Say Anything Blog

From where do you derive the right to self protection as a civil liberty?

From where do you derive the right to self protection as a civil liberty?

Uh....the Second Amendment?

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Pilgrim: I have never owned or possessed a gun since I left the Marine Corps and yet I wholly agree with your position on this matter. I believe the 2nd Amendment must be protected as passionately as the 1st Amendment, in fact it can be reasonably said that the security of the 1st Amendment depends a great deal on upholding the 2nd Amendment.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

No way. The property owner should have the right to decide what he or she allows on his property.

From where do you derive the right to self protection as a civil liberty?

Are you for real?

The unalienable right to life.

The unalienable right to life.

Was aborted in 1973.

From where do you derive the right to self protection as a civil liberty?

Probably from stupid-assed penumbra or emanation.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

No way. The property owner should have the right to decide what he or she allows on his property.

And you’re right. They should. But they should also not be immune from consequence if their decision is a bad one.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

You have an inalienable right to life (abortion aside), but you do not have an inalienable right to be on someone else’s property.

That’s a good way of describing the breakdown of issues.

Uh....the Second Amendment?

That is the same type of activism that conservatives always complain about when liberals like me talk about the right to privacy (which I do believe in).

The second amendment clearly addresses the right to bear arms for a collective purpose of forming a militia to defend against presumably either a foreign invader or a tyrannical government.  It certainly never addresses an individual right of self protection.

Pilgrim - But they should also not be immune from consequence if their decision is a bad one.

Sounds an awful lot like shuffling the blame.

A shooter in a mall deserves 100% of the blame. The property owner’s “gun free zone”, as stupid as it is, is not at fault here.

This is a nation of gun owners. Don’t tell me that we wouldn’t have any shopping choice between a “gun free zone” and a common sense zone.

Blaming the mall in that recent shooting is partially what gave us so many “gun free zones” to begin with. Property owners are afraid of getting sued. If the mall had allowed guns, they would be facing legal arguments from people using the same logic. Because they don’t allow guns, they’re facing legal arguments. Property owners just can’t win, can they? They’re blamed no matter what happens.

Lestat - The second amendment clearly addresses the right to bear arms for a collective purpose...

Weird how the first ten Constitutional Amendments all address individual rights, yet the 2nd addresses a government right.

Have you thought this one through?

From where do you derive the right to self protection as a civil liberty?

The 5th amendments statement about life not being denied without due process of law seems pretty clear on the matter of there being a right to life.

Not that liberals are known to care about what the Constitution actually says.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Weird how the first ten Constitutional Amendments all address individual rights, yet the 2nd address a government right.
Have you thought this one through?

It might be weurd, but that is totally irrelevant.  The text of the amendment clearly states why we have a right to bear arms.  It is to form a militia, not for self protection.

Have you read the amendment?

Have you read the amendment?

Yep. Just wondering why they would put,

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Those who wrote the Constitution didn’t mince words. If they had meant “the right of the Militia”, they would have written that.

Have you read the amendment? You may want to question why it says “the people” and not “the Militia”.

Have you read the amendment? You may want to question why it says “the people” and not “the Militia”.

I have not argued here that the people do not have a right to bear arms, I am arguing that the second amemdment does not confer a civil right to self protection unless you are a judicial activist.

Have you read the amendment?

Oh boy, another live one.  Besides the fact that even the courts acknowledge the language protects the right to bear arms, the 2nd ammendment limits the government from prohibiting citizens from doing so, not citizens from bearing arms.  So even if your warped interpretation was correct, the 2nd still would prohibit citizens from defending themselves.

Since life is an unalienable right, I can protect it by whatever means available.  In America that means i can do so with a gun.

the 2nd still would[n’t] prohibit citizens from defending themselves.

my bad.

HG - So even if your warped interpretation was correct, the 2nd still would NOT prohibit citizens from defending themselves.

Fixed it.

Proofread!

Lestat,

For what purpose would we need a militia if not to protect our unalienable rights to life, liberty and pusuing happiness?

I think we all agree that the 2nd amendment grants the right to private ownership of guns, no?

Now let’s look at the 5th amendment:

No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

So what we’re left with is this:

I have a right to own a gun.  I also have a right to live unless I’ve been sentenced to death through appropriate due process.

Does this not pretty clearly imply that I’ve a right to protect my own life?  Certainly self defense, both from one another and the tyranny of the government, was the intent of the founders.

Not that, again, liberals care much for the intent of the founders.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Lestat,

For what purpose would we need a militia if not to protect our unalienable rights to life, liberty and pusuing happiness?

The Constitution does not form a standing army, so you need a militia to protect the country from foreign invasion.

I think it is a stretch to say that the right to life gives you the right to carry a gun any place you want, regardless what the owners of the property say, which is the point of Pilgrim’s original post.

Lestat,

This is a petty argument to no pertinent purpose.  None of the other Bill of Rights Amendments addresses a so-called “group right”, nor are any of them contingent as those of you on the Left would have us believe of the 2nd.

Besides, arguments are to be heard on the DC handgun ban appeal this term, and by June the Supreme Court will have “updated” its 1939 Miller ruling and re-established the “right to keep and bear arms” as an individual right, as it was always intended to be.

Case dismissed!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

lik,

I beat you to it.

You’re right though, I need to proof read.  It has been a weak spot of mine. 
Will do.

Probably at some point, someone will successfully sue a gun free zone for the injury they suffered, or the death of a loved one.  However, it’s a horrendous idea along the lines of the smoking lawsuits.

That is, all of those who were tragically shot at the mall knowingly went into a place where they knew that no law-abiding person would be armed, just like smokers have known since the days of King James that it’s a nasty, filthy, deadly habit.  Exactly why we would want to use tort law to reward those who knowingly did something dangerous is beyond me.

The only exception; when government creates safe zones for criminals in areas we must go, and even then, I’m torn.  What sense does it make to sue government, knowing that your lawyer takes 1/3 off the top, and you get taxed not only for the award, but also to pay for the government’s lawyers?

Private businesses and residencies have the right now not allow people to carry guns on their property.  The question is, can the government reserve the same rights?  If you say no, then I guess it should be legal for anybody to carry guns to the White House, Court House, Post Office, etc.

How about this for an argument. 

If I want my property to be a gun free zone and you have a gun.  Stay off my property.

The Constitution does not form a standing army, so you need a militia to protect the country from foreign invasion.

What do you think the militia would be protecting? 

hint: it isn’t the “invasion”. 

I think it is a stretch to say that the right to life gives you the right to carry a gun any place you want,

Your deviating from you question which was:

From where do you derive the right to self protection as a civil liberty?

The unalienable right to life is the answer to the above.  The right to bear a firearm in public is protected from governemnt laws against it in the 2nd ammendment.

The Constitution does not form a standing army, so you need a militia to protect the country from foreign invasion.

Did you give up on History after third grade or what?  The logic behind the militia’s was so that if the Federal government got too big and powerful the states would have the ability to overthrow them.  The founders did not trust a heavily centralized government because of the bad taste England left in their mouths.  Read a book.

NATIONAL REVIEW ENDORSES ROMMEY!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1

The part that I liked best about this article is that they AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I’VE BEEN SAYING IN HERE FORM MONTHS and been called a “shill” for.

Probably at some point, someone will successfully sue a gun free zone for the injury they suffered, or the death of a loved one.

It’s more likely that someone will sue a gun friendly zone for the injury they suffered.  It’s also more likely that someone will suffer in a gun friendly zone.

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” - Thomas Jefferson

“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm” - George Orwell

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

If I want my property to be a gun free zone and you have a gun.  Stay off my property.

I don’t think anyone here is telling you that you have to allow guns on your property.  But hey, where were you when we were opposing smoking bans on these grounds?

Anyway, I think Pilgrim’s point here is that if you open your property to the public but then endanger them by denying them a right to go armed...should you not be liable?

I haven’t made up my mind yet, but it’s a good question.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If you open your property to the public, it’s YOUR responsibility that your visitors are safe, not theirs.  After all, they will sue YOU if they get hurt, regardless if you allow guns or not.  It’s your responsibility to provide the seurity to maintain the peace, not the visitors’.

Chris said:

It’s more likely that someone will sue a gun friendly zone for the injury they suffered.  It’s also more likely that someone will suffer in a gun friendly zone.

Hello???? Have you been living in a cave lately? No newspaper, tv, radio?

Look at the number of dead and wounded in so-called “Gun Free Zones”.

Now, let’s see, how many have died lately in a “Gun Friendly Zone”? Hmmmm.... That’s funny. It looks like the guys who want to shoot lots of people just don’t go where somebody else will probably be armed.

Go figure.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

It’s more likely that someone will sue a gun friendly zone for the injury they suffered.  It’s also more likely that someone will suffer in a gun friendly zone.

Yes, Chris, it’s far more likely that someone will suffer in a gun friendly zone, which explains all the mass shootings at gun shows and firing ranges, and also why there have never been mass killings at “gun-free” zones like post offices, schools, workplaces, and shopping malls posted as “no gun” zones.  Moreover, cities where guns are banned, like Washington DC and Chicago, are so safe you can walk anywhere at night without risking anything.

Methinks there’s a wee little problem with your logic, Chris, and I suggest you get yourself away from the Brady Campaign and over to http://www.gunowners.org to figure out what it is, if you haven’t already.

Bill Mitchell - okay,..you are shilling. Romney has nothing to do with this thread and your comment is completely off topic.

Hello???? Have you been living in a cave lately? No newspaper, tv, radio?

OK, let’s see were you get your information from.  You can site the Univerisy, school, and mall shootings as “proof”, but it doesn’t really prove your point.  It’s like citing a plane crash and then concluding that flying is more dangerous than driving.

Do you think the mass media covers every gun-related injury or death in the country?  Just because you don’t hear about it in the news, it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.  Mass media will only cover the major events, the anomolies.  You should know this by now.

I don’t think anyone here is telling you that you have to allow guns on your property.

It’s exactly what is being said.  If a mall is a gun free zone and a mass shooting happens, you get to be sued.

I haven’t made up my mind yet, but it’s a good question.

Rob,
I’m in the same situation re. private property, but public places you are required to go… you don’t have a choice there, so I don’t see how they could restrict CCW.

Chris:

If you say no, then I guess it should be legal for anybody to carry guns to the White House, Court House, Post Office, etc.

not ture - only whose with CCW permits

Chris, you’re asking us to believe that the media would not cover a pattern of murders at gun shows, on the roads, and so on.  Have you ever heard the phrase “if it bleeds, it leads”? 

Again, it’s high time you acquainted yourself with the facts about firearm ownership.  See http://www.gunowners.org, http://www.nra.org, and http://www.jpfo.org for details.

Chris, you’re asking us to believe that the media would not cover a pattern of murders at gun shows, on the roads, and so on.

Considering the fact that there are 10s of thousands of gun-related injuries and violent acts every year in the US (80 deaths per day, according to some), and I don’t hear even  of it in the daily news, I would say yes to your question.

Why don’t you research gun-related incidents in the US?  We surpass the numbers of most developed countries.

If a property is open to the public, a shopping mall for example, and someone is injured on the property due to poor lighting, a crack in the sidewalk pavement or parking lot asphalt, standing water, etc. then the owner of the property is liable for civil damages.

The idea of “Gun Free” zones is a relatively new one, and there is no case law that I’m aware of that covers the liability of the owner of a “gun Free” property for shooting deaths such as happened at Westroads Mall in Omaha.

Of course the owner is going to be sued.  That’s the American way of settling disputes.  Its also why property owners carry insurance.

Whether the owner will be found to have been negligent and thus liable is an open question.  Most likely the insurance carrier will settle.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Again, it’s high time you acquainted yourself with the facts about firearm ownership. 

I don’t need propaganda, thank you.

Someone had mentioned that guns are a right only with “CCW permits”.  Where in the constitution does it say that?  This shows that you guys are hypocrites by supposedly defending the constitution 100 percent but supporting limitations on owning a gun.  If you support limitations, then why are you arguing over “the right to bear arms”?

Chris, given that it’s not me, but you, who is not capable of coming up with evidence for his position, I would suggest that it might be more effective for YOU to be the one to do the research.

And if you want to change the subject to overall gun deaths...well....go to the same sites I mentioned, and you’ll learn that many nations, despite not having as many guns in circulation as we have, manage to have overall violent crime rates and death rates that exceed ours. It isn’t the tool, but the hand that’s using it.

If you don’t trust my sources, look at the footnotes, silly.  Look at the fact that Chicago and DC are perennial contenders for “murder capital of the world,” despite bans on handguns there.  Are we to assume that the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post are tools in the hands of Larry Pratt and John Lott?

And again, come to grips with the fact that finding mass killings in “gun-friendly” zones is like finding hen’s teeth.  People generally don’t attack when they know someone might be shooting back, and when they do, they (for obvious reasons) tend not to kill as many people.  Acute lead poisoning will do that to a wannabe Hitler.

Former DC Police Chief no longer supports gun ban.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

To me, the most telling fact in the gun debate is that less than 5% of all guns owned by the public are ever used for criminal purposes, which means that anti-gun laws are a very small tale wagging a very large dog.  They deprive a great number of Americans of their Constitutional right to try to control a very small number of criminals, who, by definition, aren’t affected by laws anyway.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

People generally don’t attack when they know someone might be shooting back

That’s what trained security guards are for.  It’s not necessary to arm everybody, especially in enclosed areas full of hormone-crazy kids, like malls or schools.  You should be arguing to have more security guards.

Chicago and DC are perennial contenders for “murder capital of the world,” despite bans on handguns there.

Gun control in a city is a different subject than in enclosed areas. I do believe that a person with the correct license and credentials can carry a concealed gun on the streets, however there should still be background checks, delays, age limits, etc.

Someone had mentioned that guns are a right only with “CCW permits”.  Where in the constitution does it say that?  This shows that you guys are hypocrites by supposedly defending the constitution 100 percent but supporting limitations on owning a gun.

Chris,

“Someone’s” opinion doesn’t make “you guys” hypocrites. 

You may have a point regarding that someone, but then competence isn’t necessarily an unconstitutional limit unless you want to say that children have a constitutional right to carry a firearm.

chris - That’s what trained security guards are for.

Those guys aren’t omnipresent.

It’s not necessary to arm everybody, especially in enclosed areas full of hormone-crazy kids, like malls or schools.

Nobody is saying to arm “everybody”, just the ones who wish to arm themselves.

Have you checked out the security in Israeli schools where there are guns around all of those “hormone-crazy kids”? They’re safe places nowadays now that the teachers arm themselves. It wasn’t so safe back in the days where Israeli schools were “gun free zones”.

You should be arguing to have more security guards.

No, we shouldn’t be. We’re not asking for protection. We’re asking to protect ourselves. Totally different concept!

Chris, nobody’s advocating that everybody pack at all times.  However, the simple fact of the matter is that when seconds are the difference between life and death, the police and security guards are only minutes away.