that it is evil to kill or eliminate permanently those who brutalize other people. There are some crimes that dictate that the person committing them be removed from the life cycle. I don't subscribe to the belief that it demeans the executioner(s). And it certainly does not bring the executioners down to the level of the murderer/rapist/slaver/etc. It's a choice that moral people can make.

I do not advocate the use of the death penalty by our court system as it is currently administered. If we could ensure that the accused received a fair trial with access to all of the legal remedies afforded by law, then I would advocate it for some of the crimes I have already mentioned.

When our society has individuals like Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc, etc, ad nauseum, I think it is acceptable to say that these predators have far exceeded the parameters of living in society. The terror, fear, anguish, and broken lives that they have left in their wakes demand that they be removed. Therefore, they should be dispatched without mercy.

There are certainly some situations where killing another human being is not punishable by death: self-defense, defense of a loved one, and of course accidentally killing someone.

I personally know a man whose young adult son's life was threatened by another man because my friend's son was dating the woman this other man considered his girlfriend. The man who was making the threats had already killed one man and served a brief period of rehabilitation in our prison system. The killer even told the friends of the threatened young man that he was going to kill my friend's son.

So, one evening my friend took his shotgun and cornered the killer and shot him dead. Then he turned himself in to the police. He told the police and the court that he was not going to let anyone take the life of his child, and if he had to go to prison for the rest of his life, so be it. The jury found him guilty of manslaughter and he was out of jail in two years. I have known this person for over 30 years and have never seen him utter an unkind word to another person. He is honest, hard-working and a good person.

In my opinion he did the world a favor.

[iverglas]

54. what a strange universe

So, one evening my friend took his shotgun and cornered the killer and shot him dead.

And got two years for manslaughter.

Chalk up one more reason to get rid of juries.

[bertman]

87. Interesting interpretation, iverglas. The jury heard the testimony of numerous witnesses

who were compatriots of the man my friend killed. They all said that this man was intent on killing my friend's son and that he was advertising that to everyone he knew.

In addition, my friend testified that he had asked the police to arrest the man but they had said that they could not find him. They also said that they could not guarantee protection for my friend's son.

The jury of his peers heard my friend say that he could not allow this man to kill his son, so he found him and killed him. The jury of his peers convicted him of the lowest possible charge they could.

If you feel that is a bad decision by the jury, I think you should reconsider.

[iverglas]

88. interesting interpretation by the jury, actually

The scenario you have described is murder, pure and simple. No mitigating circumstances whatsoever.

he could not allow this man to kill his son, so he found him and killed him.

Just checking ... yup, murder. Straightforward, no fuzzy bits, murder.

The jury of his peers convicted him of the lowest possible charge they could.

Yassss ... and as I was saying: one more reason to get rid of juries. Jurors who permit the casual killing of other human beings, by letting people who do it off with a rap on the knuckles, should probably be rounded up and interned in primary schools so they can learn the basic principles of the society they are supposedly part of.

If you feel that is a bad decision by the jury, I think you should reconsider.

If I thought it was anything other than a bad decision by the jury, I'd have to shoot myself as being unworthy of living.


typo

[bertman]

91. A jury of twelve men and women heard the cases presented by the prosecutor and by

the defense, and made their decision based on what they heard and presumably the law as they were told it should be applied in that case.

But, apparently, you are a better judge of what the verdict should have been. Okay, if you say so.


I don't call killing a murderer who has sworn to kill your child "casual killing". But then, I'm the one who thinks that people who kill others should be killed, and most definitely that people who have killed before and are threatening to kill again, should be killed. Especially in defense of one's own flesh and blood. And apparently, at least twelve other people agree.

No further comments necessary.

[iverglas]

93. apparently I am

But, apparently, you are a better judge of what the verdict should have been. Okay, if you say so.

If the facts were as you reported them, I most unquestionably am.


I don't call killing a murderer who has sworn to kill your child "casual killing".

Yes, but then you evidently have a private dictionary that you consult when it's convenient.


And apparently, at least twelve other people agree.

Gosh, I wonder how many people voted for George Bush ...

Yup, I always like to put the interpretation of individual rights, and the enforcement of those rights, in the hands of 12 yobs. Me, I'll opt for trial by judge alone anytime I have the option, I think. I mean, unless I know I'm guilty as sin, and I figure I can get 12 yobs to accept some sob story and let me off.

[rrneck]

73. Thank you for responding in a thoughtful and considerate manner.

Heh. Back home in the Bible belt I’m known as a raging hell bound iconoclast. If they find out I believe in anything I’ll never hear the end of it, so lets just keep that between us, okay?

Actually the term belief is close to the mark. But it might be better to say I presume there are no evil babies; as in the presumption of innocence. The kid just hasn’t had time to do anything wrong yet.

Now, the notion that there are perhaps evil people because of “something in their genetic makeup or their body chemistry or their brain patterns” is exactly the kind of thinking that concerns me. I am not aware of any proof whatsoever that there is some biological cause for evil in people. If that were the case, we would be able to find a biological cure for evil. I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, but it’s been tried; remember Eugenics? That kind of thinking was a major contributor to some of the worst human rights abuses in history. That’s because somebody had an "opinion" about who should be “removed from the life cycle” because of who they are. It doesn't take that much work to decide almost anyone is evil. And that’s the problem. If we step away, even for a moment, from the idea that it is at any time right to end a human life, then there will always be somebody around willing to move the goalposts. We just had eight years of a “decider” who gave us Abu Ghraib. Do you really want to start down that road?

I absolutely agree that there are people who simply cannot live among us in society. But do we have to kill them? We can separate them easily enough, just ask Charles Manson. I guess if society decides that someone has to die, it has occurred to me that the best way to execute them would be at the site of his or her crime off the back of a flatbed truck. That way justice would be dispensed and those dispensing the justice would see it being done. We, the people, have condemned this person to death, and we, the people, should see the results of our condemnation. I expect it wouldn't be pretty. I don’t like the idea of locking them away and hearing about how we killed them sanitized on page twelve of the newspaper. But it’s a moot point now that the exoneration of condemned predators through the introduction of new evidence is almost a cottage industry. The entire process of judicial execution has been called into question. Until we sort that out, I expect we should just put the entire notion on hold.

It takes years to ruin a person. It takes even longer to fix them. Some people can never be made whole no matter how hard we try. Unfortunately, we have no way to know exactly who can be made whole or how long it will take until we make the attempt. We just don't know who the truly evil people are.

It makes no sense that someone can locate evil in another, declare them thus, and then condemn to death because of it. For that reason, we have a legal system that is designed to adjudicate evil acts, not evil people.

I am sorry to hear about your friend. Two years is hard time for a good man. I hope he is doing well now and I wish him all the best. I don’t know the particulars of the case but I would surmise that the jury felt that since he killed another well in advance of the actual materialization of an imminent threat, there was some doubt that he had no other option whatsoever but to do what he did. It’s a sure bet those in the jury box weren’t around when he needed them. In any case, he conducted himself honorably under impossible circumstances. We should be thankful he didn't get the death penalty.

As for the guy he killed? Could we have made him not evil anymore? I guess now we will never know.

damn typos

[bertman]

86. Your secret's safe with me, rrneck, as I have the same rep among my Bible-belt brethren

and sistren.

Evil encompasses many meanings and many forms. As far as evil behavior by human beings, as I said before I don't know the cause, only the effects. My allusion to genetics and brain waves was strictly broad-brush speculation.

When someone exhibits behavior that violates the laws we supposedly enlightened human beings have passed to protect each other we try to sanction them for doing so. Appropriately the punishments vary in severity depending upon the nature of the infraction. To offer people a chance, or chances, to be rehabilitated for such violations as theft, fraud, assault, assault and battery, to name a few, is a wholly acceptable way, IMO, for our society to expend its energy and wealth. We are saying to these individuals that even though they have violated the social compact and we are punishing them, we are going to offer them another chance to change their behavior.

IMO that recognizes that the damage those persons caused to others and to society was not so extreme that we consider them beyond redemption and unworthy of enjoying the benefits of society--although those benefits may be somewhat modified by the stigma of their past.

On the other hand, when a human being takes from another human being the most precious things that we possess, liberty (enslavement), a sense of personal security and physical inviolability (rape), one's physical and mental well-being (maiming, rape, enslavement), and the ultimate--their life (murder), to my way of thinking these people have forfeited their right to live. And not only that, they should not be allowed to drain valuable resources from the rest of society. Resources required to feed, house, clothe, and imprison them. By their actions they have cancelled their rights to enjoy the bounty of the earth and even the air to breathe.

I understand that this desire to try to redeem/rehabilitate these people springs in large part from the teachings of some religious and spiritual groups that life is sacred and we humans should never take a human life because of that. I respect that, but I don't buy it.

What I do not understand is how we human beings can allow someone to live who has taken that life (and those other things I mentioned before) away from another human being. A man or woman decides that he/she is going to kill another human being for some reason. Then they commit the crime. The life of the victim, the dreams, the hopes, the possibilities have all been erased at the whim of another human being. That can never be given back. That person will never see a sunrise, never hug a child, never laugh, never cry, never feel the soft gentle rain of summer, never marvel at the beauty of the full moon, never enjoy another breath. Yet, the murderer will still live and breathe and even have human contact.

To me THAT is an abomination. I don't see it as barbaric or cruel to expect the perpetrator to cease to experience life because of the heinous nature of his/her crime(s). It is unbelievable to me that we humans would offer to the murderer the very thing they have deprived those who they murdered of.

You comment that "as for the guy he killed? Could we have made him not evil anymore? I guess now we will never know." That conveys a lack of understanding that this person had not only already killed another human being, but had made it clear that he was going to kill yet another. And, according to those who knew him and testified before the court, he would have made good on his threat. Why would someone like that deserve ANY chance at life?

Let's suppose that my friend had not killed this man who threatened his son. And let's suppose that this man had then killed my friend's son, true to his threat. What you are saying is that he would still deserve a chance to live, and breathe, and eat, and dream, despite his having murdered two people. I'm sorry, but this is just way beyond my comprehension.

So, there's my thinking on this awful subject.

[iverglas]

89. on not having a clue

to my way of thinking these people have forfeited their right to live

So, what's your private definition of "inalienable", then? And you imagine the purpose of all the fine words that have been written over recent centuries, about inalienable rights, and the right to life, and all that jazz -- all just meaningless buzzing, has it been?


What I do not understand is how we human beings can allow someone to live who has taken that life (and those other things I mentioned before) away from another human being.

Uh, because we stopped being ignorant savages a while back?

"And those other things"? Death penalty for assault, now?


A man or woman decides that he/she is going to kill another human being for some reason.

Actually, not a whole lot of homicides are the result of decisions. Most are impulsive acts, and many were not intended to cause death.

These would be among the factors that explain why homicide is a difficult offence to deter via possible sentences / sentencing.


I understand that this desire to try to redeem/rehabilitate these people springs in large part from the teachings of some religious and spiritual groups that life is sacred and we humans should never take a human life because of that. I respect that, but I don't buy it.

I don't give a toss about it, myself, being a hardcore atheist. I just don't want to belong to a species that has not evolved beyond collectively killing its members.


typo

[bertman]

90. My definition of inalienable rights is rights that accrue to those who abide by the rules

of society. Those who choose to live outside the rules forfeit the benefits those rules afford. By your definition of inalienable it appears that liberty would accrue to anyone--regardless of his/her behavior.

I think we continue to be ignorant of many things, including many important things. And we are still ignorant in many ways and of many truths regardless of our own high regard for our supposed intellect and ability to reason." Those other things": enslavement, rape, maiming were the ones I mentioned in addition to murder. Not assault, which was listed as a less serious offense against people than the other four.

An act that kills a person but was not INTENDED to cause death is normally referred to as an accident, or negligent homicide, or manslaughter, or a variety of other legal terms.

We disagree on the concept that collectively deciding to kill members of society who murder other members of society, or enslave them, or rape them, or maim them is a logical, legitimate way to ensure the survival of the species and to enforce its laws.

[iverglas]

92. okay

My definition of "apples" is the things you wear on your feet in winter to keep them warm and dry.

You do realize that your definition of "inalienable" doesn't matter a pinch of poop more than my definition of "apples", right?

Do you actually know what "inalienable" really means?


Those who choose to live outside the rules forfeit the benefits those rules afford.

The DEFINITION of "inalienable" is CANNOT BE FORFEITED.

All you are saying is "up is down".


By your definition of inalienable it appears that liberty would accrue to anyone--regardless of his/her behavior.

Fucking duh.

You would prefer it to be legal to enslave people because they wear pink socks?

There are situations in which our consensus is that we are JUSTIFIED in INTERFERING in the EXERCISE of a right, to the extent reasonable and necessary for permissible purposes.

If people who committed serious crimes LOST their right to liberty, for example, then we could just put them all in solitary confinement and leave them there until they died. They would have no RIGHT to assert against that treatment.


"Those other things": enslavement, rape, maiming were the ones I mentioned in addition to murder.

"Rape" and "maiming" are assaults. They are rather different from death/killing.

Why not just go back to the Bloody Code? The death penalty for 250 offences; why not more? You should have all the undeserving yobs removed from your society in no time at all.


An act that kills a person but was not INTENDED to cause death is normally referred to as an accident, or negligent homicide, or manslaughter, or a variety of other legal terms.

I'm sorry, but I can't even imagine why people choose to make pronouncements in public about things they haven't bothered to get the first clue about.

If I throw a rock at your leg and it hits your head and kills you, I assure you: I have committed homicide. Please believe me. Perhaps you thought that "homicide" and "murder" were the same thing ...


We disagree on the concept that collectively deciding to kill members of society who murder other members of society, or enslave them, or rape them, or maim them is a logical, legitimate way to ensure the survival of the species and to enforce its laws.

That's as may be, but the point you are trying so hard to evade, by pretending it doesn't exist, is that doing what you propose is not merely a hideous atrocity, it is a violation of the fundamental human right to life that is regarded as unjustified in all civilized societies.

I'm not actually noticing the species being in any trouble when it comes to surviving, at least not any trouble at the hands of common criminals ... war criminals, economic criminals, the criminally power-hungry, maybe ... so your attempt at that justification is really quite specious. Survival of the species might indeed provide justification for rights violations, you just don't have any there.

[TPaine7]

37. Thanks for your response.

I am still mulling it over, and plan to reply at length later.

It seems on first reading, however, that we have some definitional issues. We appear to mean different things by the same words. For example, you write

"Given the circumstance where a home invader is found pointing a gun at an innocent child, clearly he should be shot dead."

with which I heartily agree (assuming of course that an equally effective non-lethal method is not available).

But you also write

"It is my position that it is wrong to kill anyone, anytime, for any reason, period."

To me at least, saying that the invader should be shot dead is the exact same thing as saying that shooting the invader dead is the right thing to do. And yet you also tell me that it is always wrong to kill anyone.

I cannot see your internal consistency.

One more point:

"True enough, you are exactly right that we have courts and prisons to punish wrongdoers. I would assert that it is up to them to mete out punishment when they do wrong, not private citizens with a mere fraction of a second to consider the ramifications of their actions."

I think you are slightly wide of my point. I said that prisons exist to ensure that society is composed of the innocent and that courts exist to ensure that the innocent prevail over the guilty. Society as a whole judges these to be the moral, correct, and good outcomes. These observations of mine have nothing to do with punishment merely with desirable outcomes. And I fully agree with you that individual, private citizens have no legitimate power to mete out criminal justice--in fractions of a second, in hours, or after days of deliberation. At least not while there is competent, legitimate functional government.

[rrneck]

65. It looks like

I let thinking from a previous post sneak into the terminology of this post so allow me to clarify. As you have already discovered, I ain't Shakespeare. I don't make much of a distinction between "shooting to stop" and killing. As far as I am concerned, in the real world, it's a distinction without a difference. In that scenario, making sure the assailant is stopped will almost certainly result in his death. As far as I am concerned, it would still be wrong. Unavoidable, but still wrong. Thank you for pointing that out.

As for your other point - so stipulated. I like your characterization better.

I'm still mulling m'self. Take y'time.

[iverglas]

6. I guess I'd better repeat myself

since when you referred to this post in another thread I hadn't twigged to it being brand new.



The arguments you marshalled to support what you think simply demonstrate that you don't have a clue.

Jefferson, quoted by you:

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

The rights being discussed in that case clearly are collective rights of THE PEOPLE, and the duty to which he refers is clearly an individual duty TO THE COLLECTIVE, not to the individual's self.

How anybody could miss it, I don't know. Odd that your ancestors understood collective rights, and you don't have a clue. The security of a free state and all that.


That’s a strange concept to modern ears—a “duty to be at all times armed.” Uncivilized. Barbaric. Primitive.

Yup. Because it is.


One of the most elementary rules of right conduct is to choose the best option. If there are two equally effective ways to save the patient’s life, but one gives him a 95% chance of walking again and the other gives him a 42% chance the emergency room surgeon has a duty to choose the better option.
This rule is easy for most to see when defense of others is involved.

Yup. I was just making that point myself. That there are situations in which there is a "moral" choice and an "immoral" choice.

And this is not the case for self-defence, because it is neither moral nor immoral to protect one's own self from injury or death.

I'll state that more clearly: there is NO duty, NO obligation, to protect one's own self from injury or death, at least where the only consideration is one's own well-being. A member of the police or the military may have a duty to do so, in order to be able to protect other people. A parent may have a duty to do so (parents are instructed to fit their own oxygen masks first in airplanes, analogously), in order to be able to protect their children.

But there simply is no independent DUTY or OBLIGATION of self-defence. (Agreeing, I trust, that a duty or obligation to one's self is meaningless noise.) Even if one believes one has a duty to one's species to ensure its survival, one may hold the perfectly "moral" position that killing in order to survive does the species no favours.


A father kills a home invader who is pointing a gun at his daughter. He makes the best available choice. Not the best choice available in an imaginary perfect world, mind you, just the best choice available in the world he inhabits.

What gives him the right to choose his daughter over the criminal? How can he stand as judge over the value of human life? Is he playing God?

I maintain that the innocent child’s life is worth more than the criminal’s. From a strictly utilitarian view, society is better off populated with innocents than with predators. This is society’s judgment. It’s why we have prisons.

Nope. Bullshit. The value of anyone's life simply does not come into it. You're making shit up, and you know it.

We have a consensus that it is acceptable to use force to protect someone else at risk of serious injury or death from an assault by a third party. Not because the third party's life is not valuable -- it is entirely possible to protect someone from an assault without killing anyone at all. In fact, obviously most instances where people act to protect themselves or a third party result in no deaths at all.

We have a consensus that there is justification for using force in this situation because we cannot compel anyone to submit to injury or death from an assault by another person.

If our laws prohibited self-defence, we would be compelling people to submit to death or injury, on pain of punishment (the way we compel anyone to do anything, by law). That would be contrary to our notions of rights, as entrenched in constitutions. It would violate the right not to be deprived of life without due process (or contrary to the rules of fundamental justice, as it is expressed in the Constitution of Canada).

That is the justification. NOT that one life is worth more than another. That it is impermissible to compel someone to submit to injury or death. That we will not punish people who use force to protect themselves. Period. That is all the "right of self-defence" is. A right not to be punished for using force to protect one's self.

We often extend that to third parties. This can be a greyer area, because someone's perception/belief as to who is the aggressor and who is the victim can be wrong.

What I don't understand is why this perfectly straightforward explanation of the self-defence justification -- that to preclude it would violate the right not to be deprived of life without due process because it would compel individuals to submit to injury or death on pain of punishment for using force to protect themselves -- isn't enough for you. It's correct, it's clear, it is in no way objectionable. What's the problem?


If I were to invade another man’s home, point a weapon at his daughter and die as a result it would not be because he had condemned me. It would not be because his daughter had condemned me. No, I would have condemned myself.

Nope. Utter and complete bullshit.

It would be regarded as justified, and the individual would not be liable to punishment, because we may not compel people to submit to injury or death at the hands of another person, and because we extend that exception to people who act to protect third parties in certain circumstances.


I think most people will agree so far, but here comes the interesting part. Let’s say that dad has left his little girl at home, safe with mom. He is threatened on the street, and either he or the criminal will likely die. If it is in his power to choose, it appears that he has several clear moral reasons to choose to live himself (over and beyond his clear instinct for self-preservation):

1) It is better that his little daughter’s daddy live to support her and to raise her with love than that a predator live to attack other innocents.
2) It is better that his wife’s husband live to love and share her life than that a predator live to attack other innocents.
3) In any dispute between guilty and innocent, the innocent should prevail. This is why we have courts.
4) Society is better off populated with innocents than with predators. This is why we have prisons.
5) There is nothing arbitrary about concluding that he should prevail, if necessary by force, even deadly force. The choice was not made by the victim but by the perpetrator.

Indeed, there can occasionally be a moral element to such choices. The case of the police or military, where their ability to perform their duties of protecting others can only be preserved if they protect themselves from injury or death, is an example. In the abortion analogy I raised (in the other thread, noting that terminating a pregnancy is neither moral nor immoral, barring unusual circumstances), it would very arguably be more moral for a woman to terminate a pregnancy where continuing it presented a risk to her life, if she had young children who needed her financial and emotional support and would be harmed if she died.

That covers No. 1.

No. 2 is silly. Hell, maybe he's an abusive parent/spouse and they'd all be better off without him. Is it then the moral choice for him to raise his hands and the mugger to kill him?

No. 3 is a rather bizarre restatement of the principle that people may not be compelled to submit to injury or death at the hands of another person. The "innocent" may not be punished for protecting themselves. Again, there is simply nothing moral about the choice to protect one's self, barring considerations such as No. 1.

No. 4 is vigilantism. Pure and simple. Not you nor anyone else is permitted to make and act on decisions about how "society" is better off when those decisions involve harm to other people. You have simply stated the very foundation of vigilantism: individuals/groups making and acting on decisions that are not theirs to act on.

No. 5 is, again, pure bullshit. The choice to use force in self-defence is made by the person who makes it. If that choice is not immoral, why can't those people, and you who are chooseing to speak on their behalf, just OWN the damned thing?

[rangersmith82]

10. delete

delte

[eridani]

11. How long did it take Jefferson to load his gun?

In comparison, how long does it take to succumb to road rage and blow somebody's face off? Let's hear it for killing Japanese exchange students wearing John Travolta costumes.

[pipoman]

16. How long did it take to obtain a warrant?

How long did it take to distribute vile filth to the masses? How long did it take to travel from one city to another? If 10 people got on a bus and 8 got off how many would be left?

[OneBlueSky]

13. in Jefferson's time, there weren't weapons that cound fire hundreds of rounds . . .

with one pull of the trigger . . . nor were there bullets that could leave an exit wound the size of a dinner plate . . .

the deadly advances in personal weaponry since his time might cause him to re-think his admonition . . .

[reggie the dog]

14. any weapons that fire more than one round per trigger squeeze

are illegal in the USA.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

23. 100% False

You just pay more for them because of limited supply.

[reggie the dog]

43. where can you LEGALLY buy automatic weapons?

[jmg257]

44. I saw one once on gunbroker.com. An AR-18. Maybe on Gunsamerica too.

I imagine if one had the proper tax stamp and background check, they are out there to be bought.

Here too:

http://www.brpguns.com/

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

75. subguns.com

I've been eyeing one, but evern for something like a shitty old MAC, it's like $3k-$4k.
It's so expensive because no "new" machine guns can be manufactured for civilian sale after 1986.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Two swings, two misses.

Automatic weapons are highly controlled via the 1934 National Firearms Act. In some states, such as Washington State, even if you fulfill all the requirements of the NFA, you still cannot possess one within the state unless you are Law Enforcement, Active Duty Military, or engaged in the manufacture or repair of NFA weapons for legal in or out of state customers.

Per the NFA you submit to a $200 tax stamp per weapon, a full background check (not just a NICS check), the weapon is registered to you, and the BATFE may periodically visit you to ensure you still have possession of the weapon.

Other NFA weapons classed as Destructive Devices (such as, in some states, suppressors hahaha) also vary by state.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

76. Still not illegal

While they are highly regulated they are not federally illegal. I own 2 registered suppressors, I am fully aware of the process.
I am not Law Enforcement, a Manufacturer, or Military. I just like the novelty of quiet shooting.
Borderman Sports says MG's are legal in like 35 states and suppressors are legal in 36.
I know a few civilians that own Full auto firearms they have recently acquired. Look at Knob Creek - that seems like a huge civilian MG convention.
Personally, I just can't see spending several thousand dollars just to buy a gun that shoots fast. But to each his own, I guess.

I think importation bans of the 1968 GCA, and the Hughes Amendment in the 1986 FOPA should be repealed.
The NFA of 1932 is totally warranted and not a bad system for regulating exceptionally dangerous firearms like we're talking about.
It's never gonna happen, but it'd be nice.

[pipoman]

15. The same could be

argued of every right. What would Jefferson think of internet porn? Weapons were no less deadly in his time than they are now. Do you not think there were advances in weaponry during Jefferson's time? It always causes a snick when people refuse to accept the meaning and spirit of clearly worded opinions and decrees yet believe they know what the same person's opinion would be today.

[jmg257]

29. Interesting. I wonder if they (the founders) would...If they were in a similar situation

as they were then but with today's arms, would they still rather have an effectively armed citizenry then a large standing army? Would they prefer a large army, maybe with tighter control but much more wide-reaching responsibilities? Would they still trust the people to be most responsible for securing their own liberties, or would they mandate a (federal?) select militia? Would they have even broader restrictions on the govt to ensure the people maintain the power? Would they place all "armed power" with the state govt's and avoid the feds and people all together?


I have to give it more thought, but I tend to think they would still favor the people. Hmmm...

edit: spelling

[raimius]

46. Umm...

You do realize the standard ammo for those days was a .75in lead ball, which frequently expanded upon contact with hard objects (bones), don't you? Wound "the size of a dinner plate" would not be unexpected.

...then again, what difference does it make to what one could assume to be Jefferson's audience (probably not the violent criminal portion of society). The weapon used matters relatively little in comparison with WHY and HOW it was used. It would be equally justifiable to defend one's self with a gladius or a howitzer (assuming both were legally owned).

[AtheistCrusader]

52. The subject line was correct, but

the rest of your post is a complete fallacy. In Jefferson's time, the Girandoni repeating rifle held 20 shots, semi-automatic, approximately a .50 (.477-.510 caliber, they varied). Meriwether Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition.

For black powder weapons, you can bet they can leave a huge exit wound. Also, in Jefferson's time, cannon were legal for ownership by private parties. 'Advances' in deadliness of arms are little different from advances in electronic publishing. Rules around libel and plagarism, just as an example, still apply.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

32. Good news!

Not terribly relevent to the debate, but relevent to the topic.

I received a call a few minutes ago from the Sheriff's Office. I can go pick up my concealed handgun license. :)
I need to go buy a holster or two later this week. I do plan on carrying whenever allowable and reasonable.

[jmg257]

33. Congratulations! Give it some thought - the whole system (holster, pistol, attire).

And enjoy - safely!

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

36. Will do!

I have a fullsize 1911 (.45acp) and Compact Glock 19 (9mm). Those should cover most any perdicament.
If I ever want to dress lighter than would conceal one of these, I'll probably look into a Ruger LCP or S&W Airweight.
If worst come to worst, I can always open carry in Ohio.

Unfortunately, I can't carry at my place of employment.

[iverglas]

40. "I do plan on carrying whenever allowable and reasonable."

So that would be in the privacy of your own home.

Are you going to get a cowboy hat and spurs to go with the holster?

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

47. Ride'em cowboy!

Actually, Ohio law allows concealed carry on your home premesis without a permit.
So yes, I have been routinly been carrying while at home to test out a few holsters and find what works for me.
I'd rather learn to naturally carry concealed at home rather than in the real world (see: Plaxico Burress).
I don't feel threatened in my home or out in my yard or anywhere else, really. I'm an easy going person.

Here's a good excerpt (acreditted to Jeffrey W. Kilgo):

...
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be
forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it
enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would
interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by
force. It removes force from the equation ... and that's why carrying a gun
is a civilized act.

Link To Article

------------------

And negative on the spurs/sixshooters. I don't own either - although I do have two Stetsons.
Some assless-chaps would compliment them nicely. You might be onto something here, haha.

[iverglas]

56. yada yada blah blah blah, I'm afraid

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.

And also, rather obviously, that if you cannot persuade, you can force.

All depends on who you are, don't it.

But hey, thanks for the trip to that truly annoying warmongering site. I don't get a lot of chance to see glorification of the Vietnam War and suchlike much these days.

I mean, not that it isn't smeared all over the right-wing cesspools of the Internet in general too.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

77. About that site...

I've actually never been to that site prior to yesterday. I discovered that article by Kligo while I was on (I think) Buckeye Firearms or some other Ohio pro-firearms organizational site. I just googled key points of the article I remembered and apparently that 'jimspolice' site contains the article. I only posted the link in case anyone was interested in the whole text of the article. It's really a nice article on why many law abiding citizens choose to carry - please don't let other content from that shitty site detract from the article by association.

Also, you are correct. Many criminals do have weapons to force rather than persuade. It does depend on the person with the firearm. But I feel many statistics have shown CCW helps reduce violent crime and that many people (if not most) are good law abiding citizens. I know I have never been in trouble with the law or had any violent encounters and I have faith that, in general, most American's are good at heart. I try not to let negative Media and Neocon scare tactics skew my perspective on my fellow man. I also recognize that there quite a few people out there not to be trusted with bad intents for myself and peers - and that is why I carry. It's important to recognize that there are people out to harm you... but more important to know most people are not and thier rights should not be stepped on because of a few bad eggs.

edited: spelling

[423aaron]

41. Inexpensive rifle training

I teach with a group called the Revolutionary War Veterans Association. We are an all volunteer, non profit, nation wide org.

Our classes are free to those under 21, military ID holders, and females. Everyone else is $45.00 for one day and $70.00 for both days of the weekend.

Link to the schedule and what to bring: http://appleseedinfo.org/smf/index.php?topic=4032.0

PM me if you have any questions.

Aaron

[iverglas]

42. "females"?

Any particular species?

Is there some reason for discriminating in the provision of services on the basis of sex? Is there some reason it's legal?

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

48. I'd guess it has to do with participant demographics

Perhaps it's a promotion of sortsto encourage more female participants. I once saw an advertisment for one of those local phone chat services that said, "As always, free for the ladies" because I'm sure 90% of the callers are probably naked loney guys with a crate full of Kleenex. Same with shooting sports - it's very rare to see women at the range. In my CCW Course there was one lady and dozens of men.

Think of it as affirmative action for participation to encourage the typically minority gender.

Edit: Also, why complain if he's offering a service for free to a certain gender?
It's no different than "Ladies Night" happening once a week at nearly every Lounge in the world. (My shooting range actually has Ladies Night)

[iverglas]

51. hmm, why would anybody complain

Also, why complain if he's offering a service for free to a certain gender?

How about to a certain race? Religion? Ethnicity? Free admission for white Christians; $129 for Jews.

Hmmmmm ...

You've heard of "principles"?


It's no different than "Ladies Night" happening once a week at nearly every Lounge in the world. (My shooting range actually has Ladies Night)

I guess your shooting range isn't in New Jersey.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040615.html


Think of it as affirmative action for participation to encourage the typically minority gender.

I'll think of it that way when the "minority" sex is actually shown to be at some historic disadvantage when it comes to access to the services in question, and when there is an affirmative action program approved by whatever agency has the authority to approve it.

For now, I'll just think of it as typical patronizing crap designed to keep MEN happy by making sure there is a nice supply of women around. Just like Ladies' Night.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Why would you ask someone questions

and then click ignore?

Edit: Nevermind, now I know :rofl:

[L0oniX]

64. I never asked ignored for an opinion other than what choice of weapon one would make...

for home defense and possible CCW. I didn't ask if anyone was pro or anti gun.

[iverglas]

67. and oddly enough

I didn't ask if anyone was pro or anti gun.

No one told you.

You posted something of your own composing on a public discussion forum.

Love that home page.

http://www.secretsocieties.net/

Shit, I'd be wanting a gun too. You just never know when an Illuminatus is gonna come busting into your bedroom and try to rape your cattle. Oops, I mean wife.

[iverglas]

66. okay, you've made your point

I don't come to the guns forum much but it is very obvious that you are here to disrupt..
Posted by L0oniX

and I am surprised you haven't gotten the tomb stone which deserve. WTF is wrong with you? You think your making points here? Good luck on convincing anyone of what ever your point is with that attitude. BTW ...welcome to my ignore dungeon.


You have no respect for the rules of the forum, or for anybody who disagrees with you (or who writes things you are incapable of comprehending). We get it. I get it. No need to keep demonstrating it.

Please, please put me on ignore. Not to have to read any more of your drivel being dribbled in my direction will please me enormously.

Remember that once you've done that, you will not be talking about me, as well as too me. Unless you want to have your posts keep getting deleted.