The right to bear arms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

I don't think you'll like hearing this, Emil, but with that attitude you'd fit right in here in Texas.

---

To be honest, I don't think I would fit into the USA. I would like to think of myself as superior to those who view force as the answer to threats, but the reality is that to arm oneself in the face of liberal bleating that it is better to be robbed than to kill a robber who may be prepared to kill, is a question of natural justice, yet alone human instinct. This is a rhetorical question, because I know exactly how we arrived at this insanity that the criminal is worthy of consideration. But for the benifit of the uninitiated: how the hell did we arrive at this sick conclusion?

I had a teacher who shot and killed an intruder. That act destroyed his life. A taser gun probably would have been a better choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I had a teacher who shot and killed an intruder. That act destroyed his life. A taser gun probably would have been a better choice.

---

Well an intruder is an intruder who may be armed with intent to use a weapon. I don't know if tasers are available to the general public but I would much prefer to ensure my personal safety with a firearm because, as I said, I don't care what happens to a burglar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Well an intruder is an intruder who may be armed with intent to use a weapon. I don't know if tasers are available to the general public but I would much prefer to ensure my personal safety with a firearm because, as I said, I don't care what happens to a burglar.

---

My brother was a thief. He died in prison. I cared. Our mother cared. We weren't proud of him, but we loved him very much. I would never steal anything from anyone, but I value life over property. Things are replaceable. People are not.

You should watch Oz, Emil. I appreciate your passion on this subject, even though our priorities are different.

Maybe tasers should be more widely available than guns? Just an idea. My country is broken and stupid and sick. I don't want us to be a third world nation any time soon.

V- I thought your brother was murdered?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buh4Bee

V- I thought your brother was murdered?

---

He was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

... the first grade teacher who heroically hid her students from the shooter... and was murdered as a result? How much time has been spent on the life of this teacher who protected her children in spite of her age... in spite of the fact that she was employed in a profession that has been virtually demonized and denigrated by politicians who repeatedly call for "accountability" as if their demands for job security and decent pay are unreasonable and selfish?

What of Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy... the Teacher's Aides who died trying to protect their children? I have worked with any number of Teacher's Aides over the years and am well aware of their dedication to their students... in spite of the fact that they are grossly underpaid.

Why, indeed, do we continue to glamorize the killers... waste time analyzing their motivations, their lives, etc... while ignoring the victims... and the heroes?

---

I believe this is another piece to the story that people forget.

I appreciate the quote here, as I lack the emotional restraint at this time to try to explain this issue as well as the few teachers on this thread have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

To be honest, I don't think I would fit into the USA. I would like to think of myself as superior to those who view force as the answer to threats, but the reality is that to arm oneself in the face of liberal bleating that it is better to be robbed than to kill a robber who may be prepared to kill, is a question of natural justice, yet alone human instinct. This is a rhetorical question, because I know exactly how we arrived at this insanity that the criminal is worthy of consideration. But for the benifit of the uninitiated: how the hell did we arrive at this sick conclusion?

---

Because they are still human beings.

I was being facetious. I'm sure you wouldn't, mainly because I think you take great pride in being superior to probably just about everybody. And even though you cannot let a single chance to make a snide remark about the U.S.A. go by, you really don't know anything about this country, or us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

My brother was a thief. He died in prison. I cared. Our mother cared. We weren't proud of him, but we loved him very much. I would never steal anything from anyone, but I value life over property. Things are replaceable. People are not.

You should watch Oz, Emil. I appreciate your passion on this subject, even though our priorities are different.

Maybe tasers should be more widely available than guns? Just an idea. My country is broken and stupid and sick. I don't want us to be a third world nation any time soon.

---

I'm glad your brother had you and your mother, Varenne. Even though he did something wrong, it would be more damaging to us as humans to be unable to forgive and to harbor anger. I'm sure he realized that what he did was wrong and would have liked a chance to live his life as a better person.

My apologies, rereading this, it was insensitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

Personally, I'm not prepared to kill somebody for stealing my TV.

---

They can have my TV.

I can't think of anything in our house that someone would want. There are some plants and a cat. There's a piano. There are some watercolors and etchings that could be replaced for under $200 each. If they take the computers, it would be a good excuse to get something up-to-date. I don't think they'd want the books. The valuables are all online or in the cloud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

I'm glad your brother had you and your mother, Varenne. Even though he did something wrong, it would be more damaging to us as humans to be unable to forgive and to harbor anger. I'm sure he realized that what he did was wrong and would have liked a chance to live his life as a better person.

---

Thanks, Qimi. That's sweet of you to say. He was trying to help my mom out of a crisis and he made a bad decision. He would have turned things around under different circumstances. I miss his wit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buh4Bee

My apologies, rereading this, it was insensitive.

---

If this is for me, no worries, BB. If it's not, disregard. :)

I would have to say I offer no sympathy to your brother Varenne. Maybe he was a nice guy, but he made a bad choice, and he paid for it. That's what you get for turning to crime.

Also I would think that a lot of the time you wouldn't have to kill the intruder, pointing a gun at them should be enough to make them leave. And if not, then that's their fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

Because they are still human beings.

I was being facetious. I'm sure you wouldn't, mainly because I think you take great pride in being superior to probably just about everybody. And even though you cannot let a single chance to make a snide remark about the U.S.A. go by, you really don't know anything about this country, or us.

---

I should think that it's practically impossible not to know something about the USA, given that it's in the news on a daily basis and, on a discussion site, it's right and proper that one speaks as one finds. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having the discussion.

Strategically speaking, I agree, Emil. Guns are a deterrent to burglary. Here's a stat from Jeffrey Goldberg's article, The Case For More Guns (and More Gun Control); from this month's Atlantic Monthly (a left-leaning magazine):

Quote:

---

Crime statistics in Britain, where guns are much scarcer, bear this out. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, wrote in his 1991 book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, that only 13 percent of burglaries in America occur when the occupant is home. In Britain, so-called hot burglaries account for about 45 percent of all break-ins. Kleck and others attribute America’s low rate of occupied-home burglaries to fear among criminals that homeowners might be armed. (A survey of almost 2,000 convicted U.S. felons, conducted by the criminologists Peter Rossi and James D. Wright in the late ’80s, concluded that burglars are more afraid of armed homeowners than they are of arrest by the police.)

---

Here's the link to the entire article:
http://theatln.tc/S8sl47

But tactically speaking, I'm a pragmatist. So, it's 2am, El Sancho and his Señora are happily tucked in their bed when they are startled awake by a burglar crashing around downstairs, stealing their TV set. My plan is to get my people out of the house to a safe place and call the cops. We have a crappy TV anyway, and we have good homeowner's insurance. Any confrontation, armed or not, creates an extremely dangerous situation. I'll fight, but only if the flight option is taken from me (caveman instinct), in which case Señor Bandito will have to deal with the wrath of El Sancho and his old lady. La Señora may be small, but she's got fight. She knows how to shoot, but she prefers knives and chainsaws.

That's all just a hypothetical situation anyway, because any burglar who breaks into La Casa del Sancho will almost immediately be licked to death by our recklessly friendly Spaniels; either that or he'll be pressured into a game of throw-me-the-ball-and-make-it-snappy.

The first article gives a very interesting argument. That is, the right to bear arms is based on the right to self-defense, which is part of English common law. Since this right is a given, then it is illogical to make it an amendment in a constitution. In short, there's no need to state explicitly through law what is a natural right.

If this argument is followed, then it means that the second amendment is not about the right to bear arms, as that is already assumed. Instead, it takes that right and uses it to call for the formation of militias. (I am aware, though, that the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.) In short, the framers took what is a natural right (to defend oneself) and then used that as a reason to compel citizens to defend their country (by forming militias). The proof for this is that various farmers already had various arms used for hunting, defending their property, etc., but not all citizens wanted to use firearms for any reason, and there was no statute for militias. That is why following the amendment were two militia acts which were very specific about how the miltias were to be formed, what weapons were needed, etc. More than a century later, the acts were replaced by one calling for the formation of a National Guard.

With that, the basis for the right to bear arms is not the second amendment but the right to self-defense. The second amendment uses the right to self-defense and extends it to the necessity of defending the country.

The irony is that militias are not supposed to be used against the government but the opposite: they are supposed to serve the government as an armed reserve. Also, the claim that a right in inviolable and absolute is interpreted incorrectly. A right is inalienable because one possesses it by default, but it doesn't mean that no law can violate it. For example, there is a right to bear arms, but a convict may be deprived of that right. The same goes for the right to life given capital punishment.

Given that, gun control or even a gun ban does not violate the second amendment or the Constitution.

The second article very likely reveals what may be obvious: the more guns, the more gun-related crime.