RKBA and self defense

[frankie_the_yankee]

The concept of absolute rights didn't get "lost" anywhere along the way. It never existed to begin with. No rights are absolute, nor could they be due to the unavoidable conflicts that arise when two or more rights collide. This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. Absolute rights lead to absurd results that the proponents are then forced to dismiss as "far-fetched" or something like that. (Al Qaeda MP-5 toting death squads shooting up airliners at 35000 feet for instance. Or "Bjorn McSwede" staring at his navel for a few days and deciding that the purpose of Mankind has come to an end, so he should light off that nuke that he bought a while back.)

In the real world, if we put a policy in place, we end up dealing with ALL of the consequences of that policy, not just the consequences we like. We we don't or can't deal with them, we, or our ideas, cannot be taken seriously.

Free access to nukes would be OK because only the super rich would be able to afford them? Very lame. What happens if some super rich person is also a very evil or insane person? Being rich doesn't convey any sort of immunity from these afflictions as far as I can tell.

"Total freedom / absolute rights" is merely another way of saying "anarchy". Everyone decides for themselves what the law means. This unavoidably leads to unending conflicts as many people will differ as to what the law means and those differences will lead to physical confrontations.

[anygunanywhere]

If 2a is absolute as you guys suggest, then no legislature can infringe on that right.

Correct.

Let’s apply that to felons…if absolute, then felons should be allowed to own, possess, and even carry if they wish. Is that reasonable? (on a side note…I actually think this is reasonable if the felon has paid his debt to society)

Yes, it is reasonable. I agree with your statement.

At what age do you suggest a person be legally allowed to own, possess, and carry a firearm? 5, 10, 18, 21? Would you want your typical 5 year old carrying his pistol he got from grandpa to school? Is a 5 or 10 year old mature enough to handle the responsibility of carrying a loaded pistol on their person?

When a person has reached the point where the individual accepts responsibility for their actions then rights kick in. My two year old grandson understands more about personal responsibility than a lot of teens and adults these days.

Since when would an absolutist approach to the second amendment result in five year old children carrying firearms to school? Furthermore, since the second amendment is not currently considered an absolute right, how does the non-absolutist argument prevent five year olds from bringing guns to school and protect those who obey the government's infringing on the RKBA?

Tell me where any infringement, any law, any legislation has ever prevented anything. It will never happen. If someone is going to take away your right to property, life, or liberty, the only thing you have to prevent it is your RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The right must be absolute in order for it to work.

If the second is absolute, then these (and many more) are the type of issues we will be facing.

If the second is absolute then there would be far fewer issues than you would imagine. The fact that hundreds of millions of humans are dead as a result of reasonable restrictions proves my point. If the RKBA was absolute everywhere nuclear weapons would never have been needed because all of the worlds tyrants and dictators would not have survived their first attempt at assuming power. Of course, this also assumes that freedom loving individuals act and do not allow evil to spread.

Too many sheep gave their rights away to reasonable restrictions.

Anygun

[pt145ss]

The concept of absolute rights didn't get "lost" anywhere along the way. It never existed to begin with. No rights are absolute, nor could they be due to the unavoidable conflicts that arise when two or more rights collide. This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. Absolute rights lead to absurd results that the proponents are then forced to dismiss as "far-fetched" or something like that. (Al Qaeda MP-5 toting death squads shooting up airliners at 35000 feet for instance. Or "Bjorn McSwede" staring at his navel for a few days and deciding that the purpose of Mankind has come to an end, so he should light off that nuke that he bought a while back.)

In the real world, if we put a policy in place, we end up dealing with ALL of the consequences of that policy, not just the consequences we like. We we don't or can't deal with them, we, or our ideas, cannot be taken seriously.

Free access to nukes would be OK because only the super rich would be able to afford them? Very lame. What happens if some super rich person is also a very evil or insane person? Being rich doesn't convey any sort of immunity from these afflictions as far as I can tell.

"Total freedom / absolute rights" is merely another way of saying "anarchy". Everyone decides for themselves what the law means. This unavoidably leads to unending conflicts as many people will differ as to what the law means and those differences will lead to physical confrontations.

That is my point. They are not absolute...they can never be absolute. That being said, we really need to scrutinize what is reasonable and what is not.

[anygunanywhere]

That is my point. They are not absolute...they can never be absolute. That being said, we really need to scrutinize what is reasonable and what is not.

The reasonable restriction becomes the unreasonable one when you are either under arrest or under attack. Once your rights have been given away to the reasonable restriction of others you have lost.

Everyone decides for themselves what the law means. This unavoidably leads to unending conflicts as many people will differ as to what the law means and those differences will lead to physical confrontations.

I prefer to not let someone else decide what my rights are, thank you. Your ideas of reasonable might not agree with mine. The proof is in the "reasonable restriction" pudding we have today.



Anygun

[srothstein]

Militias would indeed employ such weapons if the militia concept today was exactly the same as it was during the revolution. Anygunanywhere

Wrong. Militias during the time of the revolution did not have artillery. Standing armies did. The revolutionaries who first faced off against the British Army did not have artillery. Only later, when a regular army was formed and funded did they have it.

Care to check the history of Gonzales Texas and its militia and the "Come and Get it" flag?

Some militias certainly did have artillery.

Also, look at the weapons being used against our Army in Iraq by militias. Artillery and rockets (commercial and homemade) are used.

If that is not good enough, consider that the National Guard is part of the US organized militia. They have tanks, artilelry, bombers, fighters, and everything else.

Militias can and do have any weapon available to the standing army. That is how they can effectively oppose standing armies from becoming tools of the tyranny.

[srothstein]

Can you afford a nuke? Or a tank? Or an artillery piece? No you can't and neither can I. The price each runs into the millions of dollars. It is entirely spurious to argue that you have any right to posess such things because you simply don't have the means to.

Actually, I can afford an artillery piece. They are not that expensive yet and they are fairly easy to make at home if you want to. Not as high quality as the commercially made ones, but workable to get me a better weapon. I cannot afford a tank, but there are many people that can and do own them. There is a regular market in used military vehicles including tanks. it is fairly easy to get the main gun working on the tank also.

No, I cannot afford a nuke, yet. I hope to be able to one day. Arguing my rights now when I cannot afford it is just as valid as my daughter arguing her rights when she is 6 months to young to buy a pistol, or when I cannot afford even a pistol. Or ar you saying that the rights can only apply to those who can afford them (which is true in its own way) and therefore only those people can debate the rights? Why is it spurious to debate this now instead of waiting until I can afford it?

[pt145ss]

The reasonable restriction becomes the unreasonable one when you are either under arrest or under attack. Once your rights have been given away to the reasonable restriction of others you have lost.

Everyone decides for themselves what the law means. This unavoidably leads to unending conflicts as many people will differ as to what the law means and those differences will lead to physical confrontations.

I prefer to not let someone else decide what my rights are, thank you. Your ideas of reasonable might not agree with mine. The proof is in the "reasonable restriction" pudding we have today.



Anygun

I'm not sure what CHL has to do with arrest. Will having a CHL somehow keep you from getting arrested? If a LEO was going to arrest you, and you have your pistol on you…are you going to use that pistol in defense of being arrested? Not having a CHL, will it impede your right to due process?

Not having a CHL, does that stop you from self defense, if under attack? If you use another means of stopping the attack, other than a pistol, do you think you will be arrested despite your defense being justified?

[bdickens]

Actually, I can afford an artillery piece.

Really? You've got a spare $1.5million laying around in a bank account that you can go buy a 105mm Howitzer with like the one I saw pretzeled up after it went out the back of a C130 without a functioning parachute? where do you work? Are they hiring?

[anygunanywhere]

I'm not sure what CHL has to do with arrest.

I was referring to all of my rights that have had reasonable restrictions applied to them. This is a discussion on RKBA and SD so I will limit my comments to that.

Will having a CHL somehow keep you from getting arrested?

No, but if I do not have my second amendment permisson card on my person I will be arrested if I am packing. Nice reasonable restriction.

If a LEO was going to arrest you, and you have your pistol on you…are you going to use that pistol in defense of being arrested?

Interesting question. Under Texas law I can defend myself against an illegal arrest. I have been arrested before, not while packing. I have been arrested under false charges. Would you? You are one who keeps speaking in favor of restrictions.

Not having a CHL, will it impede your right to due process?

Not being armed and being arrested under false charges and having other rights denied has indeed denied my right to due process in the past.

Not having a CHL, does that stop you from self defense, if under attack?

Of course not. I never said that. We are talking about RKBA.

If you use another means of stopping the attack, other than a pistol, do you think you will be arrested despite your defense being justified?

Yes, I could be arrested if I defend myself with something other than a gun, even if justified. This happens all of the time.

Exactly what does this line of questions have to do with the discussion? This is a RKBA and SD discussion.

Anygun

[anygunanywhere]

I'm not sure what CHL has to do with arrest.

I was referring to all of my rights that have had reasonable restrictions applied to them. This is a discussion on RKBA and SD so I will limit my comments to that.

Will having a CHL somehow keep you from getting arrested?

No, but if I do not have my second amendment permisson card on my person I will be arrested if I am packing. Nice reasonable restriction.

If a LEO was going to arrest you, and you have your pistol on you…are you going to use that pistol in defense of being arrested?

Interesting question. Under Texas law I can defend myself against an illegal arrest. I have been arrested before, not while packing. I have been arrested under false charges. Would you shoot a cop to prevent an illegal arrest?

You are one who keeps speaking in favor of restrictions.

Not having a CHL, will it impede your right to due process?

Not being armed and being arrested under false charges and having other rights denied has indeed denied my right to due process in the past.

Not having a CHL, does that stop you from self defense, if under attack?

Of course not. I never said that. We are talking about RKBA.

If you use another means of stopping the attack, other than a pistol, do you think you will be arrested despite your defense being justified?

Yes, I could be arrested if I defend myself with something other than a gun, even if justified. This happens all of the time.

Exactly what does this line of questions have to do with the discussion? This is a RKBA and SD discussion.

Anygun

[aardwolf]

Interesting theory. Care to show anything that backs it up? I don't know about the Constitutional scholars and what they say since they generally avoid discussions that go off the wall into nuke-land.

But how about machine guns, cannon or light artillery, or tanks? Are they protected? Clearly, if I am going to be a militia member and defend my country, I need the capability to defend it from an invading army, which means I should be able to get these weapons, along with such things as stinger missiles (available black market but expensive) and similar weapons.

Can you afford a nuke? Or a tank? Or an artillery piece? No you can't and neither can I. The price each runs into the millions of dollars. It is entirely spurious to argue that you have any right to posess such things because you simply don't have the means to.

I personally can't afford to buy a TV station. Does that mean TV stations aren't covered by freedom of speech?

[frankie_the_yankee]

Tell me where any infringement, any law, any legislation has ever prevented anything. It will never happen.

Of course, by definition, something that has been prevented cannot be proven to have ever been about to happen. (You can't prove a negative.) But that doesn't mean that we are forced to set all reason aside. And collectively, as a society, we don't.

If your assertion were true, or considered plausible by many, we wouldn't want or need any laws whatsoever. Is that what you are advocating? No law at all?

Like I said, anarchy.

A basic example. Murder is against the law. A guy commits a murder. He gets caught and through fair procedures, convicted. He is sentenced to death and the sentence is carried out.

He never kills again. Furthermore, some people may, may mind you, see how things turned out for him and decide that they will not commit murder themselves, because they don't want to end up like him.

The alternative case is that a guy commits murder. But it is not against the law, because there is no law. Maybe the victims friends and/or relatives go after the guy and kill him in return. They may or may not employ fair procedures in identifying the guy who murdered their friend/relative. They may kill the wrong guy.

Like I said, anarchy.

If someone is going to take away your right to property, life, or liberty, the only thing you have to prevent it is your RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

Merely an assertion on your part I am afraid. Maybe lots of cops, prisons, death chambers, etc. will prevent it too. Can you prove that they won't?

The right must be absolute in order for it to work.

Another assertion.

If the second is absolute then there would be far fewer issues than you would imagine.

How do you know? Then, deal with Al Qaeda shooting up airliners and random nukes popping off every time someone goes nuts.

The fact that hundreds of millions of humans are dead as a result of reasonable restrictions proves my point.

Again, what makes you so sure that the "reasonable restrictions" 1) Led to those deaths, and 2) Actually were "reasonable" to begin with?

Basically, I'm seeing what looks like a bunch of strawman arguments piled one atop the other.

If the RKBA was absolute everywhere nuclear weapons would never have been needed because all of the worlds tyrants and dictators would not have survived their first attempt at assuming power. Of course, this also assumes that freedom loving individuals act and do not allow evil to spread.

In fact it makes a lot of assumptions. So many, that it is hard to take the argument seriously.

And that is, I suspect, why our legal system does not take it seriously either.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm staying out of this debate, but I do want to respond to one issue. You cannot resist an unlawful arrest or search, except under very limited circumstances. The only time you can use force to resist an arrest or search is when the officer used excessive force to effectuate the arrest or search. Even then, he/she has to have used the excessive force before you offered any resistance. The same holds true for using deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest or search. See the statute below.

Chas.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

• . . .
  (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
  is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
  officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
  search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
  Subsection (c);
  
  . . .
  (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
  justified:
  (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
  peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
  to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
  and
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
  believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
  against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
  of greater force than necessary.

[anygunanywhere]

Thanks, Charles.

I appreciate the reference.

I have my own thought on that too but I will not start since my concepts are hard for some to fathom.

Anygun

[45 4 life]

If the second is absolute, then these (and many more) are the type of issues we will be facing.

Anygun said
If the second is absolute then there would be far fewer issues than you would imagine. The fact that hundreds of millions of humans are dead as a result of reasonable restrictions proves my point. If the RKBA was absolute everywhere nuclear weapons would never have been needed because all of the worlds tyrants and dictators would not have survived their first attempt at assuming power. Of course, this also assumes that freedom loving individuals act and do not allow evil to spread.

Too many sheep gave their rights away to reasonable restrictions.

Anygun[/quote]

Woa there Anygun. The 2A applies to U.S.A. only. Not sure you can take this argument world wide.

The nuke and other WMD should not be covered by the 2A. The right to bear arms for SELF DEFENSE does not and should not include weapons designed as first strike. Nukes only apply as defense on the world scene in order to claim a form of balance. If someone attacks you personally with a nuke, you no longer need a self defense weapon.

Absolutist apparently feel like felons should regain their rights after release. Hogwash, felons deserve to lose more rights than they do today. The line must be drawn some where. They were born with the same rights as you and I, however through their own actions they have lost some of their rights. They make their bed allow them to sleep in it.

The absolutist approach must also include the mentally ill, those dependent on drugs, alcoholics, and have no age limits. Can you really be serious about this? Can you actually claim to be a absolutist. A person with alzeimer's has the right to self defense, or do they? Have you seen the affects of this disease? I have. Have you been in a 8x8 room with a addict on PCP? I have. Have you ever disarmed a drunk? I have. Have you ever sat in a room with a relative in fear that that individual may go off the deep end, produce their legally carried handgun and start shooting your family members? I have.

This absolutist view of no permits, no qualification, no rules, and no laws just does not hold water with me.

You are certainly free to form and have your opinion, I am only sharing mine.