I'm just amazed at how people can judge other individuals based on this one action and then condemn them to death. If criminals could never turn things around, why wouldn't we just execute everyone for any crime at all? We may as well start killing 15 year olds for shoplifting - they'll likely not amount to anything.
I'm just amazed at how people can judge other individuals based on this one action and then condemn them to death. If criminals could never turn things around, why wouldn't we just execute everyone for any crime at all? We may as well start killing 15 year olds for shoplifting - they'll likely not amount to anything.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
sweet, I can shoot people in the back in plain sight of a plain clothes officer and get off scot free!
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,389
- 19,707
- 146
Taking a life of a criminal in the commission of a crime in defense of your person, property or innocent victims is not vigilantism, no matter how you try to spin it that way.
Vigilantism is the summery punishment of criminals AFTER THE FACT. It is not individual citizens protecting their persons and property, it is individuals and groups chasing down criminals after the fact and exacting their own justice rather than allowing law enforcement to do it.
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
They were told to stop, they did not. They were killed while committing larceny.
FYI it's kind of ironic how you mentioned Zimbabwe which is a nation where the murderers, criminals and thiefs have the right away and the innocents get slaughtered...
Using your example why do cops sometimes kill bad guys before they are allowed a fair trial?
I think there are many, many people who would disagree with you on this fact. I'd imagine that's why this "castle law" doesn't appear on the books of all 50 states.
I think the cops do it because they are being threatened, not because they criminal runs away with a TV.
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
Police are, in theory, trained to use judgement and experience to determine when the force is necessary (I know it doesn't always work out this way). Joe citizen is not typically trained in this manner and is therefore more likely to make an error in judgement in situations like this.
The way you are talking we should just get rid of the police, hand out guns to every citizen and let everyone sort themselves out. Sounds like a great idea.
KT
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
You mean like maybe allow people to own guns and defend themselves and their properties...
like..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Why allow them to have guns if they can't use them?
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
A "well regulated" militia should be able to use them when it is reasonable and within the law. Giving a gun to every citizen will almost certainly remove the ability to have a "well regulated" militia and we will end up with many more cases like the one here, which is not a good thing at all.
KT
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,389
- 19,707
- 146
You are aware that the Miltia mentioned in the Bill of Rights is literally "every able bodiied citizen."
The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Haha, I was just about to post the same thing.
This isn't even an issue of gun ownership. I'm all for Horn's right to own a gun. Unfortunately, he has no right to shoot people in the back when they're trying to escape with things stolen from his neighbor's home.
Or maybe that's amendment 2.5?
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
Ah, I see now. I misunderstood the word "militia". I was equating it to the police here, which was my idea of a "well regulated militia", but I was obviously mistaken.
KT
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
It's pretty obvious. The militia is the citizenry and vice versa. If the citizens weren't armed, there could be no militia.
What you just did here is provide fodder for them to pretend that this case was a victory for their 2nd amendment rights (even though that was NOT involved here at all). And look how Amused just jumped on that straw man with religious fervor!
So thanks but no thanks.
edit: typo
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
Yes, I misnterpreted. My apologies. Militia is not a word that comes up very often, if ever, around here.
KT
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter