The 21st century reincarnation of “Make Love, Not War” has arrived.
When ’60s protesters were opposing the Vietnam War, they emblazoned the demand for sexual freedom over violence on buttons they wore on their chests. Come next fall, students at the University of Texas Austin will protest concealed handguns on campus by strapping “gigantic swinging dildos” to their backpacks.
“The State of Texas has decided that it is not at all obnoxious to allow deadly concealed weapons in classrooms, however it DOES have strict rules about free sexual expression, to protect your innocence,” reads the Facebook event created by music student Jessica Jin.
“You would receive a citation for taking a DILDO to class before you would get in trouble for taking a gun to class,” the page, which features the hashtag #CocksNotGlocks, continues. “Heaven forbid the penis.”
As of early Monday, 3,600 students had indicated online that they would participate in the action, alongside nearly 700 who are “maybe” joining in.
The “Campus (DILDO) Carry” event juxtaposes two regulations: the state bill signed this summer that will allow license holders to carry a concealed handgun throughout university campuses (including inside buildings), and the section of the Texas Penal Code which forbids individuals from displaying or distributing obscene materials.
Speaking on the Facebook page, Jin imagines that a just reconciliation of the two laws would look something like this:
“You’re carrying a gun to class? Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO.”
OK, folks. Enough is enough. Where is the common sense? Apparently it has left Texas for another state.
I am absolutely against guns on campus, concealed or otherwise, unless the campus is a commuter campus. Even then, I am not so sure. 18 year olds shouldn’t be carrying handguns. College students are defined, for the most part, by exceedingly bad judgement and being hot-headed. Most campuses are loaded with weekend warriors who attempt to drink themselves to death. (Some succeed)
Apparently some of the students agree with me and are exhibiting the bad judgement proof with their Cocks before Glocks initiative. I wish them well.
In addition to many college kids being annoying as all Hell, they are also at times, funny and creative. You might want to check out their Facebook page mentioned in the quote. Yes, I laughed.
In Texas, one must be 21 to obtain a CHL and legally carry. Only those with a CHL will be allowed to carry. Permit holders have one of the lowest rates of criminal activity of any studied group,and are far more law-abiding when compared to the population in general.
Campuses are afforded some latitude in implementation and policy, but run the risk of being sued if the policy is too restrictive.
Remember to point of the passage of this law: deter mass-murderers, rapists and other violent actors by removing the guaranty that their intended victims will be unarmed.
As for the folks who want to carry sex-toys in protest, let them. Serious students who are concerned with self defense will just laugh at them.
I saw the protest as students not wanting guns on campus. My issue with it is youth and inexperience. The alcohol factor is also a huge problem. Let’s but it this way, I would feel better about students packing heat at Brigham Young U. than at JMU.
It’s all theory until you live in a University town and see how things really are. Places that are party-driven really don’t need weapons. How about a nice Taser instead to thwart rapists?
Half the problem is, alcohol makes perfectly intelligent people loose all wisdom. That’s part of my problem with our drunk driving laws. Alcohol makes people lose control of judgement. Then we punish them for losing control. People forget where their cut off values are. I don’t think booze is going to make people smarter with guns.
I know you aren’t supposed to carry a gun when drinking. it’s all about that wisdom thing, especially when young and dumb.
You aren’t supposed to carry guns to bus stops either…its done all the time.
I don’t mind guns at commuter colleges because the alcohol factor isn’t there. No culture of party at most.
I should probably say concealed permit….I don’t like seeing anyone walking around with a nasty looking rife in public.
@Moon-howler
Who says you can’t be legally armed at a bus stop with a VA CHP? You surely can. You just can’t get on the bus. You can have one with you in your car, or as you wait on the sidewalk for your child within that magical 1000ft zone of imaginary protection, as long as you have a chp.
Now I’ll have to research Texas, but I can say that revocation due to intoxication makes up a tiny fraction of the total for revocation, and this is just .02 of 1% and the spread of revocation is not bunched at the lower limits of age.
CHP holders are backgound checked, which is why the circuit court is granted 45 full days to conduct a thorough check. Revocation is rare, due to low crime rate amongst CHP holders. When lifting the ban on concealed carry on ABC licensed establishments was being considered, antis made the same “guns and booze don’t mix” and “the streets will run red”…none of which has happened, because the GA wisely stipulated that you can drink, or you can carry concealed, but you can’t legally do both.
21 year old college students aren’t all immature “dudebros” and “likeyaknows”, and they are adults. Why does college attendance make them less responsible than the 21 year old mechanic or receptionist in the workforce, who happens to take seriously their right to self-defense?
You can’t if you are a kid. Sorry….I should have been clearer.
Its the word ALL that bothers me. 21 isn’t some magic age when you turn smart.
They can arm themselves all they want off campus and at their homes. There are other people living on campus who might not want to expose themselves to some idiot.
I am simply not going to ever say its ok for college students at a residential college to carry guns. I grew up 2 blocks from one of the best colleges in the nation. I know what I saw and over a fairly long period of time.
Throw in people away from home are often less responsible than if their parents and grandparents were right around the corner.
<"It’s all theory until you live in a University town and see how things really are. "
I live in a town with multiple universities. 21 year old adults are not the problem and, as stated, that is the age you need to be.
Anyone can come on campus armed NOW. The only thing that will happen is that you will be asked to leave. Only students and employees cannot be armed.
And its perfectly legal to carry on the bus.
You came from a major city. That’s a little different. Way different as a matter of fact.
I expect if you break the code of conduct, you are asked to leave permanently.
Steve is right. I was referring to students carrying any weapon to the bus stop.
“For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. … Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.”
Add copious amounts of alcohol and youthful indiscretion and these numbers will no doubt get worse. That is why allowing kids to bring guns to school does not make sense from a macro safety viewpoint.
I think she meant school buses, but I could have been wrong.
You are correct. I meant school stuff. You can be expelled for any weapon of any sort at the bus stop. An arrow or a misused baseball bat would do it also.
You are talking about minors. Minors have no 2A rights while attending public schools. Even I am not arguing to the contrary. While I do advocate for select volunteers background checked and trained public school staff to be armed, students should adhere to no (real) weapons policy. Poptart and finger guns ok, but zipguns and other real manufactured or improvised weapons, such as shives and shanks, cudgels or slung-shots no.
not everyone going to school is a minor. You will get expelled if you are 18 and packing any kind of weapon.
Also, adults ride school buses. There are aids, chaperones, and some staff actually ride the bus to work. (I personally would rather be dead.)
@Ed Myers
Ed,
Unfortunately, with regards to your argument, campus carry has been permitted on numerous private colleges for the last 15 years or so, and your prophecies have yet to materialize. Not surprising considering the misinformation and straight-up falsehoods you claim, backed by bogus statistics.
You need to understand something: The right to armed self-defense has been affirmed as an individual right. So arguing against guns kept in the home is a loser. The right to carry has been affirmed, so arguing against the expansion is also a loser.
Don’t be a loser, Ed. We know you hate guns, and go so far as to advocating for this disarming of police. Better that you should argue for repeal of the 2nd Amendment, as this would at least be intellectually honest on your part. I might even find a modicum of respect for you if you did.
Why would anyone want to disarm the police?
Ed called for disarming the police, back when he told his tall tale about joining a “hands up don’t shoot” rally. He advocated for police to be limited to compliance tools such as tasers and m
ace. It’s all there in your archives.
That suggestion doesn’t seem real practical to me. I think Ed needs to think about what a police officer faces on a daily basis.
30,000 deaths from firearms is a big loss of life and liberty for citizens. People have the 2A right to have guns but that does not prevent the government from attempting to make that reality safer since the right to life, express in the D.O.I. precedes and is more important than the bill of rights.
How many of those 30,000 are suicide? I believe people have the right to take their own lives, not the lives of other people.
Ed. what would you propose to stop these 30,000 deaths?
Police kill 1000 people per year with guns. Less than 50 police officers per year are killed by a gun. With the rapid decline in violent crime in the past decade and a corresponding large decrease in risk that police will be shot and killed by a perp allows us to reduce the use of guns in law enforcement and therefore have fewer dead suspects. It requires different training and a different mindset but lives could be saved if police did not routinely use guns as part of their daily work.
Where did you get your stats? Have you looked at the number of deaths in Washington and Baltimore just for this year? Both are up by about 50%.
Some of those 1000 deserve to be dead. Some people are wrongly killed. Some people are killed in self defense or because they are harming others.
Ed,
The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are law. This is just another bizarre idea that flows through your alternate reality.
Maybe Ed would rather arm the police with large sex-toys that can be used to intimidate or bludgeon suspects will attempting an arrest? What Ed doesn’t realize is the “less-lethal” tools on the LEO’s duty belt are “compliance devices” while the lethal baton and gun are classified as “self-defense” items.
Steve rejects The Declaration of Independence as a pillar of constitution law which is why he is so often wrong about the proper balance between citizen use of force and the American notion of individual freedom. Here is the opinion of a very conservative scholar regarding the rule of law:
“The American Rule of Law: Our Constitution Built Upon the Declaration”
http://www.okwu.edu/keating-center/about/
“To rightly administer the American rule of law it is necessary to acknowledge the relationship and continuity between the American Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Those documents comprise two of four making up what is recognized by our government as our nation’s organic law”
Police have my permission to use sufficient force to gain compliance, not to kill. Gaining compliance should never require killing someone. If it does then new procedures need to be developed that create non-lethal compliance. The use of a gun (police or private citizen) to gain compliance from someone else is a do-as-I-say-or-be-killed proposition. That is not civil. I accept there are cases where lethal violence may result but as a civil society with the aspiration of “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” we should have a goal of zero police or civilian killings.
@Ed Myers
“Steve rejects The Declaration of Independence as a pillar of constitution law which is why he is so often wrong about the proper balance between citizen use of force and the American notion of individual freedom.”
I never said I “rejected” the Declaration as one of the “pillars” of the Constitution. However, Ed, if you’d like to make the argument, then you will have to accept that the other “pillars” are English Common Law, Roman Law, and the Judeo/Christian moral code.
If you’d like to hold to this argument, then I will also point out that bit about “right to change or abolish”, which strengthens that whole “shall not be infringed” part of the 2A. The Declaration sates that tyrannical governments violate natural law, and free men have a right to revolt against tyranny. The 2A states that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to securing this freedom, and the citizens right to possess arms is understood, and affirmed.
@Ed Myers
“Police have my permission to use sufficient force to gain compliance, not to kill. ”
True, with the only exception being defending oneself or others against a threat of death or great bodily harm, ie. lawful self-defense. The police and the private citizen have this same right, and are subject to the same standard, (Ability, Opportunity, Intent).
“The use of a gun (police or private citizen) to gain compliance from someone else is a do-as-I-say-or-be-killed proposition.”
No, Ed. You are completely wrong, in both the common-sense aspect, and under the law. The use of justifiable (lawful) deadly force is not to affect compliance. It is for the sole purpose of defending against the threat of death and/or great bodily harm, as perceived at the moment of the threat, and subject to the “reasonable person” standard.
Also, private citizens have no power under the law to use any force (lethal or non) to affect compliance. They only have the right to use force (lethal or non) to protect against a threat of violence.
Say someone comes knocking on my door. I tell them to leave, and they refuse. I can’t pepper-spray them to get them to leave, as Ability, Opportunity, Intent has not been satisfied. I can either ignore them, or call the police and report a trespass. Now say that same person is successful at kicking my door in. I have justification to use force, including deadly force, as Ability (he kicked my door in), Opportunity (he’s now in my house) and Intent, (he kicked my door in and entered my house, knowing it was occupied). I am not getting him to leave (compliance). I am defending my person or my family (self-defense).
“Police have my permission to use sufficient force to gain compliance, not to kill. ”
Ed, we don’t recognize “policing by consent” under the law in the US. Maybe you should move to someplace that does: The UK, and become a legal “subject” rather than a citizen.
Steve this is what you said at #23: “The Declaration of Independence is not law”. SCOTUS disagrees. Bringing up natural law is an attempt to distract from your mistake.
Your opinion allows you to dismiss the right to life exposed in the D.O.I and defend terrorism by vigilante gun owners who believe that if they don’t win at the ballot box they can go to the bullet box.
The distinction between getting someone to comply with an order to “drop the gun” and self defense is hardly informative. Stand your ground is more about getting compliance because retreat would be true self defense.
No it doesn’t and I challenge you to prove it with something more than your inane ramblings. I also challenge you to prove that you are not a “jackwagon”.
Ed, some career advice; stay away from the legal profession. You’d starve. Also, some practical advice; don’t ever use force of any kind for any reason. You’d just end up doing it wrong, because simple principles of law are beyond your comprehension.
Here is the proof that the D.O.I. is part of the US Legal Code. Read the Front section that lists the composition of Organic Law.
http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter&edition=
I can see why you feel you need to carry a gun. Criminals can sense weakness and we see that weakness here when you engage in argumentum ad hominem.
You lose Ed
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the Court stated:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: “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. “While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.”
My authority comes straight from Black’s Law Dictionary, Rev. 4th Ed.
ORGANIC LAW – The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten; that law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government.
St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466, 46 S.W. 976, 42 L.R.A. 686, 86 Am.St. Rep. 575
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when a politician takes his oath to “support the Constitution,” he not only swears to uphold that document, but all the founding charters of our country, which together are called the “organic law.”[1]
The “Organic Law” is the fundamental law of the State, its constitutive principles. It is the legal foundation upon which all statutes and decisions are to be grounded. In West’s edition of the U.S. Code, the section on “The Organic Laws of the United States of America” contains such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
(1) Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 at 682, 92 S.Ct. 1332 at 1336, 31 L.Ed.2d 593 (1972), citing Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F.Supp. 1152 (Colo. 1969).
Note that my citations are 70 years more current than yours.
@Ed Myers
Principles of organic law, or natural law are incorporated in the “spirit” as well as the 5th and 14th amendments “Life Liberty Property”, but you seem to think that one cannot be deprived of them lawfully. The can, and they are…with due process.
In the case of justifiable lethal force, whether used by a police officer or a private citizen, regardless of whether or not a homicide was a result of the use of this force, there is “due process”. It is investigated and if warranted, charges are brought, and indictments issued by grand jury. A trial is conducted to determine if the accused was guilty of actual or attempted murder, manslaughter, assault, and a whole host of other lesser and included offenses. The accused may be permitted to use self-defense as an affirmative legal defense, at which time, the facts are examined to see if Ability Opportunity and Intent existed at the time of the use of force to determine if the accused was justified in using said force. If the accused is successful, he is found “not guilty”. If unsuccessful, and found guilty, a legal punishment is meted out, up to the ultimate sanction, if it is proven that the accused acted with premeditation, or if the killing was in conjunction with some other capital crime. A bank robber who shoots a cop cannot claim “self-defense” even if the cop was actively shooting at him. In either case, there is “due process”. Even when no charges are preferred or no indictment issued, there is still “due process”. In cases where there is some question, the DOJ can investigate for violations on 5th amendment grounds
Furthermore, were your original, extremely flawed premise true, EVERY killing, whether justified or unjustified would be a federal crime. “Unlawful Killing” is murder. Murder is a federal crime under very limited circumstances. Additionally, if your muddled logic were sound, the use of force training that federal, state, and local police departments are being taught would be determined to be civil rights violations, under the 5th and 14th amendments. Every US Serviceman, subject to the Constitution would be guilty of murder for every enemy killed in war.
This is why your DOI is law argument is false.
@Ed Myers
and my understanding of the law justifiable force is way more accurate than yours, unless of course you are an attorney specializing in such. By my best estimation, between that which I received while a member of the military, and as a private citizen, I’ve probably had 200 hours of instruction, delivered by JAG and civilian lawyers.
Face it Ed, your “it’s in the declaration of independence that police can’t use deadly force” is indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.
And you have yet to prove your original assertion that ” the right to life, express in the D.O.I. precedes and is more important than the bill of rights.”
The Declaration, is not in and of itself “law”. SOME of it principles are incorporated or better yet “restated” into the Bill of Rights, and natural or organic law did not begin with the Declaration of Independence, nor end with the US Constitution. Some principles of the Magna Carta were incorporated as well. The articles of confederation incorporated the principles of the Declaration, and the articles were superseded by the US Constitution when fully ratified. But the fact remains, NONE of these preceding documents are in and of themselves “law”. Only the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
But you go ahead and make your case, Ed. Bring a suit against the police for something being “Undeclarationofindependceal” and see where that gets you. Start a “Declarational Law” practice. Where does one go to get a degree in that?
A person is deprived of life without due process when they are killed by a police officer or a citizen under suspicion of attempted murder. A person cannot defend themselves in a court of law to prove they did not have intent or ability to harm someone …because they are dead. No court action can make then alive again to restore the liberty taken from them. Killing someone is nefarious because of that lack of due process.
The D.O.I. doesn’t resolve the conflict in the case where the life of the police officer is in jeopardy. The D.O.I. does not require anyone to surrender their life to someone else but does obligate government to attempt to preserve life and liberty. Police are government agents.
I’d start with a $20,000 a year bonus to any police officer that does the job without being armed with lethal force. If there are no takers then you are right that the world is too dangerous.
“A person is deprived of life without due process when they are killed by a police officer or a citizen under suspicion of attempted murder.”
WRONG! A person is deprived of life without due process when killed by a police officer or citizen when the use of lethal force is deemed unjustified, or not in self-defense. If it was done through negligence it is called “manslaughter”. If done with “malice” it is murder. If done with “malice” and “forethought” it is “premeditated murder”. None of which apply when the killing was found to be in lawful self-defense. Geez Ed, even the “organic law” you keep citing recognizes the natural right to self-defense, up to and including that which results in the death of someone else. How do you think those who wrote the Declaration of Independence planned to secure their “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness”? Harsh language and cross looks?
@Ed Myers
Ed, your circular logic is astounding. Does the hamster ever get tired of the scenery?
How can the courts determine if lethal force was justified if the primary witness is dead? They don’t. They accept the version presented by the police as fact and therefore lawful. Occasionally the curtain slips when a video emerges that shows the official police version to be fiction. Due process is corrupted if one of the parties is deceased. The courts can muddle through but it is not righteous.
@Ed Myers
Um…Ed…have you read the papers? There could be untold numbers of witnesses. Internal affairs conducts an investigation, and there’s all that “scientific” examination of the scene, autopsies etc. The Prosecutor can conduct their own investigation and often do. There’s grand jury examination of the evidence. The deceased family can advocate for an independent examination, and let’s not forget the DOJ, ready to pounce like a cat if there’s any question as to the legitimacy of the investigation…oh, and there’s the media, who can drive the narrative like no other entity.
In order for your premise to prove true, the cops, the prosecutors, the defense, the grand jury, the judge, the seated jury, the DOJ and the press would all have to conspire to deny justice to the deceased.
The same scenario would also apply to any homicide. How can any individual charged with murder, manslaughter, or any lesser included offense when someone isn’t alive to say “So and So shot and killed me”.
Or you could admit that you are wrong on too many levels to count.
Ed,
You going to argue that had the police arrived while this was in progress, lethal force wouldn’t have been justified?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/13/former-texas-am-football-star-admits-he-was-angry-so-he-picked-a-random-jogger-and-hacked-him-to-death-with-a-machete/
The lack of evidence that could have been supplied by the victim is missing and therefore no conspiracy to deny justice is needed….justice is denied because key facts are missing.
It is our D.O.I. notion of life as a birthright of all citizenry that makes killing someone as they are stealing your car an unjustified act of self defense. This is a perfect example of where personal life and liberty trumps the 2A claim of unfettered right to arms for self protection. Killing anther to preserve one’s own life is justified but killing another to protect one’s stuff is not because that would infringe another person’s right to life. Hence life and liberty supersedes the right to bear arms.
And are you going to argue that the victim, had he been armed, would not be justified in using lethal force to prevent or stop this attack, once he realize that there is a large male holding a machete? Guess you’ll point to the fact that the victim was on a bike, and therefore had the means to escape, or “flee”, but it would appear that the bike didn’t factor in the outcome.
@Ed Myers
“It is our D.O.I. notion of life as a birthright of all citizenry that makes killing someone as they are stealing your car an unjustified act of self defense.”
Someone stealing your car, without you being in the car, in front of the car, or having a loved one in the car, is not a case where any use of force is justified. There is no immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury to the victim, or the life of an innocent. Since this is the foundation of your premise, and I have proven it false, the remainder of your statement fails.
It should be. Just sayin’…..
“The lack of evidence that could have been supplied by the victim is missing and therefore no conspiracy to deny justice is needed….justice is denied because key facts are missing.”
Same as any homicide, whether involving a justifiable use of lethal force, or a cold, premeditated murder. The deceased can’t testify, and therefore 1 witnesses’ testimony can not be rendered. So, please, Ed “ColumboPerryMason” Myers, how is it that a person can be convicted of any murder, without eyewitness testimony? I mean “key facts are missing”. I’ll tell you why: preponderance of the evidence.
In your world, every homicide is a criminal act (they are not, under the law) as someone has been killed, and should be a federal case. Every police shooting, even those that meet the legal standard for justifiable use of lethal force, is a civil rights violation, even in cases where the deceased was in the process of using lethal force on an innocent, or directing it against a responding officer. If the suspect dies, then he’s been denied due process, because he can’t bring charges against the officer? And your legal foundation is the Declaration of Independence?
Sweet Buddha on a rubber raft!
I guess I don’t look so left flapping wing now, do I?
Thanks for agreeing with me that self defense cannot include protection of personal stuff. That is not the opinion of gun owners who put on bumper sticks such as “guarded by Smith and Wesson” or who post home invasion videos where the homeowner is shooting at the back of fleeing would-be robbers or women who try to shoot out the tires of a shoplifter. The legal notion that self defense does not include personal property is from the D.O.I. and not the 2A which makes no distinction between personal defense and property defense. That’s the part of this discussion you are still a little foggy on, it seems.
I think everyone might be a little fuzzy on protection of “stuff.” Why have armed guards at all?
I have very little problem at some point thinking a bank robber shouldn’t be shot and killed if he doesn’t stop. Shop lifting, not so much.
The gun is not to defend the stuff, but to defend the life of the guard who is there to safeguard the stuff. It makes business sense not to endanger customers or employees by antagonizing a would-be bank robber. Give him a few thousand dollars and a GPS tracker in the money stash and have the inevitable confrontation with police happen outside the bank.
And what if they don’t want to give your stuff back? People are killed daily over a couple thousand bucks.
Horse thieves used to be shot.
“The legal notion that self defense does not include personal property is from the D.O.I. and not the 2A which makes no distinction between personal defense and property defense. That’s the part of this discussion you are still a little foggy on, it seems.”
No, Ed, it is you who’s a bit “foggy”.
It’s not a “legal notion” that lethal force can only be applied in instances where an individual, be they a sworn law enforcement officer, security guard, protection agent, or private citizen is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury…it’s the law. It is the facts surrounding this use of force that determine whether or not it was justified…facts known to the person at the time of the incident…not in hindsight. If you are going to claim “I was in fear for my life”, then you had better be able to build a convincing case to support this defense. Was the deceased armed with a weapon. Was there a disparity of force in strength or numbers etc. etc. DId the accused contribute to an escalation which evolved into a need to use deadly force? Fail at this, and you will be charged and may be convicted of murder or manslaughter.
The same legal principle applies to ANY use of force, even non lethal. If someone (say a woman) were to approach me screaming that I took her parking space and started hitting me, I am not justified in using deadly force, as there is no immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to me, and there is no perceived disparity of force. If I tried to leave the area, but she wouldn’t stop, I might be able to justify a squirt or two of pepper spray, but I couldn’t punch her…that would be a disparity of force in her favor. Now, lets say this person is wearing their “Miyagi Dojo” t-shirt, and her first blow is a roundhouse kick to my head. I MIGHT be able to argue disparity of force, but would easily be justified in giving her the whole can of mace. Now let’s say I’m 80 years old, and unable to quickly leave the area, and this karate woman has attacked me, I would be justified in using lethal force, as there is a clear disparity of force, and I have a reasonable perception that I could be facing death or serious bodily harm.
This is exactly the reason why Officer Darren Wilson (Ferguson MO) was not charged with murder or manslaughter, but Michael Slager (North Charleston) is charged with murder. Don’t try to argue it’s because there is video. Slager was charged because the forensic evidence did not support a self-defense claim. The video evidence agreed with the forensic evidence, and was not the deciding factor. It just made for sensational TV.
Lethal force cannot be justified to protect property, when no immediate threat to life is present. That is what I have been taught. But you need to understand that there is no justification or prohibition contained in the Declaration of Independence. What the Declaration states is tyrannical governments are illegitimate, governments that commit certain acts are tyrannical, and free citizens have a right to abolish or ignore the authority of a tyrannical government. This justified the American Revolution AND the Southern Secession. Both were decided by force of arms. The 2A recognizes the natural rights of free citizens to keep arms for personal security, and for the security of liberty, not property. We have a 5th and 14th amendment for this purpose, but also note that property can be taken with “due process”.
And by what authority do you suppose the law was derived from? Thin air? No it was derived from the Organic documents and when they are silent from English Common law. That is why the D.O.I. is mentioned in SCOTUS dicta hundreds of times.
The right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness is inalienable …and endowed by the creator according to the founding documents. The 2A was a right given by men as part of structuring a government and although it may overlap with natural law it wasn’t designated as such as was the right to life.
@Ed Myers
Ed,
I am not disagreeing with you that “natural law” as defined by the 17th and 18th century enlightenment philosophers was the moral foundation of all of our founding documents. I am not arguing that when SCOTUS attempts to “interpret” the meaning of the parts of the Constitution, they don’t consider documents like the Declaration of independence, or the commentaries of this or that framer. I quite agree with you.
What I am arguing and what you can’t seem to get your head wrapped around is there is a whole body of civil and criminal law that governs our society, the legitimacy of which is measured against the US Constitution, or the Constitutions of the various states. Heller V DC struck down DC’s ban on firearms ownership, because they interpreted the 2A (after looking at english common law, and the commentaries of George Mason, author of the 2A, to determine what constituted a “militia” in that period, etc) and found DC’s laws unconstitutional. They also rejected DC’s argument that under the 14th amendment only applied to “states” and since DC isn’t a state, the 2A did not apply. Lawyers for DC got almost as tripped up with trying to explain how DC residents have a 1st Amendment right, but not a 2nd Amendment right, as you are, trying to justify your original claim that “the right to life, express in the D.O.I. precedes and is more important than the bill of rights.” the DOI might be used to determine “framer’s intent” it is the Constitution that trumps all, be it Federal or State law, or is used as the yardstick by which to determine if someones civil rights have been violated.
And one more thing, if “precedent trumps” why doesn’t the “Declaration and Resolves” trump the Declaration of Independence? It did precede the Declaration, and was also rooted in “natural law of Life, Liberty and PROPERTY.
“2A was a right given by men as part of structuring a government and although it may overlap with natural law it wasn’t designated as such as was the right to life”
You need to bone-up on your Constitutional history. I might recommend “Political Thought of the American Revolution” by Rossiter, “American Political writing During the Founding Era” by Hyneman and Lutz , “On the Constitution of the United States” by Story, “The Second Amendment Primer” by Adams, “Democracy” by Jefferson, “The Federalist Papers”, and the “Anti-Federalist Papers”. The Anti-federalists insisted upon an enumerated bill of rights, which would clarify the natural rights referenced in the Declaration and Resolves, the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and the initial drafts of the Constitution. The Federalists argued that the natural rights were “understood by everyone to exist”, so there was no need to explicitly list them.
You will find that throughout the founding era, the right of free citizens (as opposed to subjects) to own arms for the protection of individual life and liberty was understood, as was the duty for the individual to be prepared to defend society as a whole from tyranny, whether the threat was external or internal. Arms are necessary to secure the natural right, and without the means to defend natural rights, the right itself is meaningless.
@Ed Myers
“For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. … Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.”
This is from a debunked Kellerman study. Even Kellerman now admits that his methodology was completely flawed. It also ignores all other defensive gun use. Even the Brady campaign admits to at least 86,000 defensive gun uses per year. The CDC’s low estimate is 108,000 per year.
Try again.
The distinction is that the order to “drop the gun” is about compliance. If the perp does NOT drop the gun, that is evidence of intention to use it, and it becomes self defense.
Your’ interpretation of “stand your ground” is completely and utterly ludicrous.
Retreat is not always possible. You also have a right to be where you are at and you have the right to self defense. All SYG does is prevent busybody DA’s from abusing your rights because they second guess your actions from the comfort of their office. You must still prove self defense.
@Steve Thomas
@Ed Myers
You can shoot someone for stealing your car in Texas.
Sure you do…..Ed’s not left wing. He’s delusional. But then, you aren’t that “left wing” on guns.
@Ed Myers
“The 2A was a right given by men as part of structuring a government and although it may overlap with natural law it wasn’t designated as such as was the right to life.”
And this is the failure you keep having. The 2nd protects an existing inalienable right to keep and bear arms, for self defense, and defense of freedom. The right to keep and bear arms is a human right.
Moon,
Apparently I replied to too many people and I’m in moderation.
I let you out. I was on the Skyline Drive so it didn’t get done until this evening. Sorry, Cargo.
The right to life is inalienable. The right to self defense of life and liberty is too but property defense is not and that is often what people are often thinking when they talk about castle doctrine or SYG. Too bad someone hasn’t challenged the Texas law that gives open season on car thieves.
Guns (handguns, in particular) are but one of many devices that one can use for self defense and, based on statistics, a really poor choice because it so often fails to accomplish the task without burdening the life and liberty of so many others.
I don’t care if people are scammed into buying guns to protect their lives at home; it is none of my business. However when that error results in the death of children and other innocents, society has the obligation to defend the right to life of the most vulnerable. Case in point: so far this year 43 toddlers (<3y.o.) have used guns; 13 have killed themselves, 2 killed someone else and 28 injured either themselves or others. Current gun design is defective if guns can be discharged that easily by a child. I include teenager suicides in the list of victims of guns that society has a duty to protect from reckless gun owners.
Would you just tell an armed burglar to help himself if he broke into your home?
Yep. Neither my life or the life of the burglar is worth even a few years wages and I have at most valuables worth a few weeks wages stored in my house.
That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t actively prosecute the crime of theft or have deterrents that would prevent a thief from just walking in and taking something. Any person’s life, even a hardened criminal, should be respected and I would not use violence to protect property.
I am amazed that the pro-life crowd is so cozy with the pro-gun crowd since their views on the sanctity of human life are pretty far apart.
I think the pro-life crowd probably is the pro gun crowd in many cases.
I find that ironic because of guarantees by the constitution rather than an inconsistency on life. I don’t think that 2Aers think of guns in terms of life any more than they think of any other tool in terms of life.
Notice I am not saying right or wrong. I don’t think opinions are necessarily right or wrong.
I am guessing you don’t believe in capital punishment?
I believe that I could shoot someone over property. Of course, we never know until we are confronted with the situation. What if someone came along and tried to burn your house down when you know your family and pets were not there. Would you put a slug in them to stop it from happening?