A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.
Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.
NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.
Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.
The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.
Check, got it, better if I die when attacked than impose on the attackers rights....
Had to look up his "five aims of the USA" since I've never heard of that before. was explained in part I of his multi-part drivel
These five principles will be titled the five aims of the USA, which are can be written in question form:
Does is promote Justice?
Does it ensure domestic Tranquility?
Does it ensure the common defence?
Does it promote the general Welfare?
Does it secure the Blessings of our Liberty and Posterity?
Furthermore, one must understand the Bill of Rights to complete the check and balance system in the Constitution of the USA. These rights give certain powers to an individual and withhold certain powers from the person.
Pretty different understanding of the Bill of Rights than I have... Indoctrination was 100% successful on this one.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."
This article is a good example of how twisted the liberal mind can be. Absolutely no common sense anywhere in this article. Here again the criminal has more rights than the law abiding citizen.
Is anyone surprised that an anti-gunner ranks the right to trial by jury of someone who has ALREADY robbed, raped or murdered you above your right NOT to be robbed, raped or murdered?
I've lived long enough for "Monty Python's Flying Circus" to become a documentary on contemporary British Society.
"Family Guy" became a documentary on contemporary American society MUCH more quickly.
Life comes at you fast. Be prepared to shoot it in the head when it does.
Bruenor wrote:The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. [/color]
I wish I could say something intelligent, thought-provoking, relevant here...BUT...all I can contribute is to say that this is the most f....d up argument I have ever heard...at least up to this point in my life.
Sad to say I'm not really surprised. Some politicians and political parties seem to value the criminals more than the law abiding. They value the thug over the productive members of society.
Dale
11101110111
1911 & IDPA Fan(atic), SIG Fan, and fan of less common calibers
dl1911 wrote:Sad to say I'm not really surprised. Some politicians and political parties seem to value the criminals more than the law abiding. They value the thug over the productive members of society.
A)The law abiding are so enslaved/docile/impotent that the politicians need to pander to those who actually pose a physical threat to them.
B)Honor among thieves (in that it's all about blackmail and gaining leverage over your fellow corrupt criminal);the unscrupulous will one-up them, so pander to them and gain their support.
As to the OP point of depriving people of right to due process trial...obviously in the moment, the Right to one's own life is under attack, and due process isn't a duty of the citizen when being assaulted.
They'll keep trying though. They've scored more absurd goals than this recently.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
catfish86 wrote:One interesting point is that only those of sound mind and body can be trusted with firearms. Who decides who has sound mind and body?
Bill Nye and the high priests of Science-ism, of course. (Previously known as Eugenicists.)
This was the prospect Immanuel Kant sought to avoid with his Critique of Pure Reason, first published in the same year the United States of America declared their independence, 1776. Therein he spoke of the challenge to morality posed by the empirical scientific method:
Suppose now that morality necessarily presupposed liberty, in the strictest sense, as a property of our will; suppose that reason contained certain practical, original principles a priori, which were absolutely impossible without this presupposition; and suppose, at the same time, that speculative reason had proved that liberty was incapable of being thought at all. It would then follow that the moral presupposition must give way to the speculative affirmation, the opposite of which involves an obvious contradiction, and that liberty and, with it, morality must yield to the mechanism of nature; for the negation of morality involves no contradiction, except on the presupposition of liberty.
Kant hoped that his work would clarify the limits of empirical knowledge in order to make room for faith. Instead, it gave rise to trains of thought, including pragmatism and Marxism, that practically banished God and morality from human affairs. They asserted instead views that exclusively worship power, or the results it produces; and which simply exempt human affairs from the superintendence of self-sufficient being, which otherwise gives substance to the standard from which human life derives its intrinsic worth.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798