Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster

[billvon]

The troubled kid that shoots up a school could quite easily, in his confused state incorrectly claim (justify to himself) he is acting according to the rights given under the constitution as promoted by the NRA and others. A vigilante seeking his personal justice outside the rule of law.

By rectifying/reforming the constitution you remove this potential justification.

No you don't. He still gets a gun and shoots up a school, claiming that the Constitution allows him to defend himself against unreasonable search and seizure.

You could change the Constitution tomorrow - nothing would change about the justifications criminals use.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No you don't. He still gets a gun and shoots up a school, claiming that the Constitution allows him to defend himself against unreasonable search and seizure.

You could change the Constitution tomorrow - nothing would change about the justifications criminals use.

Criminals are... well criminal.
Society can only benefit from the removal of the right to violence.

Maybe you could enlighten me,
If a man sets lethal traps inside his house to catch a burglar is he with in his rights to do so?

 

[billvon]

Criminals are... well criminal.
Society can only benefit from the removal of the right to violence.

There is no inherent "right to violence."

Maybe you could enlighten me, If a man sets lethal traps inside his house to catch a burglar is he with in his rights to do so?

Depends greatly on the circumstance. If that "lethal trap" is a skylight, and a thief breaks it, falls in and dies? He's probably within his rights. If that "lethal trap" is a shotgun on a tripline, and it kills the paperboy? Probably not.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is no inherent "right to violence."

but is there a right to bear a weapon of violence ( a gun)? ( remember we are discussing rights.)

if so how is the right to bear arms any different to the right to violence?
========
as an aside:
Its really hard to describe but:
I was recently sitting in my usual cafe chatting with a friend about the different levels of fear a society can live under.
The cafe had maybe 20 or so patrons and I could be almost certain not one of them was bearing arms. In fact I could extend that to suggest that even with in a 10 km radius the chance of someone (civilian) bearing arms would be highly unlikely.
Now this cafe is in one of the most troubled areas of my city, with a major psychiatric hospital about 5 km away. Homelessness, drug abuse with associated violence is endemic to the region
The level of fear is dramatically different to what I would envisage for patrons in a similar cafe in the USA.
I, for one, have never seen a civilian carrying a weapon in any city. Never been to the states btw

 

[Quantum Quack]

If that "lethal trap" is a shotgun on a tripline, and it kills the paperboy? Probably not.

if that paper boy was inside the premises committing a burglary then?

 

[billvon]

but is there a right to bear a weapon of violence ( a gun)?

Yes. And the 18th amendment makes it legal to drink alcohol. It gives people the right to drink a lot, and then get behind the wheel of a car. It does NOT give people the right to drive drunk.

Similar concept.

The cafe had maybe 20 or so patrons and I could be almost certain not one of them was bearing arms. In fact I could extend that to suggest that even with in a 10 km radius the chance of someone (civilian) bearing arms would be highly unlikely.

Was anyone drinking alcohol? Could you be sure? Do you live under a cloud of fear that one of them would get up, go to his car, drive through the wall of the cafe in a drunken haze and kill you?

The level of fear is dramatically different to what I would envisage for patrons in a similar cafe in the USA.
I, for one, have never seen a civilian carrying a weapon in any city. Never been to the states btw

I once met a woman in Belfast. We agreed to meet for dinner. A few hours before dinner, she called and said she had to cancel; the store next to the restaurant had been blown up by a suspected IRA attack just a few hours before we were going to have dinner there. We met the next night instead at a different restaurant. She said she had always wanted to visit Los Angeles but was worried about being shot in a freeway shooting.

Everyone's home town is "normal" and everywhere else is scary. It's the nature of humanity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Was anyone drinking alcohol? Could you be sure? Do you live under a cloud of fear that one of them would get up, go to his car, drive through the wall of the cafe in a drunken haze and kill you?

actually no, even with your... uhm ...extended example, as the use of violence is not a right in Australia. Culturally we have no constitutional derived inclination towards the use of violence to solve problems. We grow up and are required to learn non-violent solutions to common problems. Societal fear of violent lethal attack is greatly reduced because of it.
Homicide even as self defense still carries penalties such as manslaughter. There is no right to violent self defense.
The setting of lethal traps is illegal in fact if a burglar is hurt by such he can actually sue the owner.

 

[billvon]

actually no, even with your... uhm ...extended example, as the use of violence is not a right in Australia.

So if someone tried to rape your wife, and you struck them and caused them to flee - you would go to jail? I doubt that.

As in the US, violence is sometimes justified. It does not mean we have an inherent right to violence.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So if someone tried to rape your wife, and you struck them and caused them to flee - you would go to jail? I doubt that.

no.. you miss the point...
There is no constitutional right to use violence.
However there may be at times legal justification to do so.... )
The difference is important.
For example:
Police are armed and are legally allowed to use "reasonable" force/violence in the carrying out of their duties. It is not their constitutional right, it is a legal right.
There is nothing in our constitution that forbids violence, it simply does not grant it as a right.

 

[Quantum Quack]

sorry for the late edit

 

[Quantum Quack]

So if someone tried to rape your wife, and you struck them and caused them to flee - you would go to jail? I doubt that.

If I clocked a guy raping my wife and accidentally killed him, I would be charged with manslaughter and jail time or not, would depend very much on the circumstances. If I chased him down and then killed him I would most likely be charged with murder.

 

[billvon]

If I clocked a guy raping my wife and accidentally killed him, I would be charged with manslaughter and jail time or not, would depend very much on the circumstances. If I chased him down and then killed him I would most likely be charged with murder.

I didn't ask that. I asked if you would be prosecuted if you struck someone who was raping your wife and he ran away (presumably to a cop to have you arrested and jailed.)

 

[iceaura]

That right to bear arms is a right to use violence to solve problems.

No, it isn't.
How many times do you need to be directed to that simple, plain, obvious fact?

By rectifying/reforming the constitution you remove this potential justification.

There is no justification, and no "potential" of one. Any claimed justification is garbage, immediately. Any claim of that one would amount to a guilty plea, or not guilty by reason of insanity.
Not even the shooters are using that particular one, btw. You are spinning fantasies of motivation and mental state.

And what if they were? How many Constitutional rights are we supposed to give up because a spree shooter invokes one of them?
Let's start with the ones actually invoked. Here's one: Freedom of religion.
That one has actually been used - several times: abortion clinics and politicians by fundie Christians, nightclubs and military bases by Muslims (fundie redundant), clearly we have a problem with our Constitution, eh?
Freedom of Religion has actually been used to justify shooting and bombing.
So has Freedom of Speech - Ted Kaczinski used that one.

Consider that the right to bear arms (national defense) is different to the legal ability to bear arms (domestic)

Badly confused. For example: The right to bear arms is specifically linked to a militia, which is not national defense, and protects the "legal ability" of people (who inhabit domiciles, and are domesticated) to bear arms, which therefore cannot be legally infringed. If I have this language of yours figured out.

If a man sets lethal traps inside his house to catch a burglar is he with in his rights to do so?

No. That is settled law, varying somewhat by State in its definitions of "trap" and "lethal" and "inside" and "house" and so forth.

There is nothing in our constitution that forbids violence, it simply does not grant it as a right.

Likewise in the US.
Except we actually have one - a Constitution. You don't.
And it doesn't grant rights. It forbids their revocation and infringement. That's a significant difference.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I didn't ask that. I asked if you would be prosecuted if you struck someone who was raping your wife and he ran away (presumably to a cop to have you arrested and jailed.)

I would think in most cases my actions would be deemed reasonable unless it was found I used unreasonable force..(like cut his legs off or worse)

 

[Quantum Quack]

Likewise in the US.
Except we actually have one - a Constitution. You don't.
And it doesn't grant rights. It forbids their revocation and infringement. That's a significant difference.

Nonsense...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia

Badly confused. For example: The right to bear arms is specifically linked to a militia, which is not national defense, and protects the "legal ability" of people (who inhabit domiciles, and are domesticated) to bear arms, which therefore cannot be legally infringed. If I have this language of yours figured out.

and why do you bear arms...?

What was that militia group you no longer belong to... ?

Example: I am in the State militia of Minnesota (used to be anyway, haven't been monitoring). I am not in the National Guard. I would have to enlist for a defined period of time, undergo training, and so forth, to be in the National Guard. I would then be under the command of officers I had no role in selecting, subject to the regulations and so forth of a State military force, paid and clothed and fed and armed by the State, and obligated to participate in foreign wars and military ventures far from my community for a defined term of service not negotiable by me.

Googling: Minnesota Militia - State Guard is easy and so to is also all the spin off groups like the group called 3 percenters etc.
wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_State_Guard

So why does the Minnesota militia ( or what ever you call them ) exist?
What is their objective?
To bear arms for what purpose?
I will not post video as most of what I have seen is heavily laced with fear based bias and propaganda and totally useless for objective discussion. ( unless you want to talk about fox news bullshit)

Do you believe that groups like "3 percenters" ( membership approx 600) are legitimate and protected by the 2nd amendment in their objectives?

"Preparing for civil war" though, is often quoted in the research so far...

 

[iceaura]

Nonsense...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia

My bad - thought you were a Brit.

What was that militia group you belonged to... ?

At least three, over the years: The US or National militia, which consists of all male citizens (probably would include women, now) age 18 to something around 50 iirc; the State militia of Minnesota, which unless repealed consists of all the adult men etc resident in the State; and the county militia of a county I was living in when I looked it up, which consisted of all the adult men etc you know the drill.

Googling: Minnesota Militia - State Guard is easy and so to is also all the spin off groups

That's only the so-called "organized militia" - that's a technical term, actually, an official designation, if you read back in the history of the current National Guard. I was never a part of any "organized militia" so called. Just "unorganized militia".

Do you believe that groups like "3 percent" ( membership approx 600) are legitimate and protected by the 2nd amendment in their objectives?

The 2nd Amendment protects the individual's existing right to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to say about whether any particular gangs, clubs, ad hoc militia, armed groups of any kind, are "legitimate" or have reasonable "objectives".
Read it. It's short, clearly written, and was intended to mean what it says rather than something else.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Do you recall:

• The Charllotesville Riot? (one dead- many injured)
  
• Trumps published reaction and subsequent back down after protests.
• The removal of Steve Bannon from the Trump administration?

Do you recall just how close the USA was to the verge of civil war? A potential for war that the state police ( edit ) immediately reacted to and managed to quell. (mysterious loss of a helicopter and crew)

Tell me again how I am unjustified in suggesting that the 2nd amendment is a constitutional contradiction...driving this sort of lunacy...

 

[Quantum Quack]

My bad - thought you were a Brit.

You are kidding me? I have mentioned my nationality more times than I can count in response to your posts.

as for the British constitution ... true. They use what is referred to as a un-codified constitution. This is because unlike the USA or Australia the legal system in the UK has evolved over a thousand+ years starting well before guns or human rights were even a twinkle in some red-kneck's eye.

"...is a sum of laws and principles that make up the country's body politic." wiki

 

[Quantum Quack]

The 2nd Amendment protects the individual's existing right to keep and bear arms.

bear arms - why and what for?

 

[iceaura]

You are kidding me? I have mentioned my nationality more times than I can count in response to your posts.

My memory sucks for stuff like that - it's all anon anyway, so it's not like there's information to be relied on, and the personal attack stuff is more entertaining coming than going.

The Charllotesville Riot? (one dead- many injured)
- - -
Do you recall just how close the USA was to the verge of civil war?

This is getting bizarre. Civil war? That was barely a riot. The US has had bar fights that got more out of hand than that. The EU has had bigger soccer riots than that. The main weapon employed was a single car - not even a car bomb.

Tell me again how I am unjustified in suggesting that the 2nd amendment is a constitutional contradiction...driving this sort of lunacy...

I can't figure out where you think the 2nd Amendment was even involved.
Or the thread topic.