The Second Amendment is past its Use-By date

[maxparrish]

Blah blah blah “you stupidone!” Nice name-calling.

I did not intend to "name-call" the poster; I only intended to express my disdain for the great "pseudo-intellectual" herd and their use of a tired cliche as a form of ersatz profundity.

The Constitution acknowledges fundamental rights that are, by definition, inalienable rights for most adults - meaning they cannot be given nor taken away.

But this absurdly contradicts the addition of amendments and repealing of same.
Amendments were added to CHANGE the things written as “absolute” in the first document. The writers were human, not divine. They made errors. (I mean, Holy shit, you thought those men were incapable of error?) ...Like permitting slavery. ...(you still think alcohol should be illegal?)

Things were not written to be "absolute", things were written to (among other things) acknowledge fundamental rights that exist independent of the document. Of course the writers and amenders have sometimes errored, but as an over-arching document made for the formation of a more perfect Union and in securing the "Blessings of Liberty" they did an unusually decent job (especially for the era).

And what they did get it right is in the explicit acknowledgement of several fundamental rights (and strongly implicit acknowledgement of others).

Hence, the right to self-defense and the use of "tools" (arms) in that defense is inalienable, unconditional, and by definition is absolute WITHIN the definition's scope and as long as it is not in conflict with other fundamental rights and constitutional provisions, (assuming it is not surrendered by the individual because of his/her unwillingness to respect other's rights (e.g. violent felons).)

Well, yeah, it conflicts with the right of others to life. That is the whole point. You know that, right? That’s what we are arguing? That the right to the unrestricted ownership of certain types of weapons gets in the way of LIFE.

Unrestricted ownership of certain types of weapons (A and H bombs) is not protected by the 2nd, and it is necessary to make sure it is not unlawfully used to murder 100s of thousands to millions. So ownership carries certain restrictions to prevent unlawful use (although some of those restrictions may be excessive). However, we are speaking of those personal arms covered under the 2nd.

So then, explain to me how my possession of my Sears single-shot .22 rifle stored in my basement, which I have owned for 45 years, "gets in the way of LIFE"? Come to think of it, how does any inanimate object or thing (knife, rock, water, wind, etc.) suddenly "get in the way", except by accident (e.g. a rock slide) or by the intentional actions of another (throwing rocks or shooting people).

Does my little rifle leave my basement on its own, float down the street, load a 22 bullet into the chamber on its own, aim, and then pull the trigger via a supernatural forces?

Far as I can tell its either nature or individual people that get get in the way of life, and guns only that get in the way of gun-haters desire to eliminate all private ownership.

a) the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives an explicit right to own "borne" arms;

as understood at the time. They did not and could not envision today’s arms. The arms at that time had no capability of being fired by a toddler in the seat of a grocery cart.

As no one thinks that toddlers have a right to bear arms (then or now), and as toddlers misusing firearms is extraordinary rare (if ever) its not a serious problem.

Finally, the founders did envision personal arms for self-defense, militias, hunting, and other uses. The did not envision that every technical change in any object razes any personal right to its use to ashes.

Because you are becoming increasingly unclear, I will simply repeat that:

a) Firearms that can be "borne" are protected by the 2nd, which acknowledges a general and inalienable right to ownership.

You leap to the assumption that bearing arms carves out certain things. But that’s not written by the divine founders. Where did you get it THAT ALSO does not represent what you object to? In other words, the same people saying you can’t own cannon and A-bombs are the same people proposing that you also can’t own rapid-fire large-magazine weapons. And Pistols on your hip.

I am unsure if what you wrote is what you intended. It is not a surprise that some of those who say you can't own an A-bomb or cannon are the same people who say you can't own "rapid fire" (semi-automatic? revolver?) fed weapons, or have a pistol on your hip. Their unrelenting hostility to any weapon, regardless of type, merely confirms their real intentions as "gun-grabbers".

And I "leap to the conclusion" because under common law, the US Constitution, and traditional rights of self-defense, 'bearing arms' for defense is a "carve out".

You haven't made any convincing argument that you are doing anything besides handwaving why your opinion of what's right should be considered as right.

People in this country have a right to pursue their lives, free of the oppression and tyranny of the threat of their toddlers and neighbors and strangers on the street to constantly kill them. The "need" to carry guns around everywhere does not accomplish what you claim it accomplishes, and therefore its intrusion into the lives of others has no justification beyond the desire to bully.

And nothing in the formation of this country or its constitution prevents us from growing up and acting like civilized adults. ...

Speaking of the failure to provide "any convincing argument" and "hand-waving" I thought I'd alert you (see my italicization) to your deluge of unconvincing polemic vagaries. Rarely is anyone is under oppression or a tyranny of a credible gun threat, and those that are would do well to carry.

Your lurid imaginings of "a need" is a requirement of your own making - I've made it clear that there is no moral requirement to show "need" for a basic right - such as those arms covered under the 2nd amendment.

While people usually don't "need" to carry arms, and private abodes and businesses may ban carrying if they wish. However, in public areas owned by the government UNLESS it interferes or is an impending threat to the function of that area, it is a right. So in your car or walking down a side-walk, you have a right to carry. If a movie theater, shopping mall, or bar wishes to let patrons carry, fine by me.

The constitution does not prevent us from regulating rights to keep them from causing harm. Nor does it prevent us from advocating a change to the amendments of the constitution itself in pursuit of the evolution of society to a greater height.

The founders of the constitution, and the history of common law, acknowledges certain limitations. Regulations that complies with those parameters may or may not be foolish, but they are not likely unconstitutional.

 

[arkirk]

I did not intend to "name-call" the poster; I only intended to express my disdain for the great "pseudo-intellectual" herd and their use of a tired cliche as a form of ersatz profundity.

The Constitution acknowledges fundamental rights that are, by definition, inalienable rights for most adults - meaning they cannot be given nor taken away.

But this absurdly contradicts the addition of amendments and repealing of same.
Amendments were added to CHANGE the things written as “absolute” in the first document. The writers were human, not divine. They made errors. (I mean, Holy shit, you thought those men were incapable of error?) ...Like permitting slavery. ...(you still think alcohol should be illegal?)

Things were not written to be "absolute", things were written to (among other things) acknowledge fundamental rights that exist independent of the document. Of course the writers and amenders have sometimes errored, but as an over-arching document made for the formation of a more perfect Union and in securing the "Blessings of Liberty" they did an unusually decent job (especially for the era).

And what they did get it right is in the explicit acknowledgement of several fundamental rights (and strongly implicit acknowledgement of others).

Hence, the right to self-defense and the use of "tools" (arms) in that defense is inalienable, unconditional, and by definition is absolute WITHIN the definition's scope and as long as it is not in conflict with other fundamental rights and constitutional provisions, (assuming it is not surrendered by the individual because of his/her unwillingness to respect other's rights (e.g. violent felons).)

Well, yeah, it conflicts with the right of others to life. That is the whole point. You know that, right? That’s what we are arguing? That the right to the unrestricted ownership of certain types of weapons gets in the way of LIFE.

Unrestricted ownership of certain types of weapons (A and H bombs) is not protected by the 2nd, and it is necessary to make sure it is not unlawfully used to murder 100s of thousands to millions. So ownership carries certain restrictions to prevent unlawful use (although some of those restrictions may be excessive). However, we are speaking of those personal arms covered under the 2nd.

So then, explain to me how my possession of my Sears single-shot .22 rifle stored in my basement, which I have owned for 45 years, "gets in the way of LIFE"? Come to think of it, how does any inanimate object or thing (knife, rock, water, wind, etc.) suddenly "get in the way", except by accident (e.g. a rock slide) or by the intentional actions of another (throwing rocks or shooting people).

Does my little rifle leave my basement on its own, float down the street, load a 22 bullet into the chamber on its own, aim, and then pull the trigger via a supernatural forces?

Far as I can tell its either nature or individual people that get get in the way of life, and guns only that get in the way of gun-haters desire to eliminate all private ownership.

a) the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives an explicit right to own "borne" arms;

as understood at the time. They did not and could not envision today’s arms. The arms at that time had no capability of being fired by a toddler in the seat of a grocery cart.

As no one thinks that toddlers have a right to bear arms (then or now), and as toddlers misusing firearms is extraordinary rare (if ever) its not a serious problem.

Finally, the founders did envision personal arms for self-defense, militias, hunting, and other uses. The did not envision that every technical change in any object razes any personal right to its use to ashes.

Because you are becoming increasingly unclear, I will simply repeat that:

a) Firearms that can be "borne" are protected by the 2nd, which acknowledges a general and inalienable right to ownership.

You leap to the assumption that bearing arms carves out certain things. But that’s not written by the divine founders. Where did you get it THAT ALSO does not represent what you object to? In other words, the same people saying you can’t own cannon and A-bombs are the same people proposing that you also can’t own rapid-fire large-magazine weapons. And Pistols on your hip.

I am unsure if what you wrote is what you intended. It is not a surprise that some of those who say you can't own an A-bomb or cannon are the same people who say you can't own "rapid fire" (semi-automatic? revolver?) fed weapons, or have a pistol on your hip. Their unrelenting hostility to any weapon, regardless of type, merely confirms their real intentions as "gun-grabbers".

And I "leap to the conclusion" because under common law, the US Constitution, and traditional rights of self-defense, 'bearing arms' for defense is a "carve out".

You haven't made any convincing argument that you are doing anything besides handwaving why your opinion of what's right should be considered as right.

People in this country have a right to pursue their lives, free of the oppression and tyranny of the threat of their toddlers and neighbors and strangers on the street to constantly kill them. The "need" to carry guns around everywhere does not accomplish what you claim it accomplishes, and therefore its intrusion into the lives of others has no justification beyond the desire to bully.

And nothing in the formation of this country or its constitution prevents us from growing up and acting like civilized adults. ...

Speaking of the failure to provide "any convincing argument" and "hand-waving" I thought I'd alert you (see my italicization) to your deluge of unconvincing polemic vagaries. Rarely is anyone is under oppression or a tyranny of a credible gun threat, and those that are would do well to carry.

Your lurid imaginings of "a need" is a requirement of your own making - I've made it clear that there is no moral requirement to show "need" for a basic right - such as those arms covered under the 2nd amendment.

While people usually don't "need" to carry arms, and private abodes and businesses may ban carrying if they wish. However, in public areas owned by the government UNLESS it interferes or is an impending threat to the function of that area, it is a right. So in your car or walking down a side-walk, you have a right to carry. If a movie theater, shopping mall, or bar wishes to let patrons carry, fine by me.

The constitution does not prevent us from regulating rights to keep them from causing harm. Nor does it prevent us from advocating a change to the amendments of the constitution itself in pursuit of the evolution of society to a greater height.

The founders of the constitution, and the history of common law, acknowledges certain limitations. Regulations that complies with those parameters may or may not be foolish, but they are not likely unconstitutional.

I think we need to look a little deeper into this constitution crap and even the Declaration of Independence. Our rights are not some sort of endowment from "our creator" but often hard fought and won with considerable difficulty. No document, especially one that pins its authority on the "creator" can accurately and fixedly define what human rights ought to be. If you look into our constitution...it ruled a country that allowed some of its citizens to own slaves. So now what about keeping guns. Was that so they would have a better handle on slaves if they should revolt? I think the armaments of slave owners may well have had an effect on how long slavery persisted in America.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And what they did get it right is in the explicit acknowledgement of several fundamental rights (and strongly implicit acknowledgement of others).

From their slaves?

 

[fromderinside]

While people usually don't "need" to carry arms, and private abodes and businesses may ban carrying if they wish. However, in public areas owned by the government UNLESS it interferes or is an impending threat to the function of that area, it is a right. So in your car or walking down a side-walk, you have a right to carry. If a movie theater, shopping mall, or bar wishes to let patrons carry, fine by me.

Since the right to bear arms is specifically aimed at defending the country against intruders or state rebellions (proved by civil war), not as a cover for individuals using arms any way they wish,

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

They may not use them to intimidate, bully, recklessly defend their property, permit others to use them for murder or suicide, etc. They may be required to register, be trained, keep safely, those weapons. Obviously the conservative SC has gone way over board without legitimate rational for disarming those who would protect themselves from those who abuse arms as outlined above.

Please show us where the right to bear arms includes abuse of that right or flaunting arms as threat against others who are carrying out reasonable laws of the land by acting to protect and serve.

Since you have refused to back up your bombast with other than puffery I'm confident you will demonstrate your arrogance once more now.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Since the right to bear arms is specifically aimed at defending the country against intruders or state rebellions (proved by civil war), not as a cover for individuals using arms any way they wish,

Don't forget the Native Americans.

 

[arkirk]

Some people like to post charts. This one from Humanosphere is most interesting especially in relation to the SECOND AMENDMENT.

What we see here is a complete compromise of the NRA argument. More guns...more murders. In the U.S. the number of murders by gun is the vast majority of them though we are still not above strangling each other too.

 

[Rhea]

So then, explain to me how my possession of my Sears single-shot .22 rifle stored in my basement, which I have owned for 45 years, "gets in the way of LIFE"? Come to think of it, how does any inanimate object or thing (knife, rock, water, wind, etc.) suddenly "get in the way", except by accident (e.g. a rock slide) or by the intentional actions of another (throwing rocks or shooting people).

Does my little rifle leave my basement on its own, float down the street, load a 22 bullet into the chamber on its own, aim, and then pull the trigger via a supernatural forces?

Far as I can tell its either nature or individual people that get get in the way of life, and guns only that get in the way of gun-haters desire to eliminate all private ownership.

Oh. You are doing that leap from “gun ownership doesn’t need to be a ‘right’ ” straight to “they want to take all our guns, even the 22s!!! That is so not what you’ve been told.

As no one thinks that toddlers have a right to bear arms (then or now), and as toddlers misusing firearms is extraordinary rare (if ever) its not a serious problem.

Oh?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

But cases like this happen a lot more frequently than you might think. After spending a few hours sifting through news reports, I've found at least 43 instances this year of somebody being shot by a toddler 3 or younger. In 31 of those 43 cases, a toddler found a gun and shot himself or herself.

You leap to the assumption that bearing arms carves out certain things. But that’s not written by the divine founders. Where did you get it THAT ALSO does not represent what you object to? In other words, the same people saying you can’t own cannon and A-bombs are the same people proposing that you also can’t own rapid-fire large-magazine weapons. And Pistols on your hip.

I am unsure if what you wrote is what you intended. It is not a surprise that some of those who say you can't own an A-bomb or cannon are the same people who say you can't own "rapid fire" (semi-automatic? revolver?) fed weapons, or have a pistol on your hip. Their unrelenting hostility to any weapon, regardless of type, merely confirms their real intentions as "gun-grabbers".

And I "leap to the conclusion" because under common law, the US Constitution, and traditional rights of self-defense, 'bearing arms' for defense is a "carve out".

What I mean to say, but it came out awkwardly was this. Whatever argument you use to say it’s okay to restrict the ownership of cannon, there is no additional language that supports it that does not also support the restriction of pistols. If you want to argue this, point to the constitutional language that differentiates between pistols and cannon.

Your lurid imaginings of "a need" is a requirement of your own making - I've made it clear that there is no moral requirement to show "need" for a basic right - such as those arms covered under the 2nd amendment.

One “right” conflicts with another “right.” One of them has to go. I vote for the “right” to own killing weapons without restriction to GO and the right to life to STAY. You?

 

[Trausti]

Don't like to squint.

Anyway, when you tally up accidental infant deaths, guns don't even register.

http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/NAP/background.html

 

[Rhea]

Don't like to squint.

Thanks, I couldn't make that work.

But yes, they matter. It's just one MORE way guns are harming life. Restrictions and controls would reduce this carnage - including the carnage to and from toddlers.

 

[Trausti]

Don't like to squint.

Thanks, I couldn't make that work.

But yes, they matter. It's just one MORE way guns are harming life. Restrictions and controls would reduce this carnage - including the carnage to and from toddlers.

So we ban pools, pillows, and house cleaners?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Thanks, I couldn't make that work.

But yes, they matter. It's just one MORE way guns are harming life. Restrictions and controls would reduce this carnage - including the carnage to and from toddlers.

So we ban pools, pillows, and house cleaners?

Not sure what your point is, but it obviously is a quote from someone else.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So we ban pools, pillows, and house cleaners?

Not sure what your point is, but it obviously is a quote from someone else.

I think his point is that more babies die from those than from guns, therefore better protecting children from guns doesn't protect children. It's sort of like the argument of how heart disease is the number one killer of adults so therefore seat belts are useless.

 

[Rhea]

So we ban pools, pillows, and house cleaners?

It's sort of like the argument of how heart disease is the number one killer of adults so therefore seat belts are useless.

Exactly. It's a dumb statement that makes some obvious and fundamental errors; not the least of which is proving the point it claims to rebut.

NO ONE HERE IS SAYING WE SHOULD BAN ALL GUNS. So obviously, the correct analogy is how we regulate swimming pools to make them less dangerous. Ditto pillows, ditto house cleaners.

Thanks for agreeing that the 2nd amendment claim of guaranteed unregulated gun ownership is out of date and there is lots of precedent to change it.

Nicely done, Trausti! You walked right into that obvious conclusion.
Welcome to this side of the argument.

 

[arkirk]

Not sure what your point is, but it obviously is a quote from someone else.

I think his point is that more babies die from those than from guns, therefore better protecting children from guns doesn't protect children. It's sort of like the argument of how heart disease is the number one killer of adults so therefore seat belts are useless.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...21/toddler-shooting-gun-controls-america.html

It is not like it doesn't happen. I would venture to say it happens with people who think of themselves as "responsible" gun owners.

 

[maxparrish]

Since the right to bear arms is specifically aimed at defending the country against intruders or state rebellions (proved by civil war), not as a cover for individuals using arms any way they wish,

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

They may not use them to intimidate, bully, recklessly defend their property, permit others to use them for murder or suicide, etc. They may be required to register, be trained, keep safely, those weapons. Obviously the conservative SC has gone way over board without legitimate rational for disarming those who would protect themselves from those who abuse arms as outlined above.

Please show us where the right to bear arms includes abuse of that right or flaunting arms as threat against others who are carrying out reasonable laws of the land by acting to protect and serve.

Since you have refused to back up your bombast with other than puffery I'm confident you will demonstrate your arrogance once more now.

Is it arrogant to use a forge hammer of reason and evidence to smash your gnat of an argument? If so, let's get to business!

First, the second amendment refers to the right of the people, not a right of militia's, national guards, or the states. Just as the 4th assures the right of the people to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, so the 2nd provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Second, it is a two clause construction, one political (a reason) the other operative (a command). The first party explains one reason behind the provision (neither expanding nor limiting it), and the second part is the operative command to be obeyed. It does not say the right exists "only if there is need of a militia".

Third, contemporaneous constitutions and commentaries unanimously treated the right as an individual right. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an expanded version of a similar right in the 1688 English Bill of Rights. For example, Sir William Blackstone, 1765 Commentaries described the right as a "right of the subject," an obviously individual rights characterization.

And many early state Bills of Rights also protected the right to keep and bear arms. As these rights were protections against state governments, and as such they protected individuals. And many of the constitutions made this explicit.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

The 1790 Pennsylvania and the 1792 Kentucky Constitutions described the right as "the right of the citizens"; the 1796 Tennessee Constitution spoke of "the right of the freemen"; the 1817 Mississippi, 1818 Connecticut, 1819 Maine, and 1819 Alabama Constitution specifically referred to the right of "every citizen." The 1776 Pennsylvania, 1777 Vermont, 1802 Ohio, 1816 Indiana, and 1820 Missouri Constitutions spoke of "the people['s] right to bear arms for the defence of themselves," referring to the people individually ("themselves") rather than collectively ("itself"). 7 Throughout the 1800s, these unambiguously individual rights were seen as directly analogous to the Second Amendment. 8

Last, no one is saying anything about "flaunting" firearms as a threat or "abusing" firearms. But if you are concerned about firearms being visible on a citizen, I suggest you support concealed carry as a right.

 

[maxparrish]

It's sort of like the argument of how heart disease is the number one killer of adults so therefore seat belts are useless.

Exactly. It's a dumb statement that makes some obvious and fundamental errors; not the least of which is proving the point it claims to rebut.

NO ONE HERE IS SAYING WE SHOULD BAN ALL GUNS. So obviously, the correct analogy is how we regulate swimming pools to make them less dangerous. Ditto pillows, ditto house cleaners.

Thanks for agreeing that the 2nd amendment claim of guaranteed unregulated gun ownership is out of date and there is lots of precedent to change it.

Nicely done, Trausti! You walked right into that obvious conclusion.
Welcome to this side of the argument.

Funny how folks tend to shift their position when the "the side of history" seems to shift beneath their feet. None more so than Obama:

Well, here’s another quote: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” That’s what Obama told me when we were colleagues at the University of Chicago Law School in 1996. Obama has also publicly supported a nationwide “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” as well as a “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” Even as late as the 2008 Presidential primaries, Obama supported Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.

http://dailycaller.com/author/jlott/

 

[arkirk]

Exactly. It's a dumb statement that makes some obvious and fundamental errors; not the least of which is proving the point it claims to rebut.

NO ONE HERE IS SAYING WE SHOULD BAN ALL GUNS. So obviously, the correct analogy is how we regulate swimming pools to make them less dangerous. Ditto pillows, ditto house cleaners.

Thanks for agreeing that the 2nd amendment claim of guaranteed unregulated gun ownership is out of date and there is lots of precedent to change it.

Nicely done, Trausti! You walked right into that obvious conclusion.
Welcome to this side of the argument.

Funny how folks tend to shift their position when the "the side of history" seems to shift beneath their feet. None more so than Obama:

Well, here’s another quote: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” That’s what Obama told me when we were colleagues at the University of Chicago Law School in 1996. Obama has also publicly supported a nationwide “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” as well as a “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” Even as late as the 2008 Presidential primaries, Obama supported Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.

http://dailycaller.com/author/jlott/

So what? Do you think there should be no changes and that we should turn over all the Wildlife Refuges to hunters? And we should all rest assured that if somebody enters your apartment it is okay to shoot them and possibly your neighbor through the wall? Where are you on this actually?

 

[maxparrish]

Funny how folks tend to shift their position when the "the side of history" seems to shift beneath their feet. None more so than Obama:

Well, here’s another quote: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” That’s what Obama told me when we were colleagues at the University of Chicago Law School in 1996. Obama has also publicly supported a nationwide “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” as well as a “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” Even as late as the 2008 Presidential primaries, Obama supported Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.

http://dailycaller.com/author/jlott/

So what? Do you think there should be no changes and that we should turn over all the Wildlife Refuges to hunters? And we should all rest assured that if somebody enters your apartment it is okay to shoot them and possibly your neighbor through the wall? Where are you on this actually?

If somebody is illegally breaking in to my home or apartment, of course it is morally permissible to shoot them. Its also okay to punch their ticket if they try to brutalize or rape a person as well. In fact, it may be morally permissible to tie them up at gun point and drive them somewhere for their "trial" by victim and then provide immediate internment to landfill "disposal".

Nothing like a little 'country justice' to warm the soul.

 

[bilby]

Funny how folks tend to shift their position when the "the side of history" seems to shift beneath their feet. None more so than Obama:

Well, here’s another quote: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” That’s what Obama told me when we were colleagues at the University of Chicago Law School in 1996. Obama has also publicly supported a nationwide “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” as well as a “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” Even as late as the 2008 Presidential primaries, Obama supported Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.

http://dailycaller.com/author/jlott/

So what? Do you think there should be no changes and that we should turn over all the Wildlife Refuges to hunters? And we should all rest assured that if somebody enters your apartment it is okay to shoot them and possibly your neighbor through the wall? Where are you on this actually?

If somebody is illegally breaking in to my home or apartment, of course it is morally permissible to shoot them. Its also okay to punch their ticket if they try to brutalize or rape a person as well. In fact, it may be morally permissible to tie them up at gun point and drive them somewhere for their "trial" by victim and then provide immediate internment to landfill "disposal".

Nothing like a little 'country justice' to warm the soul.

Well, it's certainly a popular alternative to civilisation.

Nevertheless, I prefer a civilised society, in which suspects have a right to a fair trial, and to protection from cruel and unusual punishment; history tells us that that leads to fewer feuds and vendettas, and to less risk for everyone of being the victim of violence.

 

[Rhea]

So what? Do you think there should be no changes and that we should turn over all the Wildlife Refuges to hunters? And we should all rest assured that if somebody enters your apartment it is okay to shoot them and possibly your neighbor through the wall? Where are you on this actually?

If somebody is illegally breaking in to my home or apartment, of course it is morally permissible to shoot them. Its also okay to punch their ticket if they try to brutalize or rape a person as well. In fact, it may be morally permissible to tie them up at gun point and drive them somewhere for their "trial" by victim and then provide immediate internment to landfill "disposal".

Nothing like a little 'country justice' to warm the soul.

Well, it's certainly a popular alternative to civilisation.

Nevertheless, I prefer a civilised society, in which suspects have a right to a fair trial, and to protection from cruel and unusual punishment; history tells us that that leads to fewer feuds and vendettas, and to less risk for everyone of being the victim of violence.

I notice he just glossed over that, "and your neighbor through the wall," part. All for the cause, neighbor. All for the cause. It's worth it for me to kill you, as long as I get to try to kill the invader instead of getting him arrested.

Oh, and no it's not okay to tie them up and take them somewhere and execute them without a trial. B&E is not a capital crime.