The right to life

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

The Declaration of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

I'm not sure about anyone else out there but, as I see it, having a right to life would include a right to self-defense, a right which would include the right to keep and bear arms.

What happens to that right if and when a government impairs, burdens or works to eliminate it?

[COLGATE4]

1. It means the State can't take your life without due process.

Has nothing to do with self defense.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. What if the state or those empowered through it seek to take a person's life without due process?

Those persons have a right, even a duty, to fight back.

[COLGATE4]

4. Then you fight it through the legal process. Not

by 'self-defense'. It's apples and oranges.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. How do those being murdered by a corrupt state employ the legal system?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. hmmm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Does that mean you're in favor of capital punishment? n/t

[COLGATE4]

15. Whether I am or not, it's part of the legal system in

various States (and was part of all of them at one time).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. The idea of self-defense has been codified over millennia

Many people have explained it in many ways. Your preconception that rights have relevance only in light of how they're being expressed is simply an aberration.



Being prepared is no more and no less than wisdom.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. RW rabble rousers, the lot of them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Maybe but they do have...

...a WAY with words.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. You understand, that since the OP is about the Declaration of Independence

your appeals to the legal system are rather moot. The DOI states that the "legal system" had become so injurious to the well-being of the people that the people were within their rights to abolish that system.

There was no legal system by which they assumed the right to rebel (and no legal system grants such a right). The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were still more than a decade away.

The legal system is not a pre-self existing thing in and of its own being, it is a construct put forth by the people to protect their rights, both as individuals and in common. The people can give it nothing that they do not first possess within their natural selves.

When that system, through the designs of the ambitious or the negligence of the apathetic, becomes more of a threat than a protector the people have, by that same power by which they first constructed the government, the right to amend or abolish it. The people are not beholden to a political entity simply because it is a political entity. People are real, political entities are merely abstractions.

If we have police it is because we acknowledge the right to be unmolested in our homes and businesses and undisturbed in public. We give them the power to act on our behalf but it is still a power that we first possess as individuals. If the police are not present or are unwilling to assist or -- worse still -- the perpetrators of the threat the right of self-defense still exists.

To deny someone the power to do so and prosecute them if they retain the means should disturb us.

[COLGATE4]

28. Reads like something Cliven Bundy would approve of. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. You sound too embarrassed to admit you lack a counter argument.

[ileus]

6. So self defense shouldn't be legal?

[COLGATE4]

14. Of course self defense is legal. It's an integral part of

the law. It's just not part of the Constitutional guarantee of "Life".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. The citation in the OP is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. Now you're just being picky. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. Guilty as charged.

[jmg257]

2. Has someone passed an act somewhere removing "self-defense" from Justification

for the use of deadly physical force??

Is the only means of self-defense a gun? No doubt it can be an effective option.

Lately, many courts seem to think as long as there is an alternative available, restrictions of certain arms does not interfere with your right to self-defense. In fact, some say there may be compelling reasons for govt to attempt to limit your choices - usually involving protecting the right to life of others is given as a base cause.


"Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person..."
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force.


The natural right of defending life was not given up by the people.
It is of a such a nature that it can't be.

"But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc. "

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. No but they seem to be working on it n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. What should be the penalty for self defense with a prohibited weapon?

[jmg257]

13. Why would someone have a prohibited weapon?

Seems that would be illegal.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Yes, it would be illegal. Hence my use of the term "prohibited." Please answer my question --

What should be the penalty for legitimate self-defense with a prohibited weapon?

[jmg257]

19. What is/are the charge(s) for possession of said illegal weapon?

Are there associated defenses to that/those charges?
How was the illegal weapon obtained? Are there charges involved there?

These standards would seem appropriate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. In other words, and contrary to your initial post, you would support

de facto abolish the right to self-defense through a ban on the means of self-defense.

[jmg257]

21. Not sure where I said that. I do understand that numerous weapons

are illegal to obtain. I understand that lots of weapons are quite legal to possess and quite appropriate to use for defense.
I understand that some locals/municipalities/etc. prevent the possession of weapons that may be put to good use. I also understand that certain people are barred from possessing many weapons appropriate for defense, even weapons that are legally available to others.

I may not agree with, or like, all the different combinations created, or the laws/restrictions involved, but I tend to choose to abide by the law. I have not had to make a decision to break the law in order to feel adequately prepared for self-defense by possessing a certain weapon.

Others mileage may vary. Much depends on what 'you' fear and what's worth what to 'you'.

So, in other words, I do not support a total ban on means of self-defense. Nor would I support the removal of Justification.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. It seems to me the debate ought to be centered more on whether an instance of self-defense was

justified, not the means in which it was carried out. Laws that seek to ban X, Y or Z subordinate the right of self-defense to mere words on paper.

[COLGATE4]

30. You are dealing with two separate legal issues.

One, the right to self defense. Two, the penalty for using a prohibited weapon in doing so. You can't conflate the two into some new 'super-right' whereby defending yourself with an illegal weapon exonerates you from charges arising from that illegal weapon. Each issue has to be dealt with in turn through the legal system at an appropriate time and place.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. That's like saying --

"We're not outlawing your right to believe in God, we're just banning all religious texts."

[COLGATE4]

32. That doesn't even make sense. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. You claim to acknowledge the right to self defense but you're content with banning the means

to effectively defend one's self and others.

If a law such a gun control, which is really nothing more than mere words on paper, denies someone the means to effectively exercise their rights then the law is in error. It would be the same as using the law to ban religious texts -- the means by which someone exercises their religious liberty -- while claiming to recognize religious liberty.

For example, if a minor, who is not legally old enough to own a weapon under the law used a weapon that was prohibited by law to fend off a sexual assault I would argue that the right to self defense takes priority over the prohibitions of age and device and as such no charges should be held against the would-be victim.

[COLGATE4]

37. You would argue that and you would lose.

You cannot take two separate actions governed by two separate laws and insist that exercising your rights in the one exempts you from punishment for the other. The law doesn't work that way.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. The law is not a naturally occuring thing, it is only a human construct.

The law could easily be written to say --

"Thou shall not possess a sword...

"...but they who strike a man who seeks set upon them for unlawful purposes shall be held blameless."

All that is required would be for the law to be written. In fact, the law could be written to demand the sacrifice of cute puppies because the law is merely whatever we make it to be.

We endeavor to make Laws that are Right but a thing is not Right simply because it is the Law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. The action of self-defense stands apart from possession of a banned weapon

You can defend yourself with bare hands or an M134 minigun. Choosing to illegally acquire the minigun should be a crime for which a punishment is applied. There should be no punishment for using whatever is at hand for self-defense.

[COLGATE4]

35. "Choosing to illegally acquire the minigun should be a crime

for which a punishment is applied".

I completely agree.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. and???

You seem to imply that taking actions in self-defense are justified.
Is there a reason to prefer or eschew a specific means for defense?
If the right to life doesn't imply a right to self-defense, what does?

[COLGATE4]

38. No right is unlimited or unqualified.

The punishment for using a prohibited weapon did not prevent you from exercising your right to self defense. We as a society have chosen to exclude the use of certain weapons by certain people. If you choose to defend yourself using an excluded weapon you still have to face the charges for that violation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Since...

..."The punishment for using a prohibited weapon did not prevent you from exercising your right to self defense." Please elaborate on the purpose of making certain weapons illegal.

[COLGATE4]

54. Because of the danger their use presents to the public.

E.G. Machine guns. Only allowed under certain circumstances. Generally prohibited to the public at large. Sawed-off shotguns. Too easy to conceal and extremely dangerous. Totally prohibited.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. That sounds about right

thanks.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. Handguns are easier to conceal than than sawed-off shotguns.

And it should be noted that nowadays most Controllers flip-out over the idea of openly carried arms.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. It is illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater only if there is not a fire. If there is a fire

-- a legitimate need -- the word is perfectly legal to use because it's use is appropriate for the circumstance and the consequences arising from its use are not held against the user.

[jmg257]

43. Are you talking about charging the person for USING the illegal weapon

in justified defense?

Or for possessing (and possibly illegally obtaining) the illegal weapon in the 1st place?

Seems 2 separate things.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. Use implies possession.

[jmg257]

45. But you likely would not be charged for USING it if you were justified

since defense of self or/and others gives a defense of privilege to justify use of a weapon.

Doesn't seem to help with charges stemming from why you had the illegal weapon, how you got it, or possibly where you used it (i.e. school, etc. that made possession illegal).

Interesting Article:

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/03/can-use-of-illegally-carried-gun-harm-claim-of-self-defense/#axzz40Y3qUTaW

"Classic Self-Defense: Illegal Weapon Should Not Matter
From a classical self-defense perspective, whether the weapon used in self-defense is lawfully possessed doesn’t really matter. The five core elements of self-defense – innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance, and reasonableness – don’t make any reference whatever to the legality or illegality of one’s defensive weapon.

Entire Claim of Self-Defense Can Hinge on Defendant’s Credibility
Nevertheless, the use of an unlawfully carried weapon in self-defense -indeed, the mere unlawful possession of the weapon can have profoundly negative effects on your self-defense claim under certain circumstances."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. But had the person been obedient to the law they would not have been able to use the

weapon for defense. Therefore the law served no good purpose and was an impediment to self-defense.

What good is a law if it impedes on natural rights duly exercised?

[jmg257]

47. Depends on what the legislation is targeted to accomplish.

And when related to self-defense, what other viable means are left available.

It is the legislature's job to make policy judgments, and decide if there is an important or compelling interest for the community at large (reducing crime, suicides, accidents, mass murder, etc.) even though the ability of defense may be affected.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. We're still waiting to see a recent gun control proposal that

doesn't infringe upon rights and would actually perform as advertised. So far it seems to be little more than throwing everything against the wall just to see what sticks with not only a lack of concern for rights and practicality but an actual contempt for such things.

[jmg257]

58. It seems many laws are going to "infringe upon rights" at some point.

As courts would agree, including the USSC, most rights are not unlimited.

Would a Universal background check combined with universal registration work to reduce the number of straw purchases?
Would registration help in reducing the number of illegal weapons?

How severe an affect (if any) would registration have on someone's right to self-defense?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Registration is the antecedent to confiscation.

[COLGATE4]

83. (S)he refuses to acknowledge the fact that these are two separate,

discrete events. To his/her thinking, self defense and the concomitant use of an illegal weapon during that self defense somehow magically become combined into one occurrence, for which the use of the illegal weapon in self defense somehow is supposed to exempt the violator from any punishment arising from that possession and/or use. Needless to say, this is not a theory supported by any statute or case law.

[jmg257]

88. More than that. I get the notion they feel that any

law which restricts one's access to a weapon (any weapon?) suitable for self-defense is a bad law.

Self-preservation....instinct, human nature, first law of nature, fear, whatever - self-preservation is an important and compelling interest.

Of course, many people feel just the same way - about self-preservation, and so think control laws are GOOD.

"In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind...
In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."

Brutus

[COLGATE4]

89. I completely agree. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. And again...

Is there a reason to prefer or eschew a specific means for defense?
If the right to life doesn't imply a right to self-defense, what does?

[COLGATE4]

48. What you fail to understand - or do not want to

acknowledge is that the issue is not one of eschewing a specific means of self defense. In a case of self defense the means by which you achieved it are not important. The only question is whether you were justified in using the highest degree of self defense, i.e. lethal force. It doesn't matter whether you defended yourself with a knife, a baseball bat, a screwdriver, a frying pan or a gun, legal or illegal. The legal status of the weapon has no bearing on your claim of self defense.

By the same token, if you are in possession of an illegal weapon the manner in which you put it to use is immaterial. You can carry it, put it in your night stand or wave it around. If you are caught with it then you will to take the consequences the law determines are appropriate for posessing an illegal weapon.

The two are not connected and, as should be clear from the above, do not have any direct relation between them. Your right to self defense can be (and is) conditioned on a series of other factors - the Castle Doctrine, for example; the duty to retreat; the proportionalty of force used to the force resisted, etc. It is not conditioned on the type of instrument you used in order to effect your self defense. You have no right to possess an illegal weapon. It is not conditioned by anything, up to and including the reasons for which you have it. IF you are caught with it you will be found guilty and pay a penalty of either fine, imprisonment or both.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. acknowledging your refusal to answer (eom)

[COLGATE4]

51. Unbelievable. Stick a fork in me - I'm done.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. re: "Stick a fork in me..." That would be an assault n/t

[COLGATE4]

56. If you want to play lawyer, first learn a little law.

That would be a battery, not an assault. Thanks for playing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. I have a veritable...

...battery of batteries, both AA and AAA.

OTOH:
-I wouldn't choose a fork as a weapon.
-I wouldn't play lawyer unless I could bill.

I am interested in why you believe that a right to life would not imply a right to self-defense.

[COLGATE4]

61. You have it backwards. A right to self-defense implies

a Right to Life. That's why it's recognized in essentially every Code of Law ever compiled.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. I submit that any codification in law...

...would, of the nature of the law, address interpersonal activities. I hold rights as aspects of humanity. The law addresses activities that would infringe my rights rather than how I might work to secure them.

I don't view a code of laws as a source of rights rather I see rights as a guide for codifying laws.

[COLGATE4]

66. Interesting. Impractical, but interesting.

Hope you never have to have recourse to the legal system. It might be quite a disappointment.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. Why should the legal system be different? n/t

[ileus]

7. My life is the only reason I need to own a firearm.

Toss in the lives of my wife and kids and there's no wiggle room for argument that firearms are and always should be a individual right.

Without being able to protect yourself and family nothing else matters....not food, water, shelter, community...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. works for me n/t

[guillaumeb]

53. And if you take the life of another with your gun?

There is an endless parade of stories about gun owners accidentally shooting innocent people while showing off their toys.

Or shooting a family member coming in the house late at night.

Or shooting through a door at an imagined invader.

Does anyone's right to parade around with a gun (to fulfill whatever fantasies they entertain) weigh above a victim's right to life?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. So far the danger of...

...a parade is death by boredom.

Follow the rules of safety and your won't have any of those problems.

[guillaumeb]

59. Tell that to the countless victims who die every year

in spite of all these gun carriers following safety rules.

I find your remark to be dismissive and amazing, considering how very many deaths are caused by guns in the hands of frightened gun owners every year. Do you have no feelings for innocent victims?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. Yes, great sympathy for all innocent victims

That's why I continue to engage folks about what can (and what should not) be done.

[beevul]

64. How many is that?

...caused by guns in the hands of frightened gun owners every year...

How many is that, exactly?

[guillaumeb]

70. Even one is too many. Agreed?

[beevul]

72. I'm not going to agree or disagree on anything until you substantiate your claim.

Whether I agree or disagree is inconsequential to you substantiating your claim.

[guillaumeb]

74. 30,000 gun deaths a year is an obscenity.

Countless well describes the total.

Gun homicide (excluding suicide)
2010: 8,874

2011: 8,653

2012: 8,897

2013: 8,454

2014: 8,124
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Now why do you not explain that some of these might be justified? With exact examples. Gun owners generally seem to feel the need to justify some deaths as unavoidable. One way to sleep at night.

[beevul]

76. Thats an answer to a question I didn't ask.

...considering how very many deaths are caused by guns in the hands of frightened gun owners every year. ...

How many was the question, and that statement is the context.


Substantiation please.

[guillaumeb]

78. I said "very many". How many is too many? Or how many must there be

before you admit that there just might be a problem?

[beevul]

80. I know what you said.

I said "very many".

I know what you said:

"...considering how very many deaths are caused by guns in the hands of frightened gun owners every year. ..."

How many is "very many"?

Substantiate your claim.

Or how many must there be before you admit that there just might be a problem?

I've never said there isn't a problem, but that doesn't mean I agree with you on what the problem is.

[TeddyR]

69. "Countless victims"?

I see the occasional story about someone accidentally shooting someone else (I would favor mandatory firearms safety training for gun owners - would probably prevent some of that), and even fewer stories (but no less tragic) about someone accidentally shooting a family member they mistake for an intruder. But "countless"? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[guillaumeb]

71. Perhaps an attempt on your part to minimize a problem?

I suppose that makes it easier for you to ignore it.

[beevul]

73. "Projection, Your Honor."

Perhaps an attempt on your part to minimize a problem?

No, that was him questioning your attempt to maximize it.

"Countless".

[guillaumeb]

75. Post 71. Explain away.

[beevul]

77. Post 73. Explain away.

"Countless"

[TeddyR]

79. Absolutely not

Your hyperbole implies we can't count the victims

[guillaumeb]

81. The FBI counted them for me.

Now, justify them by explaining about your right to carry, even if by carrying lives are lost.

[TeddyR]

82. Show me the stats

Where the FBI counted the ("countless&quot victims of accidental shootings? I'm pretty sure that no lives have been lost based on my right to carry, since I've never shot anyone. Maybe we should put criminals who use guns in prison for life - what do you think? Regardless of the severity of the crime, if you have a gun during the commission of a crime, life for you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

92. I think I've been saying that...

...repeated violent crime convictions should result in a life sentence.

[guillaumeb]

94. That sounds nice, but what percentage of the homicides are committted by repeat offenders?

And how many are accidents due to carelessness, intoxication, or other reasons?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

95. According to the CDC...

...there were 586 "unintentional" homicides involving a firearm in 2014.

"After analyzing a large volume of data, our study found that none of the released homicide offenders committed another homicide, but approximately one-third of both the felony homicide offenders and general altercation precipitated homicide offenders do re-offend with new violent or drug offenses."

http://nj.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Among_Homicide_Offenders.pdf


I might also say that re-offending involving a murder may likely depend on the length of time the study was conducted. A person released after a crime as violent as murder is likely to have been in for a long term to start with. One group of offenders of which I am highly suspicious are the domestic violence offenders. I can understand things getting "heated" and arguments escalating but once a partner is murdered. the offender, if they're ever released, should at least be monitored and registered for life.

[TeddyR]

96. There was a story in the Washington Post

This past year (no idea when but I could probably find the article) about how the massive spike in murders here in DC was because a bunch of violent felons were committing new crimes. So at least in that instance the murders were because individuals with prior felony convictions were committing new crimes.

[stone space]

84. I have a right to Nuclear Weapons, because, "Right to Life".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

85. Well maybe but you certainly a right to hyperbole but just a few questions

Will that be OC or CC?

OD green or death's head black?

Paper or plastic?

[GGJohn]

86. Oh, this tired old argument again?

[stone space]

87. I'm not the one who brought up this tired old "right to life" arguement for weapons.

Oh, this tired old argument again?

That would be the OP.

[GGJohn]

91. No, instead you bring up a tired old meme that's been debunked

numerous times.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

93. Actually the argument was about self-defense

Since self-defense IS a valid pursuit where a right to life is acknowledged, the use of weapons (arms as refereed to in some circles) for self-defense is a valid corollary.

I will point out here that references to strategic weapons having area or theater wide effect are essentially both straw-men and non-sequiturds.

[jmg257]

90. No worries - as long as you were not negligent in its use!

"If a person inflicts injury upon a third person while attempting to defend herself, the courts will typically not find a cause of action in the absence of negligence."

"When one accidentally injures a third party while justifiably using force in self-defense, there is no liability if one did not act recklessly, negligently, or intentionally."

Apparently any law that undermines your capability for self-defense is a bad law!