Shooting

SH
No MY right to self defend is not depriving others of their right to live. I will not use my right unless MY life is threatened. That is a silly thing to assert.
 
Individual self-protection is a part of natural law. Jefferson only hinted at the tip of the iceburg in the Declaration of Independence about inalienable rights.

Life and liberty are natural rights which can be reasoned to by the idea of natural law. The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of natural rights. The fact that most of us here are treating it as such just proves the anti-federalists right.

SeattleHusker, you can read the notes of those writing the 2nd Ammendment. And you can read legal opinions in the colonies and England decades before the 2nd Ammendment was written. Individual ownership for self defense is an idea that is included in the minds of the men who wrote it. And we as Americans all accepted those ideas as a monolith in our country until the 60s or 70s. So that which was always implicit and unwritten had to be made explicit for defense.
 
I will even go a step further. If the 2nd Amendment was written to protect private, individual ownership of military grade weapons for use in militias, then we should eliminate the restrictions on them.

I would even go a step further. Standing armies should be abolished and the citizens of the US should organize as militias pooling together our privately held weapons for the purpose of protecting our communities from foreign and domestic threats. There could be federal resources included and some of the more technological roles could still be federal or a more hybrid kind of system.

We would enjoy more freedom and pay way less in taxes as a result while still maintaining security.
 
A standing army will remain necessary in today’s threat

There aren’t enough Trumps who might could afford a couple F16s ...

The job of the Fed is to defend the borders and that means a force which can do that. The people have a right to defend their person and property as well ... but. Primarily to keep in check the Govt. Period.
 
Couldn't you make that argument that since the constitution affirms the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the right to self-defense is clearly implied?

You could make that argument. That is essentially the substantive due process doctrine that strikes down abortion laws. I reject that doctrine, but if you're going to have it, there's no reason why it couldn't cover a right to self defense.
 
Last edited:
Not if I shoot them in the leg.

unwise. I expect this was presented in humor ... but just in case.

Stop the threat. The point at which it is perceived a threat to person/property and lethal force is employed ... use lethal force to stop the threat ... no warning shots.
 
That is essentially the substantive due process doctrine that strikes down abortion laws.

and as mentioned earlier about "reasonable gun restrictions" .... the hang-up is "what's reasonable?"

For the last 1/2 century, we've essentially said there are no restrictions on abortion ... and there remains a shrill contingent which demands "the woman be respected" (even if she won't respect herself) ... and meanwhile we fail to relegate the killing of another human being to the exceptionally rare circumstance from the PREDOMINANT that it is today. 60 million/counting.

The sacred cow is the right to obtain an abortion for less than the cost of a movie theater ticket.

We are WRONG in this and it will/has manifest itself in problematic arguments as well as societal (in)stability.

"The Argument" Prodigal references is sound ...
 
unwise. I expect this was presented in humor ... but just in case.

Stop the threat. The point at which it is perceived a threat to person/property and lethal force is employed ... use lethal force to stop the threat ... no warning shots.
Yes, bad attempt at humor. Agree on stopping the threat. Anyways, I have a 12 gauge shotgun as my home defense weapon. If I shoot an intruder in the leg, he aint going anywhere without a wheelchair.
 
the hang-up is "what's reasonable?"

I don't like that word in any situation. It drives me straight up the wall when people post stuff on FB or Nextdoor and say, for example, "Can anyone recommend a plumber who is reasonable?" or "I am looking for a master cylinder for a 1987 Lada for a reasonable price." How the HELL am I supposed to know what you think is reasonable? If you are looking for a very rare car part, especially, just putting "reasonable" in there is the best way to make sure you never find it.
 
Shaark92, I would settle for a smaller standing army with state militias available for threats. I just think we spend way more than we need to on military and standing federal armies can become an internal threat.
 
standing federal armies can become an internal threat.
That's true, but the world has also "progressed" with the evil/threat it presents.

A standing army of muskeeters and a few canon are woefully insufficient and not even Texas can support the requirement alone.

The bottom line is ... stop chasing "your" tail ... but as I type that, I realize the reason these things are pursued is because it makes government greater/larger ... and what government doesn't seek to become greater at whatever cost?
 
I agree that it's made up in the sense that it doesn't come from the Second Amendment, but I don't agree that it's as phony. Whether a person is charged with a crime or sued, self-defense has pretty much always been a defense. Assuming that you buy into the BS that is substantive due process (which Prof. Graglia likely does not), it wouldn't be hard to argue that the failure to honor such a right would breach a fundamental right. It's a infinity bigger stretch to find a right to abortion or gay marriage.

I've read Scalia's argument in Heller and I agree with all the above. A much, much stronger argument can be made for self-defense than abortion, gay marriage, etc.
 
They are blaming Trump because he has "encouraged Nazi behavior" and "spews hate every day". He "dog whistles Nazis and they support him". "He is a Nazi and hates Jews, blacks, brown people, puppies" blah, blah, blah
That is the general consensus by my liberal Facebook friends.
Never mind that his daughter is Jewish, and SIL is Jewish. Never mind that the man's website says he doesn't like Trump. Surprisingly, no mention of gun control. Just mocking any type of comments condoning the bomber or this shooter by Trump, as he is the one who incited both.

They are calling the shooter another "right wing nutjob" and also claim that the Mad bomber's facebook account looks "just like any other Trump supporter" And no, they do not see any parallels with the Steve Scaliese shooting. That was just a random crazy dude. This bomber is acting out Trump's secret wishes.

Please, please, please make a red wave happen, or at least only a tiny blue wave.
(They are already making comments about how their voting machines turned their straight ticket vote from D to R, so I guess they are prepping excuses just in case)
 
I think one way to deter these events is to remove the perpetrator, take him out front and beat the hell out of him. When done, shoot him in the head. Saves taxpayer money and let’s future cowards know their final moments will be misery.
 
They are calling the shooter another "right wing nutjob" and also claim that the Mad bomber's facebook account looks "just like any other Trump supporter" And no, they do not see any parallels with the Steve Scaliese shooting.

It's all about how the issue is framed. When an alleged Leftist engages in violence, his politics are rarely discussed or analyzed, and when they are, he is treated as a nutty outlier who's totally unrepresentative of the broader political movement he supports. For example, when a BLM member murders a police officer, there's a clear effort not to smear the BLM movement by directly associating him with it.

When an alleged conservative engages in violence, his politics are front and center, and every attempt is made to associate him with the broader conservative movement and make him look like a typical conservative. And if possible, they'll link him directly to conservative leaders. That's why Trump is being discussed more than the actual shooter.
 
WTF?
The CEO of the AntiDefamation League just said the way Soros is being treated is appalling.He deserves better.:whiteflag:
Of course he and Chuck Todd blamed Trump for the synagogue shooting.:brickwall:
 
more wailing about gun control. Predictable.

King, save us!

Not understanding we are ceding our responsibility to the government as well as our freedom. Living in a free society incurs risk. Be ready. That doesn't guarantee survival in these situations, of course, but a free man doesn't ask" by your leave, sir" to a plantation owner ... nor a government.
 
WTF?
The CEO of the AntiDefamation League just said the way Soros is being treated is appalling.He deserves better.:whiteflag:
Of course he and Chuck Todd blamed Trump for the synagogue shooting.:brickwall:

Overall, the ADF is a good organization. Countering antisemitism is God's work. However, they have mostly leaned Left and globalist. They're going to like a guy like Soros who is Leftist, globalist, and Jewish (though non-observant).
 
Florida man suspended .....

You may even remember, in what seems like a long time ago now, Scott Israel’s own deputies voted no confidence in his leadership by an overwhelming 85% margin

 
Last edited:
More of this needs to happen. It is a huge issue that everytime there is a shooting, the gun control advocates start screaming for more and grandstanding about how awful the NRA and gun rights advocates are.

The problem is that the safeguards that are in place TODAY are not working. In many cases like the one above the issue isn't that the safeguards inherently don't work it is that the people that are in position to provide safety are incompetent. So individual incompetence leads to death which leads to cries for more gun control. The only way to reduce incompetence is to train better and punish those who don't do their jobs. Also, talking honestly about what things can actually prevent public shootings.

Individual incompetence in the police and government should also diminish OUR reliance on THEM. Individual freedom and flexibility to allow people to defend themselves in this case is critical. For school safety, I personally would trust a posse of dads with guns on some kind of volunteer schedule more that just about any other kind of solution. But politically that isn't talked about because "MEN WITH GUNS!" types of fears.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top