CDZ Diversity, What's Important?

[MacTheKnife]

You seem to lack the logic needed to understand what I was saying though it was not at all complicated.

I was referring to the constitution...how it cannot be depended on if you use deadly force in self defense aka...especially and most especially if the perp was a African-American.

Unfortunately now and for some time there is a double standard in just about everything connected with African-Americans.

And....if you kill one in even in legitimate self defense your whole life will be examined with a federal microscope to see if you are a racist....actually even worse than that...as in....you may not be a racist but perhaps back in H.S. you in a fit of anger or whatever used the N woid...if they can conjure up a witness to that you will be labeled a racist and that coupled with the composition of the jury which will be deliberating your fate ---which will have liberals and African-Americans on it...thus your life is placed in extreme peril irregardless of how much faith you have in the constitution.

That is the reality today.....and anyone who debates politic on any of these boards....you best use bleach bit when you sign off....your computer is the first thing they check for signs or inclinations of racism.

None of which even addresses my point that we have a constitutional right to self defense and most police officers are pretty darn good people.

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

 

[MacTheKnife]

You seem to lack the logic needed to understand what I was saying though it was not at all complicated.

I was referring to the constitution...how it cannot be depended on if you use deadly force in self defense aka...especially and most especially if the perp was a African-American.

Unfortunately now and for some time there is a double standard in just about everything connected with African-Americans.

And....if you kill one in even in legitimate self defense your whole life will be examined with a federal microscope to see if you are a racist....actually even worse than that...as in....you may not be a racist but perhaps back in H.S. you in a fit of anger or whatever used the N woid...if they can conjure up a witness to that you will be labeled a racist and that coupled with the composition of the jury which will be deliberating your fate ---which will have liberals and African-Americans on it...thus your life is placed in extreme peril irregardless of how much faith you have in the constitution.

That is the reality today.....and anyone who debates politic on any of these boards....you best use bleach bit when you sign off....your computer is the first thing they check for signs or inclinations of racism.

None of which even addresses my point that we have a constitutional right to self defense and most police officers are pretty darn good people.

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

I'm not a modern American liberal. I simply could not be as rude, cruel, hateful, judgmental, intolerant as so many of them are. So how they feel about much of anything might be something of interest to know how they think or see the world, but it is not at all persuasive or relevant to me.

Having done extensive study on the debates and arguments and point of view of the nation's founders, I am quite secure that they, to a man, supported a concept of unalienable right to self defense.

I have no reason to believe they did not.....however no where is it specifically stated in the constitution that you have a right to self defense, nor does it specify you have a right to use deadly force if you fear your life is in danger or that you may suffer grievious bodily harm....thus that is why the states...every one of them has a self defense law on the books that specifies and spells out exactly when and how you are able to use deadly force to protect your life...and it is that state law that will be cited in court if you are brought to trial.... that will offer you protection if the jury believes you are in compliance with the state law on self defense...aka you were in reasonable fear of your life or of grievious bodily harm.

 

[DandyDonovan]

None of which even addresses my point that we have a constitutional right to self defense and most police officers are pretty darn good people.

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

False, the Bill of Rights does NOT give your rights, it does not guarantee you rights. That was NEVER the intent. Read more , post less.

The DoI specicifally states that we the US believe all men were born with these inalienable rights, and then the COTUS continues on to ensure that the USG will never encroach on those rights. But it does not grant ANY rights to people.

IOW prior to 1787 people in the US enjoyed the right to free speech. The COTUS did not GIVE them that right, they already had that right. The COTUS merely informed that the newly created government of the US would not infringe on said rights.

I realize this is a complex thought, but do try to keep up.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

False, the Bill of Rights does NOT give your rights, it does not guarantee you rights. That was NEVER the intent. Read more , post less.

The DoI specicifally states that we the US believe all men were born with these inalienable rights, and then the COTUS continues on to ensure that the USG will never encroach on those rights. But it does not grant ANY rights to people.

IOW prior to 1787 people in the US enjoyed the right to free speech. The COTUS did not GIVE them that right, they already had that right. The COTUS merely informed that the newly created government of the US would not infringe on said rights.

I realize this is a complex thought, but do try to keep up.

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

False, the Bill of Rights does NOT give your rights, it does not guarantee you rights. That was NEVER the intent. Read more , post less.

The DoI specicifally states that we the US believe all men were born with these inalienable rights, and then the COTUS continues on to ensure that the USG will never encroach on those rights. But it does not grant ANY rights to people.

IOW prior to 1787 people in the US enjoyed the right to free speech. The COTUS did not GIVE them that right, they already had that right. The COTUS merely informed that the newly created government of the US would not infringe on said rights.

I realize this is a complex thought, but do try to keep up.

DOL? COTUS?

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

False, the Bill of Rights does NOT give your rights, it does not guarantee you rights. That was NEVER the intent. Read more , post less.

The DoI specicifally states that we the US believe all men were born with these inalienable rights, and then the COTUS continues on to ensure that the USG will never encroach on those rights. But it does not grant ANY rights to people.

IOW prior to 1787 people in the US enjoyed the right to free speech. The COTUS did not GIVE them that right, they already had that right. The COTUS merely informed that the newly created government of the US would not infringe on said rights.

I realize this is a complex thought, but do try to keep up.

DOL? IOW? USG? I hate it when people use abbreviations that are kinown only to them???

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing....not even to mention obvious coinfusion.

The Constitution of the United States of America was drafted in 1787. The Judicial, Executive and Legislative segments of the government came into effect in 1789. The main purpose of the constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American citizens.

Case closed.

 

[Foxfyre]

None of which even addresses my point that we have a constitutional right to self defense and most police officers are pretty darn good people.

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

The did not give us those rights. We already had them. The Constitution was intended to allow a central government ability to SECURE and DEFEND those rights be welding together individual states into a nation and enacting such laws and regulation as necessary for them to operate as a single nation and prevent them from doing economic or physical violence to each other. The federal government was given no authority to assign rights to any person or dictate to any state what rights it must authorize or recognize.

 

[DandyDonovan]

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

False, the Bill of Rights does NOT give your rights, it does not guarantee you rights. That was NEVER the intent. Read more , post less.

The DoI specicifally states that we the US believe all men were born with these inalienable rights, and then the COTUS continues on to ensure that the USG will never encroach on those rights. But it does not grant ANY rights to people.

IOW prior to 1787 people in the US enjoyed the right to free speech. The COTUS did not GIVE them that right, they already had that right. The COTUS merely informed that the newly created government of the US would not infringe on said rights.

I realize this is a complex thought, but do try to keep up.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

False, the Bill of Rights does NOT give your rights, it does not guarantee you rights. That was NEVER the intent. Read more , post less.

The DoI specicifally states that we the US believe all men were born with these inalienable rights, and then the COTUS continues on to ensure that the USG will never encroach on those rights. But it does not grant ANY rights to people.

IOW prior to 1787 people in the US enjoyed the right to free speech. The COTUS did not GIVE them that right, they already had that right. The COTUS merely informed that the newly created government of the US would not infringe on said rights.

I realize this is a complex thought, but do try to keep up.

DOL? COTUS?

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

False, the Bill of Rights does NOT give your rights, it does not guarantee you rights. That was NEVER the intent. Read more , post less.

The DoI specicifally states that we the US believe all men were born with these inalienable rights, and then the COTUS continues on to ensure that the USG will never encroach on those rights. But it does not grant ANY rights to people.

IOW prior to 1787 people in the US enjoyed the right to free speech. The COTUS did not GIVE them that right, they already had that right. The COTUS merely informed that the newly created government of the US would not infringe on said rights.

I realize this is a complex thought, but do try to keep up.

DOL? IOW? USG? I hate it when people use abbreviations that are kinown only to them???

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing....not even to mention obvious coinfusion.

The Constitution of the United States of America was drafted in 1787. The Judicial, Executive and Legislative segments of the government came into effect in 1789. The main purpose of the constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American citizens.

Case closed.

DoI not DoL = Decleration of Indpendence

IOW - In Other Words

USG = United States Government

I don't think these are abbreviations that are known only to me.

And for the love of God man, the founding fathers themselves said "these documents do not give rights" themselves many many many times. The COTUS protects rights that you already have from being infringed on by the government, it does NOT grant you any rights..

If the USA dissolved tomorrow would you say "okay guess I don't have any free speech rights now?" Of course you would not, because you have that right irrespective of the existence of the US.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

If you ever have to use deadly force to protect your life and are brought to trial...do you think your lawyer will talk about God Given rights or natural rights?

Of course not...he will immediately trot out the state law on self defense.

You are arguing theory and pointing out philosophical concepts which influenced the founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

What I am talking about is the law of self defense....and how it is the state law on self defense that will protect you if you did follow the law in your defense of your life.

Again if the Constitution had spelled out or talked about how one is entitled to use deadly force in defense of their life if they are in REASONABLE fear of their life...none of these state laws on self defense would have been needed.

 

[DandyDonovan]

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

If you ever have to use deadly force to protect your life and are brought to trial...do you think your lawyer will talk about God Given rights or natural rights?

Of course not...he will immediately trot out the state law on self defense.

You are arguing theory and pointing out philosophical concepts which influenced the founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

What I am talking about is the law of self defense....and how it is the state law on self defense that will protect you if you did follow the law in your defense of your life.

Again if the Constitution had spelled out or talked about how one is entitled to use deadly force in defense of their life if they are in REASONABLE fear of their life...none of these state laws on self defense would have been needed.

You could have simply conceded and said "you're right, the COTUS does not give rights"

 

[MacTheKnife]

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

False, the Bill of Rights does NOT give your rights, it does not guarantee you rights. That was NEVER the intent. Read more , post less.

The DoI specicifally states that we the US believe all men were born with these inalienable rights, and then the COTUS continues on to ensure that the USG will never encroach on those rights. But it does not grant ANY rights to people.

IOW prior to 1787 people in the US enjoyed the right to free speech. The COTUS did not GIVE them that right, they already had that right. The COTUS merely informed that the newly created government of the US would not infringe on said rights.

I realize this is a complex thought, but do try to keep up.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

False, the Bill of Rights does NOT give your rights, it does not guarantee you rights. That was NEVER the intent. Read more , post less.

The DoI specicifally states that we the US believe all men were born with these inalienable rights, and then the COTUS continues on to ensure that the USG will never encroach on those rights. But it does not grant ANY rights to people.

IOW prior to 1787 people in the US enjoyed the right to free speech. The COTUS did not GIVE them that right, they already had that right. The COTUS merely informed that the newly created government of the US would not infringe on said rights.

I realize this is a complex thought, but do try to keep up.

DOL? COTUS?

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

False, the Bill of Rights does NOT give your rights, it does not guarantee you rights. That was NEVER the intent. Read more , post less.

The DoI specicifally states that we the US believe all men were born with these inalienable rights, and then the COTUS continues on to ensure that the USG will never encroach on those rights. But it does not grant ANY rights to people.

IOW prior to 1787 people in the US enjoyed the right to free speech. The COTUS did not GIVE them that right, they already had that right. The COTUS merely informed that the newly created government of the US would not infringe on said rights.

I realize this is a complex thought, but do try to keep up.

DOL? IOW? USG? I hate it when people use abbreviations that are kinown only to them???

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing....not even to mention obvious coinfusion.

The Constitution of the United States of America was drafted in 1787. The Judicial, Executive and Legislative segments of the government came into effect in 1789. The main purpose of the constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American citizens.

Case closed.

DoI not DoL = Decleration of Indpendence

IOW - In Other Words

USG = United States Government

I don't think these are abbreviations that are known only to me.

And for the love of God man, the founding fathers themselves said "these documents do not give rights" themselves many many many times. The COTUS protects rights that you already have from being infringed on by the government, it does NOT grant you any rights..

If the USA dissolved tomorrow would you say "okay guess I don't have any free speech rights now?" Of course you would not, because you have that right irrespective of the existence of the US.

Nonsense....why do you think the colonists revolted against England?

According to you slaves had the right to be free, had free speech, were entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. etc.

Why were they slaves then? How did they gain their freedom....perhaps because one of them stood up and said we have an inalienable God given right to be free.

You are talkling philosophy and religion...I am talking reality.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

The did not give us those rights. We already had them. The Constitution was intended to allow a central government ability to SECURE and DEFEND those rights be welding together individual states into a nation and enacting such laws and regulation as necessary for them to operate as a single nation and prevent them from doing economic or physical violence to each other. The federal government was given no authority to assign rights to any person or dictate to any state what rights it must authorize or recognize.

O.K since we had all these rights....why was the Constitution written up. Why did Thomas Jefferson write the Declaration of Independece?

BTW Thomas Jefferson had 200 slaves and never freed any of them. Do you think the slaves had natural rights or God given rights? If so why did it require an emancimation proclomation to free them?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

If you ever have to use deadly force to protect your life and are brought to trial...do you think your lawyer will talk about God Given rights or natural rights?

Of course not...he will immediately trot out the state law on self defense.

You are arguing theory and pointing out philosophical concepts which influenced the founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

What I am talking about is the law of self defense....and how it is the state law on self defense that will protect you if you did follow the law in your defense of your life.

Again if the Constitution had spelled out or talked about how one is entitled to use deadly force in defense of their life if they are in REASONABLE fear of their life...none of these state laws on self defense would have been needed.

Any lawyer I would hire definitely would.

I would expect there to be an investigation to be sure that I did shoot in self defense. Just as I approve of investigation of police shootings to determine that they were necessary or reasonable according to established protocol. I do not expect any police officer to submit to shooting or other mayhem because the protocol does not allow deadly force. And I do not expect to have to submit to rape or battery or worse just because some people believe guns are not a reasonable means of self defense.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

The did not give us those rights. We already had them. The Constitution was intended to allow a central government ability to SECURE and DEFEND those rights be welding together individual states into a nation and enacting such laws and regulation as necessary for them to operate as a single nation and prevent them from doing economic or physical violence to each other. The federal government was given no authority to assign rights to any person or dictate to any state what rights it must authorize or recognize.

'Unfortunately, no divine origin for human rights can be judiciously advanced since there is no evidence of such divinity, much less evidence of the existence of rights that demonstrably emanate from God.

An additional problem is that there is not one God that is universally recognized and thus we are left to decide if it is the moral code of Yahweh, Allah, or Brahman that should prevail. To anchor rights on a divinity is to admit that there is no evidence to support the existence of universal human rights.

Very much aware of these issues, Enlightenment thinkers and the Founding Fathers sought to anchor human rights in nature as a matter of natural law. But, in seeking to extrapolate rights from nature, liberal thinkers filled their arguments with references to what God had ordained, or granted. John Locke posited his “law of nature” linked to “men being all the workmanship on one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker.” And Jefferson noted that the moral law of nature is “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator.”

These classical expositions of natural law retain the philosophical problem that if natural rights come from God, then proof of their existence depends on proof of God’s existence. To address this, modern thinkers have developed a number of more secular natural rights theories that do not originate with a Divinity. But it is this genre of issues that have led some philosophers to mock belief in human rights as “one with belief in witches and unicorns” (Alasdair MacIntyre) or “nonsense upon stilts” (Jeremy Bentham).

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights declares that human rights flow from “the inherent dignity of the human person.” This too can be a problematic concept, as no universal agreement can be reached as to what is needed for a life of dignity. Some will claim that a vacation home on the beach is an absolute necessity for a life worthy of a human being, others require multiple consorts. Who is to tell?

Totalitarian regimes take advantage of this philosophical quandary to subordinate the individual to the state. Since governments hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force, we need individual rights to protect ourselves from the involuntary servitude to others demanded by collectivism.

Our best intellectual argument is that each individual is morally an end in himself/herself and not a means to the ends of others. This means that individual rights are our defense against collectivism. Individual rights may, or may not be, God given, or inherent, according to our personal beliefs. Human rights may just be an aspiration or an artifact, but in a social context, they are what we require to live in freedom.'

This article first appeared in the Miami Herald.







José Azel 149 Posts 0

 

[Foxfyre]

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

The did not give us those rights. We already had them. The Constitution was intended to allow a central government ability to SECURE and DEFEND those rights be welding together individual states into a nation and enacting such laws and regulation as necessary for them to operate as a single nation and prevent them from doing economic or physical violence to each other. The federal government was given no authority to assign rights to any person or dictate to any state what rights it must authorize or recognize.

O.K since we had all these rights....why was the Constitution written up. Why did Thomas Jefferson write the Declaration of Independece?

BTW Thomas Jefferson had 200 slaves and never freed any of them. Do you think the slaves had natural rights or God given rights? If so why did it require an emancimation proclomation to free them?

The Declaration was written and signed because the government of England did not recognize anybody's rights that the King or Archbishop or whomever chose not to recognize. And they were taxing the people beyond reason while imposinng other oppressive rules and regulations. Just as now, those who were enriching themselves under the British system did not want to secede from England. But fortunately a few enlightened individuals did. And the flames of determination for liberty and self government took hold.

Once independence from England was won, the Constitution was written up to enable the various states to function as a single cohesive nation and to ensure that never again would a monarch or church authority or any other form of totalitarian government be able to infringe on the rights and liberties of the people. Rather the people would give the government its authority and would be free to govern themselves.

 

[MacTheKnife]

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

If you ever have to use deadly force to protect your life and are brought to trial...do you think your lawyer will talk about God Given rights or natural rights?

Of course not...he will immediately trot out the state law on self defense.

You are arguing theory and pointing out philosophical concepts which influenced the founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

What I am talking about is the law of self defense....and how it is the state law on self defense that will protect you if you did follow the law in your defense of your life.

Again if the Constitution had spelled out or talked about how one is entitled to use deadly force in defense of their life if they are in REASONABLE fear of their life...none of these state laws on self defense would have been needed.

Any lawyer I would hire definitely would.

I would expect there to be an investigation to be sure that I did shoot in self defense. Just as I approve of investigation of police shootings to determine that they were necessary or reasonable according to established protocol. I do not expect any police officer to submit to shooting or other mayhem because the protocol does not allow deadly force. And I do not expect to have to submit to rape or battery or worse just because some people believe guns are not a reasonable means of self defense.

You need to get down off your high horse and come to grips with the fact that we are a nation of laws. That is what governs us and what we must live by and what gives us the protections we do have.

Personally, I really have no problem with claiming there are God given rights....but how has that worked out for most of the world?

Ever since the dawn of creation mankind has been afflicted with cruel despots, totolatarian regimes, communism, nazism, wholesale slaughter of human beings ....millions have been killed, starved to death by dictators etc.etc.

Were all these folks in the past that suffered so much covered by natural law or inalienable rights?

Did it help them. Did thee so called natural rights do anything whatsoever to stop the slaughter, the slavery, etc.?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

The did not give us those rights. We already had them. The Constitution was intended to allow a central government ability to SECURE and DEFEND those rights be welding together individual states into a nation and enacting such laws and regulation as necessary for them to operate as a single nation and prevent them from doing economic or physical violence to each other. The federal government was given no authority to assign rights to any person or dictate to any state what rights it must authorize or recognize.

'Unfortunately, no divine origin for human rights can be judiciously advanced since there is no evidence of such divinity, much less evidence of the existence of rights that demonstrably emanate from God.

An additional problem is that there is not one God that is universally recognized and thus we are left to decide if it is the moral code of Yahweh, Allah, or Brahman that should prevail. To anchor rights on a divinity is to admit that there is no evidence to support the existence of universal human rights.

Very much aware of these issues, Enlightenment thinkers and the Founding Fathers sought to anchor human rights in nature as a matter of natural law. But, in seeking to extrapolate rights from nature, liberal thinkers filled their arguments with references to what God had ordained, or granted. John Locke posited his “law of nature” linked to “men being all the workmanship on one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker.” And Jefferson noted that the moral law of nature is “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator.”

These classical expositions of natural law retain the philosophical problem that if natural rights come from God, then proof of their existence depends on proof of God’s existence. To address this, modern thinkers have developed a number of more secular natural rights theories that do not originate with a Divinity. But it is this genre of issues that have led some philosophers to mock belief in human rights as “one with belief in witches and unicorns” (Alasdair MacIntyre) or “nonsense upon stilts” (Jeremy Bentham).

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights declares that human rights flow from “the inherent dignity of the human person.” This too can be a problematic concept, as no universal agreement can be reached as to what is needed for a life of dignity. Some will claim that a vacation home on the beach is an absolute necessity for a life worthy of a human being, others require multiple consorts. Who is to tell?

Totalitarian regimes take advantage of this philosophical quandary to subordinate the individual to the state. Since governments hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force, we need individual rights to protect ourselves from the involuntary servitude to others demanded by collectivism.

Our best intellectual argument is that each individual is morally an end in himself/herself and not a means to the ends of others. This means that individual rights are our defense against collectivism. Individual rights may, or may not be, God given, or inherent, according to our personal beliefs. Human rights may just be an aspiration or an artifact, but in a social context, they are what we require to live in freedom.'

This article first appeared in the Miami Herald.







José Azel 149 Posts 0

I'll take my cue from the founding documents and my personal convictions rather than from an op-ed written by somebody who doesn't believe in the principles they set down for the people's considerations.

 

[MacTheKnife]

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

The did not give us those rights. We already had them. The Constitution was intended to allow a central government ability to SECURE and DEFEND those rights be welding together individual states into a nation and enacting such laws and regulation as necessary for them to operate as a single nation and prevent them from doing economic or physical violence to each other. The federal government was given no authority to assign rights to any person or dictate to any state what rights it must authorize or recognize.

O.K since we had all these rights....why was the Constitution written up. Why did Thomas Jefferson write the Declaration of Independece?

BTW Thomas Jefferson had 200 slaves and never freed any of them. Do you think the slaves had natural rights or God given rights? If so why did it require an emancimation proclomation to free them?

The Declaration was written and signed because the government of England did not recognize anybody's rights that the King or Archbishop or whomever chose not to recognize. And they were taxing the people beyond reason while imposinng other oppressive rules and regulations. Just as now, those who were enriching themselves under the British system did not want to secede from England. But fortunately a few enlightened individuals did. And the flames of determination for liberty and self government took hold.

Once independence from England was won, the Constitution was written up to enable the various states to function as a single cohesive nation and to ensure that never again would a monarch or church authority or any other form of totalitarian government be able to infringe on the rights and liberties of the people. Rather the people would give the government its authority and would be free to govern themselves.

How would you define a right? If the right you claim to have is not recognized...do you really have a right?

Perhaps you feel you are entitled to natural rights or rights given by your Creator...and I would not claim you are not entitled...but in the real world being entitled to something and actually having it is two different things..

Perhaps a Jew caught up in the Nazi web felt he was entitled to basic human rights....did that entitlement or that believe in entitlement keep him out of the gas chamber? You see what I am driving at?...reality vs. idealism.

again let us look at Thomas Jefferson....he said all men are born equal....but he had 200 slaves and never freed any of them. Just another example of reality vs. idealism...he no doubt needed the slaves for his plantation to thrive. Yet, he was a man of ideals and great knowledge and he even recognized slavery was an evil....yet he maintained his slaves...why? Because it was legal and he felt he needed them for the sake of his plantation.

Then along comes Lincoln, the civil war...followed by the freeing of the slaves....now who freed those slaves? How was it accomplished how was it enforced....by law.

Again...we are a nation of laws and.............it is the states law of self defense that allows us to legally defend our lives with deadly force.

Not some idealitic notion that we have natural rights etc. that are referred to in the constitution in a philosophical manner.

 

[Foxfyre]

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

If you ever have to use deadly force to protect your life and are brought to trial...do you think your lawyer will talk about God Given rights or natural rights?

Of course not...he will immediately trot out the state law on self defense.

You are arguing theory and pointing out philosophical concepts which influenced the founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

What I am talking about is the law of self defense....and how it is the state law on self defense that will protect you if you did follow the law in your defense of your life.

Again if the Constitution had spelled out or talked about how one is entitled to use deadly force in defense of their life if they are in REASONABLE fear of their life...none of these state laws on self defense would have been needed.

Any lawyer I would hire definitely would.

I would expect there to be an investigation to be sure that I did shoot in self defense. Just as I approve of investigation of police shootings to determine that they were necessary or reasonable according to established protocol. I do not expect any police officer to submit to shooting or other mayhem because the protocol does not allow deadly force. And I do not expect to have to submit to rape or battery or worse just because some people believe guns are not a reasonable means of self defense.

You need to get down off your high horse and come to grips with the fact that we are a nation of laws. That is what governs us and what we must live by and what gives us the protections we do have.

Personally, I really have no problem with claiming there are God given rights....but how has that worked out for most of the world?

Ever since the dawn of creation mankind has been afflicted with cruel despots, totolatarian regimes, communism, nazism, wholesale slaughter of human beings ....millions have been killed, starved to death by dictators etc.etc.

Were all these folks in the past that suffered so much covered by natural law or inalienable rights?

Did it help them. Did thee so called natural rights do anything whatsoever to stop the slaughter, the slavery, etc.?

I'll just chalk your post up here to somebody who really doesn't understand that the principles most of us are arguing here do not in any way negate that we are a nation of laws. Nor are we arguing that it is not necessary for government to enforce necessary laws. You don't seem to comprehend that we are a nation that is constitutionally prohibited from passing laws that violate the unalienable rights of the people.

We were the first and remain the only country founded and governed on that basic principle. It has produced the most free, generous, prosperous, innovative, and strong nation the world has ever known.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

If you ever have to use deadly force to protect your life and are brought to trial...do you think your lawyer will talk about God Given rights or natural rights?

Of course not...he will immediately trot out the state law on self defense.

You are arguing theory and pointing out philosophical concepts which influenced the founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

What I am talking about is the law of self defense....and how it is the state law on self defense that will protect you if you did follow the law in your defense of your life.

Again if the Constitution had spelled out or talked about how one is entitled to use deadly force in defense of their life if they are in REASONABLE fear of their life...none of these state laws on self defense would have been needed.

Any lawyer I would hire definitely would.

I would expect there to be an investigation to be sure that I did shoot in self defense. Just as I approve of investigation of police shootings to determine that they were necessary or reasonable according to established protocol. I do not expect any police officer to submit to shooting or other mayhem because the protocol does not allow deadly force. And I do not expect to have to submit to rape or battery or worse just because some people believe guns are not a reasonable means of self defense.

You need to get down off your high horse and come to grips with the fact that we are a nation of laws. That is what governs us and what we must live by and what gives us the protections we do have.

Personally, I really have no problem with claiming there are God given rights....but how has that worked out for most of the world?

Ever since the dawn of creation mankind has been afflicted with cruel despots, totolatarian regimes, communism, nazism, wholesale slaughter of human beings ....millions have been killed, starved to death by dictators etc.etc.

Were all these folks in the past that suffered so much covered by natural law or inalienable rights?

Did it help them. Did thee so called natural rights do anything whatsoever to stop the slaughter, the slavery, etc.?

I'll just chalk your post up here to somebody who really doesn't understand that the principles most of us are arguing here do not in any way negate that we are a nation of laws. Nor are we arguing that it is not necessary for government to enforce necessary laws. You don't seem to comprehend that we are a nation that is constitutionally prohibited from passing laws that violate the unalienable rights of the people.

We were the first and remain the only country founded and governed on that basic principle. It has produced the most free, generous, prosperous, innovative, and strong nation the world has ever known.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government …”

Yet there is not a specific list of rights that are considered inalienable in the Constitution such as self defense...all one can say is that the right of self defense is merely referred or alluded to in the constitution..... It took specific action by the States to make self defense legal.

Thus without a government to secure the rights....they are of no practical use...except in philosophical or religious discussions.

What made America great was the establishment of a government that secured the belief in liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.

So what made America different? Why is it that most of mankind has suffered under totolitarian regimes of the most brutal nature?

What was unique about America that allowed liberty to flourish?

I would say it was the religious beliefs of most of the people of that time...many had fled here seeking religious freedom.

So I think in essence we would agree on that. Yet, my point is that one cannot rely on idealism, beliefs of a religious nature, natural rights etc. in and of themselves....there must be some who are willing to fight, to die to secure those beliefs....yet even if there are many willing to fight and die for their beliefs....there is no guarantee of success. Look at the South....fervent believers willing to fight and die to preserve their culture and society....yet they were defeated. Many if not most struggles for liberty and freedom around the world have failed.

Even here there is a contant struggle for liberty,freedom of speech etc. It appears that we are beginning to lose that fight and may well wind up a marxist/sociialist nation. Political correctness is replacing our historic devotion to liberty.

 

[MacTheKnife]

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

The did not give us those rights. We already had them. The Constitution was intended to allow a central government ability to SECURE and DEFEND those rights be welding together individual states into a nation and enacting such laws and regulation as necessary for them to operate as a single nation and prevent them from doing economic or physical violence to each other. The federal government was given no authority to assign rights to any person or dictate to any state what rights it must authorize or recognize.

'Unfortunately, no divine origin for human rights can be judiciously advanced since there is no evidence of such divinity, much less evidence of the existence of rights that demonstrably emanate from God.

An additional problem is that there is not one God that is universally recognized and thus we are left to decide if it is the moral code of Yahweh, Allah, or Brahman that should prevail. To anchor rights on a divinity is to admit that there is no evidence to support the existence of universal human rights.

Very much aware of these issues, Enlightenment thinkers and the Founding Fathers sought to anchor human rights in nature as a matter of natural law. But, in seeking to extrapolate rights from nature, liberal thinkers filled their arguments with references to what God had ordained, or granted. John Locke posited his “law of nature” linked to “men being all the workmanship on one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker.” And Jefferson noted that the moral law of nature is “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator.”

These classical expositions of natural law retain the philosophical problem that if natural rights come from God, then proof of their existence depends on proof of God’s existence. To address this, modern thinkers have developed a number of more secular natural rights theories that do not originate with a Divinity. But it is this genre of issues that have led some philosophers to mock belief in human rights as “one with belief in witches and unicorns” (Alasdair MacIntyre) or “nonsense upon stilts” (Jeremy Bentham).

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights declares that human rights flow from “the inherent dignity of the human person.” This too can be a problematic concept, as no universal agreement can be reached as to what is needed for a life of dignity. Some will claim that a vacation home on the beach is an absolute necessity for a life worthy of a human being, others require multiple consorts. Who is to tell?

Totalitarian regimes take advantage of this philosophical quandary to subordinate the individual to the state. Since governments hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force, we need individual rights to protect ourselves from the involuntary servitude to others demanded by collectivism.

Our best intellectual argument is that each individual is morally an end in himself/herself and not a means to the ends of others. This means that individual rights are our defense against collectivism. Individual rights may, or may not be, God given, or inherent, according to our personal beliefs. Human rights may just be an aspiration or an artifact, but in a social context, they are what we require to live in freedom.'

This article first appeared in the Miami Herald.







José Azel 149 Posts 0

I'll take my cue from the founding documents and my personal convictions rather than from an op-ed written by somebody who doesn't believe in the principles they set down for the people's considerations.

Times have changed....do you think any of our founders would have approved of homersexual marriages? Do you think the founders would have approved of allowing muslims devoted to jihad and the destruction of Christians to come and live in America?

Reliance on the Constitution to preserve our rights is to be naive....The Constitution is a living document meaning it can be changed and it has been changed many times.

It is also a document that is undertood in different ways by different people....with the Supreme Court being the ultimate judge on what it really means.

If the majority of people suddenly decided they wanted to make Christianity illegal and the media went along with them do you think the Supreme Court would allow it....probably not the one we have now....but if you get enough liberal on it...very possible.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

If you ever have to use deadly force to protect your life and are brought to trial...do you think your lawyer will talk about God Given rights or natural rights?

Of course not...he will immediately trot out the state law on self defense.

You are arguing theory and pointing out philosophical concepts which influenced the founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

What I am talking about is the law of self defense....and how it is the state law on self defense that will protect you if you did follow the law in your defense of your life.

Again if the Constitution had spelled out or talked about how one is entitled to use deadly force in defense of their life if they are in REASONABLE fear of their life...none of these state laws on self defense would have been needed.

Any lawyer I would hire definitely would.

I would expect there to be an investigation to be sure that I did shoot in self defense. Just as I approve of investigation of police shootings to determine that they were necessary or reasonable according to established protocol. I do not expect any police officer to submit to shooting or other mayhem because the protocol does not allow deadly force. And I do not expect to have to submit to rape or battery or worse just because some people believe guns are not a reasonable means of self defense.

You need to get down off your high horse and come to grips with the fact that we are a nation of laws. That is what governs us and what we must live by and what gives us the protections we do have.

Personally, I really have no problem with claiming there are God given rights....but how has that worked out for most of the world?

Ever since the dawn of creation mankind has been afflicted with cruel despots, totolatarian regimes, communism, nazism, wholesale slaughter of human beings ....millions have been killed, starved to death by dictators etc.etc.

Were all these folks in the past that suffered so much covered by natural law or inalienable rights?

Did it help them. Did thee so called natural rights do anything whatsoever to stop the slaughter, the slavery, etc.?

. 'You don't seem to comprehend that we are a nation that is constitutionally prohibited from passing laws that violate the unalienable rights of the people'.

Wrong again.................Things Congress is prohibited from:


Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from six specific areas of legislation.

However, the first limit placed on congressional power was a limit on regulating the slave trade which did not extend beyond the year 1808. Article I Section 9 also prohibited Congress from imposing direct taxes, but this was overturned in 1913 with the adoption of the 16th Amendment. Today, there are four remaining relevant powers denied to Congress in the U.S. Constitution: the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws, Export Taxes and the Port Preference Clause.

Nothing in the Constitution whatsoever about prohibiting Congress from passing laws regarding inalienable rights as you claim[/quote]