Do Americans Have A Right To Personal Self-Defense?

[guardian]

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFPQeCVgrk

Ummmm. Judge the right answer is YES. Not your meaningless gobbledygook. This is someone that is LYING to avoid answering that her opinion is NO.

[Oregone]

1. Americans don't have a right to have a life threatening....

cancerous tumor killed (health care isn't a right), so why do people think anyone has the right to kill a person threatening their lives?

You don't have the right to live unless you are rich.

Enough tangents?

[jody]

2. SCOTUS said "We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment,

like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), '{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .'”

I would expect constitutional scholar Obama to teach that in his course on Constitutional Law.

It's depressing to find that a judge doesn't know those simple facts.

[iverglas]

15. lordy jayzus

You can't even see/hear youtube videos?

You gotta lay off that ignore button.

The question wasn't about the second amendment / "arms".

It was about self-defence. See how they're spelled differently?

[eqfan592]

3. I'm at work right now...

...and can't be watching video's really. Could somebody sum up quickly what she said in response?

[X_Digger]

13. A bit of waffle, some meat..

(paraphrasing).. "Since I'm familiar with NY law, and most statutes regarding self-defense are state based, here's NY's law.."

[eqfan592]

24. Gotcha. Thanks Digger :) (nt)

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. It's a question that begs several other questions, and a few...

...definitions, as well as a moment's reflection on who's asking, what answer they expect, and what further use they're going to make of the answer. Anyone who doesn't tap dance a bit is the dishonest one.

This is the same stunt that Bernard King pulled on Dukakis twenty years ago.

I answer questions like this with "Do you want a fast answer or a real answer?"

[bumbum]

5. Yes Americans do, but they don't let you in Canada

They really REALLY frown on firearms in my old love Canada.

[iverglas]

8. Ordinarily,

I find, Canadians make sense.

Hmm.


Interesting name. I'm sensing an impending fan club application.

[michreject]

23. "I find, Canadians make sense."

Name one.

[iverglas]

27. will a picture do for a few thousand names?

That's the one where I'm just out of frame on the left.

I wonder whether our new colleague bumbum was there ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Self defense is an offense against the crown there unfortunately

[iverglas]

12. what would we do

without Americans to laugh at?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OEqR71y_BQ

Did you audition?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Have a McLobster sandwich perhaps?

A unique local delicacy or so I was told.

[iverglas]

32. well that's just gross

Apparently the market agreed with me too, though likely for different reasons.

http://www.guidespot.com/guides/fast_food_mcdonalds_worst



Me, I just don't eat anything that looks like an insect and lives underwater and stinks.

Of course, I also don't eat maple syrup.

But hey. Look what Weinerschnitzel (I assume it's a fast-food joint chain) gave you:



Seems they were jealous of poutine. Mmmm, mmmm, good.



Why, even candidate Bush sent video greetings to Prime Minister Jean Poutine via that camera of Rick Mercer's.

I'm hungry. Pork tenderloin and squash pancakes, here I come.

[Deadric Damodred]

57. I happen to love seafood...

...but that just looks foul. Seafood on a hotdog bun is a far cry from a succulent lobster tail, crab legs, and coconut shrimp at the Red Lobster. That McLobster looks like a pile of McVomit.

[iverglas]

56. dang, another popular denizen of the dungeon

bites the dust.



bumbum, we hardly knew ye.

Well, of course, you're Canadian snork snork snork, so I must know you ...

[Hoopla Phil]

6. Yes they do.

[iverglas]

7. her response

has persuaded me of her eye-nate intelligence. It was clear and correct and intelligently stated.

Self-defence is not a right. It is an excuse/justification for an otherwise unlawful assault.

Fuckin' duh.

The question merely illustrates the eye-nate stupidity / ignorance / deceitfulnes of the asker.

[sharesunited]

10. Self defense is an exculpatory response to a criminal charge of homicide.

It is not what the Second Amendment was about, before it was rendered moot by the American Civil War.

[eqfan592]

11. Ummm, what?

The 2a was rendered moot by the Civil War? I'd LOVE to hear you explain that for me....

[sharesunited]

16. The purpose of the 2A was to give teeth to the threat of armed rebellion against the USA.

In that one and only test, the USA won and the Union was preserved.

Armed rebellion against the USA is now renounced by all.

All except whom?

All except those who purport to don their unabashed gun love in the dignity of a Constitutional protection.

[X_Digger]

18. If that was the only 'purpose'..

Then why didn't they repeal it when the states were crafting the post reconstruction amendments? Why would the debates around the 14th amendment include statements like this?

February 28 1866, Senator James Nye of Nevada:

"In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of — "life," "liberty," "property," "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," "freedom in the exercise of religion," "security of person," &c.; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated." ... All these rights are established by the fundamental law.

Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

As citizens of the United States they {blacks} have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

[sharesunited]

20. Repeal the 2A or any other of the sacred text?

Unthinkable for that time.

I can see though, by the quotes you have offered from the period, that a right to personal self defense is beginning to be fashioned in the minds of politicians who recognize that armed rebellion would no longer serve as an adequate justification for the RKBA.

Now it would need to be the dangers of the frontier and highwaymen and Ku Klux Klan terrorism which would be invoked to elevate guns to Constitutional protection.

Then the revolver was invented. Whoa! Mass killing conveniently delivered with one hand. Thus the downward spiral ever since. More and better guns needed to "defend" against the last better batch.

It is all about the gun love tail wagging the public safety dog.

Dressing it up pretty as some kind of Constitutional joy is an affront to the sensibilities of the civilized.

[X_Digger]

22. They changed what would have been fundamental to the founders..

.. yet this other 'sacred text' is held to be inviolate? Doesn't seem logical to me.

I can see though, by the quotes you have offered from the period, that a right to personal self defense is beginning to be fashioned in the minds of politicians who recognize that armed rebellion would no longer serve as an adequate justification for the RKBA.

No, read that again.. it _always was_ part of the right. The 'dangers of the frontier', etc didn't start at the end of the civil war- nor did attacks from native americans, grizzlies, cougars, french pirates, mexican and spanish agitators..

Do you have any historical text to back up your suppositions?

[sharesunited]

26. Why would a methodology of self defense merit Constitutional protection?

Only because of its potential to be used against governing authority as the ultimate check and balance.

Furthermore, the 2A doesn't even say firearms.

No, I am less concerned with historical text than I am with the practical concern of the dismal tide of gun and ammo proliferation and easy access thereto.

To wit, the harm outweighing the benefit of allowing this to continue.

To wit, an obsolete paradigm being an anchor around our leg sinking us to the bottom.

[eqfan592]

30. "To wit, the harm outweighing the benefit of allowing this to continue."

Say that too the people who use their firearm in self defense 1.5 million times a year (this figure came from the Clinton Justice Department). I'm sorry, but your statement does NOT stand up to the facts.

I spotted an "interesting" study while doing some research the other day, speaking about the "myths" of women using guns in self defense. The ONLY self defense cases they included were situations where the attacker was killed by the woman with a gun. That's it. And that's pure crap. That leaves out the VAST bulk of cases where the firearm isn't even fired.

But of course, you don't care about little things like "facts" now do you. You're a zealot, a true believer in the worst way, and guns are your personal anti-christ. I just thank Dog that most people have more sense.

[sharesunited]

35. You are overlooking something very important.

The presence of guns in society as the primary cause of the crime emboldened to be committed.

That is the same sort of missing component in the equation which you lament when you lament the non-reporting of the effectiveness of brandishment of guns by women.

Now we move to the response that I am required to make all guns magically disappear.

I cannot do that. What I can do is take the first step. Stop making and selling new ones and the ammunition which gets loaded into existing ones.

Remember the kiddie porn example. Society adopts a zero tolerance attitude, and all related public policy follows suit to stamp it out. Not instantly or magically. But eventually.

[eqfan592]

37. By eventually....

...you mean sometime over the next couple hundred years.

And it's not just guns and ammo. You have to ban smokeless powder, brass, black powder, and any material that people could use to make a gun in their own workshop, which is just about anything.

You can't close Pandora's box again. To base any sort of policy on the idea that you can is ludicrous in the extreme.

[sharesunited]

41. Guns made in your own workshop

are not exactly the menace to society with which we are dealing in our daily Such a Tragedy, Now Carry On Dying.

And do you think it will take a couple of hundred years to make an appreciable impact on the proliferation of kiddie porn?

[eqfan592]

48. I'm sorry, but I do not see the relation between kiddie porn an guns. you keep making it, but...

....it just doesn't work. Drugs are a MUCH better analogy.

[Katya Mullethov]

74. Hyperbole

Self determination dissmissed as sexual deviance .

[rrneck]

44. They also

eventually invent Photoshop.

[X_Digger]

31. So your statement-

"It is not what the Second Amendment was about, before it was rendered moot by the American Civil War." is just your opinion, not something that you can back up.. got it.

Only because of its potential to be used against governing authority as the ultimate check and balance.

That is the important reason to protect the right- that is not the extent of the right, nor the only protected use of that right. As the SCOTUS said in 1876 in US v. Cruikshank, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.."

The bill of rights is not a "the people can.." document, it's a "the government can't.." document.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will worst ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.

Furthermore, the 2A doesn't even say firearms.

Are you really ready to go there? The first amendment doesn't mention computers, the fourth amendment doesn't mention DNA or email.. etc etc.

[sharesunited]

38. High explosives permissible? Armor piercing permissible?

Since you think there is a right of personal defense that includes guns and ammo, how did you come to accept any boundaries whatsoever on the arms which could be kept and borne?

Or have you not accepted any such boundaries?

I suggest that it is only a cultural acceptance-rejection dichotomy, which can and should be dialed back.

[X_Digger]

51. I can buy high explosives (or grenades or RPGs).. with more paperwork..

That additional paperwork is due to a tax law (congress realized they couldn't actually ban the weapons, so they tried to tax them out of existence.) Arms has always been understood to mean items 'bearable' by a person, and targeted to another person hence the additional paperwork for things outside that definition. (Area effect items like grenades or automatic weapons, etc.)

The class and type of weapons that an individual can own sans special hoops hasn't changed significantly since 1934.

[slackmaster]

54. The line you are thinking of was drawn in 1934

The National Firearms Act.

[iverglas]

55. and this is an answer to the questions/comments in that post

how?

It is therefore it is therefore it is ... Nope, not an answer.

[rrneck]

34. I agree.

No, I am less concerned with historical text than I am with the practical concern of the dismal tide of gun and ammo proliferation and easy access thereto.

This woman:


has a right to defend herself against this man:


no matter where she goes or what she does, 24/7.

That right has nothing to do with the finer points of constitutional law or statistical analysis. She is human, and should enjoy the rights afforded to every other animal on earth. Lions and tigers defend themselves with teeth and claws. Springbucks defend themselves with speed. Moths defend themselves with camouflage. Humans are tool using mammals with opposable thumbs. A firearm is the best tool yet designed for self defense.

on edit:
I missed the word dismal in your original statement. I don't quite agree. My apologies.

[SteveM]

79. A lesson for those who like "prohibition love"...

"Now it would need to be the dangers of the frontier and highwaymen and Ku Klux Klan terrorism which would be invoked to elevate guns to Constitutional protection."

My goodness, you don't seem to recognize that the 14th Amendment (1868) was passed largely because of KKK terrorism, vigilantes and, yes, even armed state militia, all directed toward blacks. The bulwark of the Civil Rights Movement is in the 14th. That Amendment was passed as a last-ditched effort by the faltering anti-slavery forces in the post-Civil War South to assist blacks by protecting (through incorporation) their right to keep and bear arms. Please, please read up on your history, and less about your "gun love."

BTW, the revolver came about at least a quarter century before the Civil War.

[armyowalgreens]

39. History shows that tyranny does not accept a single defeat as the end.

People declared that both the first and second world wars would be the war to end all war.

You seem to believe that the 1st american civil war would be the civil war to end all American civil wars. Which is simply ridiculous and flies in the face of logic.

But of course, you can simply paint the opposing side as crazy gun lovers if it makes you feel better.

[sharesunited]

45. If you wanted to go down like Koresh, Weaver and McVeigh

you might continue to insist that armed rebellion is some kind of Constitutional or natural right.

We renounce armed rebellion because the authorities have the crime busting cred and the artillery and we aren't going up against all that.

Accepting this as the situation, alternative justifications for the 2A must be cobbled together with cruel sentiment and flimsy cardboard, since the danger to life and limb from proliferation and easy access is self evident.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun. Why did John Lennon sing that, and what was he trying to say?

[armyowalgreens]

46. Happiness Is a Warm Gun= Sexual innuendo...

No one ever agreed to give up their right to armed rebellion. What we agreed to was a democratic republic that mostly alleviates the need for rebellion.

But armed rebellion may be necessary in the future. I suggest you read "Practical Ethics" by Peter Singer. It lays out some of the relationship between a democratic society and rebellion.


No doubt about it, there is still a need to have firearms as protection against tyranny. There will always be the need.

But beyond what the 2A represents, I believe that a human has the right to defend ones life and the life of others. Frankly, I wouldn't give a shit if the 2A was repealed next week. We still have a basic human right to protect each other from harm.

Your feeble minded attempts to compare me to lunatics is not helping your case.

[sharesunited]

47. David Byrne is great!

Do you know if he is public about his attitude toward guns and ammo?

I just checked out his lyrics to Ready For This World:

I bought a gun, but it's just for self-defense
Mmm, I seen this world, it don't make any sense
No more heartache, no more pain
Now, no one's hurting me again
I'm just getting ready for this world
I'm getting ready for this world.

(Sounds kind of despairing.)

[iverglas]

14. precisely

Self defense is an exculpatory response to a criminal charge of homicide.

Or assault, of course.

It is required because of the right to life: no one may be compelled to submit to an assault and suffer injury or death as a result. A prohibition on using force to defend against an assault would itself be a violation of the right to life.

[sharesunited]

17. The right to life is a rhetorical flourish contained in the Declaration.

Due process is the controlling framework incorporated into the Constitution.

The Constitution deals with the actual realities of governance.

Life, liberty, and property are all subordinated to due process.

[iverglas]

19. yes ...

and to compel someone to submit to an assault / prohibit the use of force to defend against an assault would amount to a violation of the right to life without due process. ;)

[sharesunited]

21. That's a bit of a stretch.

Due process is not envisioned to be administered by the individual according to his own personal, subjective standards, preferences or perceptions of threat.

The most the individual can hope for in terms of Constitutionally protected self-defense is that he avoids punishment when acting in a manner to kill or injure another.

[iverglas]

25. well, I didn't think we were actually disagreeing

so I'm not sure what to say.

Are you saying that it would be legitimate for a jurisdiction to provide no self-defence excuse/justification in its laws? That someone who assaulted/injured/killed another person in self-defence would have to be convicted of the offence? And this would be constitutionally permissible / philosophically tolerable in a liberal democracy?


Due process is not envisioned to <be> administered by the individual according to his own personal, subjective standards, preferences or perceptions of threat.

And I most certainly didn't say, imply or think that it was.

In fact, my main objection to the vile "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws is that what they actually do is deny due process to the victims of pseudo-self-defence acts authorized by them.

If self-defence could not be pleaded, the denial of due process would be to the individual who acted in genuine self-defence, under a genuine reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to avert injury or death. That individual would be compelled to submit to injury/death, by virtue of being prohibited from using force to defend against it.


The most the individual can hope for in terms of Constitutionally protected self-defense is that he avoids punishment when acting in a manner to kill or injure another.

Er ... yes. But it is also the least the individual can hope for.


I would think we were both basically on this page (with my emphasis, references omitted):

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,REFERENCE,UNSUBCOM,,,45c30b560,0.html

22. Self-defence is broadly recognized in customary international law as a defence to criminal responsibility as shown by State practice. There is not evidence however that States have enacted self-defence as a freestanding right under their domestic laws, nor is there evidence of opinio juris that would compel States to recognize an independent, supervening right to self-defence that they must enforce in the context of their domestic jurisdictions as a supervening right.

23. Similarly, international criminal law sets forth self-defence as a basis for avoiding criminal responsibility, not as an independent right. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia noted the universal elements of the principle of self-defence. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia noted “that the ‘principle of self-defence’ enshrined in article 31, paragraph 1, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ‘reflects provisions found in most national criminal codes and may be regarded as constituting a rule of customary international law’”. As the chapeau of article 31 makes clear, self-defence is identified as one of the “grounds for excluding criminal responsibility”. The legal defence defined in article 31, paragraph (d) is for:

conduct which is alleged to constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been caused by duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent serious bodily harm against that person or another person, and the person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat, provided that the person does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided.

Thus, international criminal law designates self-defence as a rule to be followed to determine criminal liability, and not as an independent right which States are required to enforce.

24. There is support in the jurisprudence of international human rights bodies for requiring States to recognize and evaluate a plea of self-defence as part of the due process rights of criminal defendants. Some members of the Human Rights Committee have even argued that article 6, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires national courts to consider the personal circumstances of a defendant when sentencing a person to death, including possible claims of self-defence, based on the States Parties’ duty to protect the right to life. Under common law jurisdictions, courts must take into account factual and personal circumstances in sentencing to the death penalty in homicide cases. Similarly, in civil law jurisdictions: “Various aggravating or extenuating circumstances such as self-defence, necessity, distress and mental capacity of the accused need to be considered in reaching criminal conviction/sentence in each case of homicide.”

25. Again, the Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize self-defence in a criminal law context. Under this interpretation of international human rights law, the State could be required to exonerate a defendant for using firearms under extreme circumstances where it may be necessary and proportional to an imminent threat to life. Even so, none of these authorities enumerate an affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.

Nice one, I think you might agree.

[sharesunited]

28. Thanks for the proofreading edit! Yes, not wishing to be overly argumentative.

I am so accustomed to being pilloried for my 2A views that I tend to receive any kind of nuanced assent to them with suspicion.

(You agree with me? Are you sure? I must not have been clear.)

Needless to say, strong 2A supporters here at DU are likely to view international law with regard to guns and ammo much the same as posters to Free Republic. Very glad to know there is sanity in the world, though.

[eqfan592]

33. I think it's funny that you make the freeper comment in regards to those...

...in support of the 2a, when you are the one who espouses the level of true zealotry that is typically found there. You know, the kind of zealotry that flys in the face of facts, logic and reason? Those are the essential traits of the freeper!

[sharesunited]

36. I think it matters

what one is a zealot for or against.

Would you call Bernie Sanders a zealot, or Dennis Kucinich?

Most here call them fighters for the good.

[eqfan592]

40. Sorry, but wrong.

I would not call somebody who basis their opinion on evidence a zealot. Zealotry in general requires a high level of fanaticism. Fanaticism and logic do not tend to go hand in hand.

Listen, I know I'm harsh on you here at times, and the same could be said about you toward many of us here. I know you're heart is in the right place, but you have to let the logical side of your brain examine what you're proposing. Let it take in ALL of the facts, not just those that come from one side.

I used to think much like you. But the more I researched, the more I realize that much of what I had been told did NOT stand up to the facts.

[sharesunited]

43. Sure, no offense and the best of intentions to both enlighten and shame.

There was a time when cocaine and morphine could be obtained over the counter.

But society couldn't handle it, though presumably some people might have been able to.

Recreational and medicinal use of a potentially deadly product.

Now strictly controlled for the good of all.

That's the way I think of this problem. Only much more dangerous and presently less controlled.

[eqfan592]

49. See, and that's where you and I differ.

I don't think the war on drugs is helpful or useful at all. In fact, if you want to find a major cause of much of the crime in our nation, you need only look at the current "ban" on recreational drug use. So I disagree when you say they are "strictly controlled for the good of all." Honestly, "for the good of all" is used as an excuse for SO many restrictions to civil liberties that it's frightening.

It really comes down to the cost of liberty. You can have a free society and accept the risks that go along with it, or you can go down the road to a police state. Frankly, I'll take my chances with the civil liberties.

I also don't think of firearms as inherently evil. I enjoy target shooting a great deal. My perfect world is not a world without guns, but a world where guns aren't used on other people. I put my energies not in trying to ban an object that many more use for good than use for ill, but rather to go after the root causes of crime itself. I won't bother restating what I think those causes are as you already know what I think they are.

I don't think you and I are going to see eye to eye on this issue. Basically, I only hope you can see me and other's on here who are concerned about our 2a rights as much as the rest of our rights as something other than a group of "gun worshipers," which we are not. I don't really worship anything these days to be honest, besides my wife-to-be anyway. :)

[SteveM]

80. A zealot is a prohibitionist is a zealot is a prohibitionist is a zealot is a.... (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. So you actually believe that self defense violates the criminals right to due process?

Is that really what you are saying?

David

[Name removed]

50. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

52. A simple yes/no question and she blew it COMPLETELY

Here's the correct answer:

Yes.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Deadric Damodred]

53. It's ok, she isn't fooling anyone.

We all know that she knows exactly how she plans on voting on any gun case that crosses her desk. She's entirely against the 2nd Amendment. She knows it, we know it; but she has to put on a show of being unbiased even though we know she's full of shit. At least we still have the Heller 5.

[Statistical]

65. Exactly she will likely be the most anti-RBKA justice on the Supreme Court.

The only "good" news is she is replacing Souter who currently is the most anti-RKBA justice on the Supreme Court so it doesn't change much. Now if Kennedy was being replaced that would be a different story.

The conservative 4 will wait as long as possible to retire under a Republican administration. Souter didn't just wake up last week and decide to retire. Some people say he decided back in 2000 however he stayed on the court for 8 years to ensure a Democrat would name his replacement. Barring death or incapacitation the conservative 4 will wait for next Republican administration.

The swing vote Kennedy is the bigger issue. If poll numbers look bad in say 2015 he may want to retire under Obama rather than a potential Republican administration. If someone like Sotomayor replaced Kennedy instead it would radically change the court.

[Deadric Damodred]

78. Justice Kennedy is the most powerful man in America.

Considering his position of being the only truely unbiased voice on the Suprme Court, he holds more power than the President. Someone in another thread was mocking me when I said the court should be made up of people like Kennedy, but it's true. The fate of the nation should not boil down to 4 people always voting conservative, 4 people always voting liberal, and 1 who sometimes votes one way and sometimes votes the other. All 9 should be truely unbiased to the point where you can not guess how they will vote. There is a serious problem when you can tell exactly how 8 of the 9 will vote on any given issue.

[JonQ]

58. Q: Do Americans Have A Right To Personal Self-Defense?

A: Yes, obviously, what a silly question. Next.

[iverglas]

59. Q: Do Americans Have A Right To Eat Pizza?

A: Yes, obviously, what a silly question. Next.


Exactly the same thing. Do people have a right to do things that keep them alive? Yuppers.


You got it right, there, though. The question was silly.

Well, maybe not silly. Maybe demagoguish, deceitful and dirty. Either that or clear evidence of total ignorance of the concepts and law that relate to rights.


An intelligent, honest, fair-minded person might ask: Do people have the right not to be convicted of a crime if they use force to defend themselves against an assault, where they believe they have no reasonable alternative to the use of force, and where they use no more force than is necessary for that purpose?

... Oh, well, an intelligent, honest, fair-minded person would probably think that was a really dumb question, of course.

[JonQ]

60. Funny, I don't remember pizza being mentioned in the constitution

you're an expert, could you point out the quote for me?

Also, you're Canadian so you have no claim to say anything about american laws. You're previously stated that Americans have no right to lecture candadians about their laws, I assume it goes both ways. Now I know you'll deny ever having said anything like that. That's ok, I'm starting to think you're a computer response, all your arguments follow the same path.

Iver: 2+8=4! Therefore everyone else is wrong.
Other user: did you just say 2+8=4? That's not true, in fact I can demonstrate how it is false.
Iver: I never said 2+8=4, that's a ridiculous strawman argument. I'm outraged!

[iverglas]

61. funny

Maybe you can point to where self-defence is mentioned in your Constitution.

:rofl: etc.


Also, you're Canadian so you have no claim to say anything about american laws.

Ya don't think? You're wrong. Take that.


You're previously stated that Americans have no right to lecture candadians about their laws

Really?

Quote me.


Now I know you'll deny ever having said anything like that.

Good for you.

Now don't let the fact that I've never said THAT (I have no idea what "anything like that" might mean) stop you from alleging it anyhow.

[Deadric Damodred]

62. Funny, can you point to where...

...abortion is mentioned in our Constitution?

[iverglas]

63. Nope

But I can point to where your Constitution says

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

And I could try to explain to you that a law that compels a person to assume a risk of death (not to mention serious injury, disability ...) on pain of punishment violates that rule.

Or did you think there was nothing in your Constitution to protect you from being forced to donate organs?

I don't think the right not to be forced to donate organs is in your Constitution, is it?

[TPaine7]

71. And yet there are troglodytes...

And I could try to explain to you that a law that compels a person to assume a risk of death (not to mention serious injury, disability ...) on pain of punishment violates that rule.

And yet there are troglodytes who think that a woman being sexually assaulted without reason to think she will suffer more than "mere" rape has no right to resist with potentially deadly force. Their misogynistic, primitive, and barbaric mindset ignores the fact that STDs can reasonably be expected to kill women or cause them severe bodily harm. Forced pregnancy can have the same effect.

Perhaps you should explain to these troglodytes how the principle above condemns their nonsense.

I have met and debated several such troglodytes online. I notice that they tend to quote inferior international and foreign law as if it were relevant in questions of US citizens' rights in the United States. As if it were more relevant than, say, the deliberations of the Klingon High Council, or the Canadian legal code. They also tend to be "feminists"--except, of course, when legitimate feminism conflicts with the gun control reality distortion field or their aversion to people making provisions for personal self-defense.

It is absolutely true that "a law that compels a person to assume a risk of death (not to mention serious injury, disability ...) on pain of punishment" is uncivilized.

Misogynistic, illogical, primitive, "feminist" troglodytes are such hypocrites.

[iverglas]

72. there are troglodytes?

There are indeed.

[TPaine7]

73. One identifying characteristic

is that the troglodytes cannot defend their cave dwelling, light hating, rock throwing ways.

On a totally unrelated subject, you know quite well, iverglas, that your position is indefensible, self-contradictory, barbaric and misogynistic. And yet you stubbornly cling to it. Is it ego? Stubbornness? National pride? Stupidity? The gun control reality distortion field?

Or all of the above?

[iverglas]

75. appears to be obsession

[TPaine7]

76. Be specific.

Which obsession are you referring to? Hiding in caves? Throwing stones? Avoiding sunlight? Practicing ineffective sophistry?

You have nothing, iverglas. I knew it all along, but now it's plain to everyone. Everyone not irretrievably lost to the gun control reality distortion field, that is.

There are some honest antis; now even they should be able to see through you.

[iverglas]

77. blinded by it?

And yet there are troglodytes... TPaine7
there are troglodytes? iverglas
One identifying characteristic TPaine7
appears to be obsession iverglas

[TPaine7]

81. I guess that's the closest you'll ever get to admitting the truth.

I guess your silly word game is the best you can do.

Troglodyte wit.

[Wallew]

64. Raging against self defense - or what is wrong with people like this

http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm

from a physciatrist point of view...

[iverglas]

66. what is wrong with people like

The insane loon -- who IS NOT A PSYCHIATRIST and never was a psychiatrist, and whose standing as an MD, even, appears to have been problematic -- who wrote that shit?

Good question.


You might want to pay attention to where you are.

Alleging that people who disagree with you on a matter of public policy are mentally ill -- and specifically, suffer from the non-existent disorder that is the subject of article at the link you posted -- is not permissible in this forum.

[iverglas]

67. not your first outing with this I see, Wallew

16 posts in nearly a decade, and two of them devoted to the insane loon Sarah Thompson. (Perhaps more; Google is an imperfect tool.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1120480&mesg_id=1124142

Interesting.

[PavePusher]

68. "the insane loon Sarah Thompson."

I invite your attention to your post #67 above...

"Alleging that people who disagree with you on a matter of public policy are mentally ill -- and specifically, suffer from the non-existent disorder that is the subject of article at the link you posted -- is not permissible in this forum."

How do you manage to choke down that much irony at once? Salsa? Chocolate sauce? Or do you mix it into your poutine?

:crazy:

[iverglas]

69. really

I invite your attention to your post #67 above...

And I invite yours to the fact that the insane loon in question (oops, I did forget to call her the right-wing piece of shit she so obviously is, and the liar she evidently is) is not a member of this website. Sorry, I guess I didn't make that bit clear, eh?

No irony. Just your failure to understand the rules of the board.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks.

Please note that sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not categorically forbidden (except in the case of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence, as mentioned above). However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

In my not at all humble opinion, that all adds up to: alleging that members of this website who disagree with you on a matter of public policy are mentally ill is a breach of the rules of civility. And that has been the opinion of the moderators of this forum for a long time.

[iverglas]

70. just to clarify

Your post is in reply to a post about the Democratic President's nominee for a seat on the US Supreme Court.

So when you say "what is wrong with people like this", I have to deduce that Sotomajor is one of the "people" to whom you refer.

You are clearly stating that what is wrong with her is that she has a mental illness (non-existent though that mental illness is).

Could you just verify that I have got this right?

[gorfle]

82. Yup.

I could only watch about half of it before turning it off. I was so embarrassed for the judge.

When someone straight-up asks you what your opinion is on the right to self-defense and you have to spend 10 minutes tapdancing around the answer it's pretty clear what your answer is.

I know! I know! Sotomayor is actually Iverlgas! Ohmigod!

[iverglas]

83. yeah, I felt her pain

When someone asks you a meaningless question, and you try hard to find a way of offering something meaningful in reply, you really just can't win.

Gosh.

I wonder whether that's the whole point ...

[gorfle]

84. A meaningless question.

Strangely, to millions of American's the question about whether someone supports the right to self-defense is not meaningless.

[iverglas]

85. lordy, that wasn't even the question

the question about whether someone supports the right to self-defense

Obviously, not even you could get a grasp on it.

[gorfle]

86. It was the question.

lordy, that wasn't even the question

Did you not watch the video? The congressman directly asked the judge what her opinion was on the right to self-defense, or words very much to that effect.

0:14

1:20

[iverglas]

87. "or words very much to that effect"

The question was:

"As a citizen of this country, do you believe eye-nately in my ability to have self-defence of myself, personal self-defence ... do I have a right to personal self-defence?"

That's taken from the youtube.

(I'm sorry, but I would never in my life have imagined that anyone would pronounce the word "innately" that way.)

So the question appears to be: "do I have a right to personal self-defence?"

He pursues it with:

"Do you have an opinion or can you give me your opinion of whether or not in this country I personally as an individual citizen have a right to self-defence?"

"I wasn't asking about the legal question, I'm asking about your personal opinion."

Her answer is succinctly ... not "correct", because there is no correct answer. It is perfect.

"But that is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me outside <interrupted>"


You referred to it as:

the question about whether someone supports the right to self-defense is not meaningless

The question, put that way, presupposes the existence of a right which someone can either support or not support.

(Even that makes no sense. Sir, do you support the right to life? What does that mean??)


Sotomayor explains things absolutely correctly.

Self-defence is raised to answer a criminal charge.


I think we could safely assume that she agrees there is a right to raise self-defence to answer a criminal charge.

I mean, would it be remotely reasonable to imagine that she might strike down a law that allowed an individual to raise self-defence to answer a criminal charge??

If you want to say "yes", I'll be fascinated to hear more.

[gorfle]

88. Only you.

The question was:

"As a citizen of this country, do you believe eye-nately in my ability to have self-defence of myself, personal self-defence ... do I have a right to personal self-defence?"

You referred to it as:

the question about whether someone supports the right to self-defense is not meaningless

You really are a piece of work, iverglas.

I believe I have correctly summarized the question.

Only you would argue those two questions were not the same.

You keep arguing semantics, iverglas. The rest of us will watch the video and come the conclusion that Judge Sotomayor is afraid to give her opinion on self-defense for some reason. I won't get into a debate with you about what that reason is, because I'm sure you will have half-a-dozen possible explanations for her fear, including that the planets aren't in the right alignment.

[iverglas]

89. fiddle with the question as much as you like

The fact remains that it is, as Sotomayor said, MEANINGLESS.

There is, and she would without a doubt say there is if she hasn't already, since she correctly characterized "self-defence" in exactly this way, a RIGHT TO RAISE SELF-DEFENCE IN ANSWER TO A CRIMINAL CHARGE.

She GAVE her opinion. As a matter of law, there is a right to raise self-defence in answer to a criminal charge.

That is a meaningful statement. Do you maybe disagree with it?

[gorfle]

90. No, the fact is...

The fact remains that it is, as Sotomayor said, MEANINGLESS.

The fact is, most of us took away a lot of meaning from all that tapdancing.

But you keep weaseling way to try and justify her tapdancing. I guess birds of a feather really do flock together.

[iverglas]

91. why didn't you anwer my question?

There is a right to raise self-defence in answer to a criminal charge.
That is a meaningful statement. Do you maybe disagree with it?


She said:

"Under New York law, if you're being threatened with imminent death or very serious injury, you can use force to repel that, and that would be legal."

Do you disagree with that?


Can you invent a situation in which someone could assert a "right to self-defence" that DID NOT involve being threatened with death or very serious injury?

How would I go about asserting a right to self-defence? How would I exercise it?

I could assert a right to an abortion by challenging a statute interfering in my exercise of that right. I could exercise that right by having an abortion.

I could assert a right to equal benefit of the law (which my constitution provides for) by challenging the refusal to issue to issue me a licence to marry my same-sex partner, if that occurred. I could exercise that right by marrying my same-sex partner.

How would you assert a right to self-defence? How would you exercise it?

How would your answer be inconsistent with what Sotomayor said?


By the way, nice bedfellows again.

The questioner who put that question to Sotomayor was a Republican whose grasp of anything relating to the law (watch the rest of the video) is obviously inversely proportional to his devotion to every item on the right-wing agenda.

[gorfle]

92. Because I don't grock lawyer-speak.

There is a right to raise self-defence in answer to a criminal charge.
That is a meaningful statement. Do you maybe disagree with it?

I don't know what it means to say "in answer to a criminal charge." Does this mean I have be charged with a crime before I can exercise my right to self-defense? I don't know how to parse it.

Human beings have a natural right to self-defense regardless of any legal construct. Anyone who tries to word it in terms of law is probably being slimy.

"Under New York law, if you're being threatened with imminent death or very serious injury, you can use force to repel that, and that would be legal."

Do you disagree with that?

I agree with that.

Can you invent a situation in which someone could assert a "right to self-defence" that DID NOT involve being threatened with death or very serious injury?

No.

How would I go about asserting a right to self-defence? How would I exercise it?

Here you go: I assert I have the right to self-defense. Someone attacks me and I kill them. I just asserted and exercised it.

By the way, nice bedfellows again.

The questioner who put that question to Sotomayor was a Republican whose grasp of anything relating to the law (watch the rest of the video) is obviously inversely proportional to his devotion to every item on the right-wing agenda.

I didn't pay any attention to who was asking the question, and I only watched about half of the video before I was so uncomfortable watching Sotomayer squirm while answering it that I turned it off.

[iverglas]

93. well then I'm failing to see the problem

"Under New York law, if you're being threatened with imminent death or very serious injury, you can use force to repel that, and that would be legal."
Do you disagree with that?
I agree with that.

*That* is what Sotomayor *said*. And she doesn't seem to have followed it up with "but I think it should be illegal".


Here you go: I assert I have the right to self-defense. Someone attacks me and I kill them. I just asserted and exercised it.

I can just as easily say: I assert I have the right to kill you. You attack me and I kill you. I have just asserted and exercised it.

"Assert a right" actually means something. Sorry about not giving the full course. It means argue that you have a right, as against something that someone is doing or proposing to do, or claim that a right exists, as justification for doing something.

Why would you be justifying having killed someone else? Because you were charged with homicide, maybe?

So how would the statement:

There is a right to raise self-defence in answer to a criminal charge.

not respond to what you're needing here?

Does this mean I have be charged with a crime before I can exercise my right to self-defense?

No, and I don't know how you could have thought that made sense.

It means you need to be charged with a crime before you need to claim to have acted in self-defence. In so doing, you are not asserting a right to self defence. You are perhaps asserting your right to life, and you are definitely asserting your right to due process.

The right to raise self-defence in answer to a criminal charge is a due process right.

So is the right to raise necessity in answer to a criminal charge.

For instance, if you are lost in the wilderness and are truly on the point of starving to death, and you kill and eat a protected species, you would argue necessity in defence to the charge of violating whatever statute you violated. You could not be convicted of killing the bird or whatever it was, because to do so would violate your due process rights. To preclude a defence of necessity to the charge (to make it an absolute liability offence) would violate your right to life: it would require you to starve to death rather than kill the bird.

Now, would it make sense to say that you have a right to kill animals, or steal food, out of necessity? If it does, why does no one ever say it?

You don't have a right to kill animals. You don't have a right to steal food. And you don't have a right to assault or kill other people.

You have a right to argue necessity as an answer to a charge of killing animals or stealing food. And you have a right to argue self-defence as an answer to a criminal charge of assault or homicide.

And there isn't any reason to try to disagree with that, and claim that some independent right to kill or assault people exists.

Unless there's an agenda that needs to be shoved along. Like maybe attacking a "liberal" judge and persuading the great unwashed masses of 'Muricca that libruls don't believe they have the right to defend themselves and their families.

[TPaine7]

95. "Sorry about not giving the full course." LOL

Here's an actual authority on American law, a law professor at UCLA and a source cited as authoritative by the Supreme Court of the United States of America:

A Constitutional Right to Self-Defense?

I'm sure that, in iverglas' opinion at least, his understanding of US law is inferior to hers. For everyone else, the opinion of a law professor from a prestigious university who gets cited by the Supreme Court might carry some weight.

There is a right to self-defense. There was such a right long before America was founded.

[iverglas]

96. yeah

2. Heller often talks of a "right to self-defense" in contexts that suggest it is of constitutional statute, e.g., "That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen's right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right."

If I gave a crap about what Eugene Volokh had to say, or what our old dead rich white guys had to say, I'd care.

They're the ones who believed there was a right to own human beings, right?

I know you'd like to pretend the conversation only started when you plonked your size 12s into it, but that ain't so.

Feel free to answer my questions.

How would I go about asserting a right to self-defence?
How would I exercise it?

If you like, you can tell me tales about bears catching fish and their natural right to eat you.

The "right to self-defence" is a right-wing meme. I know it, you know it, we all know it.

[TPaine7]

99. I understand, iverglas. Really, I do.

Actual legal authorities don't matter. The US Supreme Court doesn't matter. The US Constitution doesn't matter, even the Constitution as amended to undo the legal abominations of racism and misogyny. The opinions of the American people don't matter, either.

Only iverglas matters, and her personal conceptions of Canadian and international law.

See. I really do understand.

[gorfle]

105. She must have said that...

*That* is what Sotomayor *said*.

She must have said that at some point after the 3 minutes of tapdancing I watched before I turned it off.

[iverglas]

108. I believe it was about the third thing she said.

So I watched again.

I would call it her fourth response, not counting interruptions. You can start at 3:00.

[TPaine7]

94. Hypertechnical BS

"But that is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me outside <interrupted>"{--Sotomayor}


You referred to it as:

the question about whether someone supports the right to self-defense is not meaningless

The question, put that way, presupposes the existence of a right which someone can either support or not support.

(Even that makes no sense. Sir, do you support the right to life? What does that mean??)

Yes, absolutely. Being an American, I support the right to life. I support the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, among others.

But it's deeper than that. More fundamentally, as a human being I support those rights--no matter what any government or group says. This has nothing whatsoever to do with law, legal philosophy, or public opinion.

Fortunately there are people who can think outside legal frameworks--who actually have personal opinions and principles not rooted in law books. These are the types of people who hid Jews from Nazis and who helped escaped slaves--the law, the pontifications of learned fools and public opinion notwithstanding. "Abstract" principles like "right to life," "self-defense," "liberty," etc., are not meaningless to such people.

I wonder if you asked Judge Sotomayor if she had a right not to have her car stolen what she would have said. "That's an abstraction with no meaning outside a legal proceeding"? "Of course I have no property rights, but I have a legal basis to sue in court to have the car to which I have title returned to me"?

I really hope she was perjuring herself. The idea that she has no personal opinion on whether a person has a right to self-defense is just too terrifying.

[iverglas]

97. "I support the right to life"

is the logical / linguistic equivalent of "I support the colour of the sky".

You go ahead and do it.

Me, I'll support protection of the right to life, recognition of the right to life, guarantees of the right to life ... and I'll be making sense.

[iverglas]

98. and yes

Allow me to adjust your nonsense so it makes sense; the necessary adjustments are in italics.

I wonder if you asked Judge Sotomayor if she had a right not to have her car stolen what she would have said. "That's an abstraction with no meaning outside a legal proceeding"? "Of course I have no abstract inchoate right not to have my stuff stolen by someone else, since that is a nonsense, but I do have property rights, so I have a legal basis to sue in court to have the car to which I have title returned to me"?

I think that's just about what she would say.

It's what any intelligent, thinking, reasonably informed person would say, after all.

Rights, of the nature we are talking about ("human rights"), govern the relationship between an individual and the collectivity of which s/he is a member.

You have a right not to have your stuff taken by the collectivity (state, government, society). And because the collectivity has a duty to protect your rights, you have a right to have a means of redress if another member of the collectivity steals your stuff.

I can't imagine what problem anyone could have with any of that.

Unless s/he were devoted to the right wing agenda, point 6 on whose manifesto is "society owes the individual nothing".

[TPaine7]

100. If I cared enough, I would look up your statements on

a woman's "right to an abortion," or a "woman's right to choose" or the like. I feel sure that that right--if no other--is not abstract and inchoate.

And can you cite some American legal authority for this

Rights, of the nature we are talking about ("human rights"), govern the relationship between an individual and the collectivity of which s/he is a member.

I don't know about Canada, but as far as I know, the US has not joined the Borg--not that even they know what "the collectivity" is. How many people does it take to make up a collectivity? If two people were somehow transported to a distant and uninhabited earth-like planet, would they cease to have rights?

Sorry, that's an "abstract" question and requires "abstract" thought. Never mind.

[iverglas]

101. snork

If two people were somehow transported to a distant and uninhabited earth-like planet, would they cease to have rights?

If one of them killed the other, who would decide whether this was an exercise of the "right to self-defence"? History is written by the victors, eh?

You may be catching on.


I would look up your statements on a woman's "right to an abortion," or a "woman's right to choose" or the like. I feel sure that that right--if no other--is not abstract and inchoate.

You feel free.

You will find that I have said, over and over and over, that the state (you know, the collectivity in its political manifestation) may not compel a woman to assume the risks (including the risk of death) that are inherent in pregnancy -- that laws denying access to abortion services and punishing people who obtain/provide those services are violations of the right not to be deprived of life without due process (to use your lingo; in mine, which is nicer, they are violations of the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or security of the person otherwise than in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice).

See how it works? The right is asserted against the state, when the state attempts to interfere in the exercise of it. If the state wishes to interfere in the exercise of the right to life (etc.) by denying access to abortion services, it must demonstrate justification. Since the right to life is a fundamental right, strict scrutiny does apply. (And your Court failed miserably in that regard in Roe v. Wade.)

Now, if I were one of two people on a distant planet and wanted to terminate my pregnancy, and you were the other and you stopped me from doing that by tying me up for nine months, you'd be a jerk. If I died, you would have killed me: deprived me of life; but you would not have violated my right not to be deprived of life without due process; really.

Glad you asked. But I did think we'd already come to a consensus here that constitutions (i.e. the declarations of protected rights in them) apply only to governments ...

[TPaine7]

102. Very revealing.

Me: If two people were somehow transported to a distant and uninhabited earth-like planet, would they cease to have rights?

If one of them killed the other, who would decide whether this was an exercise of the "right to self-defence"? History is written by the victors, eh?

Both would judge and realize if rights were violated, the victim before death took place and the villian before and after--provided neither was a psychopath. (And of course, that the conflict was morally clear--one killing the other without justification--and not a mutual fight.)

The Declaration of Independence spells out our philosophy well: we have rights because we are human. Governments are created to secure those rights. If they do so, they deserve to continue to exist, if not, they deserve to be replaced. Government is a tool to protect rights. Just a tool.

You may be catching on.

I sincerely hope not. Why would I want to learn that might makes right--that the fact that "History is written by the victors" has some moral significance?

If I killed you (in your hypothetical example) I would be right by virtue of the fact that I would face no consequences outside my conscience?! And I would not have violated your rights because there were no independent observers to witness the crime, arrest me, compose the jury or serve as judge?!

Wow!

If I caught on to that BS principle and actually lived by it, I would never have acted as the heroes who saved the Jews. The Nazis were, to all appearances, "the victors" for quite some time. Ditto for the slavery faction in the US. For a long time, the anti-civil rights (note that word, "rights" in its American usage) forces were ascendant. It looked like they would write history. Thankfully, the black heroes and the white Americans and Canadians that helped the fugitives defied the "collectivity" and the temporary "victors" and respected the rights of the slaves. Those people were noble precisely because they weren't concerning themselves with who would "write history."

"History is written by the victors" is a deeply amoral approach to determining what rights are or whether they exist. Right and wrong--and rights and wrongs--have nothing to do with who is the victor. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.--the famous civil rights hero--put it, {paraphrase} "if a man has nothing for which he is willing to die, he is not worthy to live." The recognition of rights often depends on the victor, but that is a different story altogether.

Unlike you, who insinuate that a black man like myself is an Uncle Tom for not following your approved "black party line", Dr. King understood and appreciated the majestic philosophy of the Founders. He quoted the "dead white men" and applied their words, stripped of the blot of prejudice and racism, to combat violations of civil rights. I also attempt to apply the majesty of American philosophy, purified by the 14th Amendment, to civil rights. I don't expect you to understand.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

104. Thanks! n/t

[iverglas]

113. oh dear

Talking to thin air?

[gorfle]

107. Check and mate.

Well done, TPaine!

[iverglas]

109. what is truly sad

is that I think you truly believe the shit you spew, i.e., in this case, you misinterpretation/misrepresentation of what I said.

"History is written by the victors", like "might makes right", is a horrible cynical view of the world -- but in the case you invented, it is the truth. "Rights" simply have no meaning in that situation.

I think that if you were not blinded by hatred, you might have a contribution to make to your world. Someday, with more maturity and greater distance from whatever has caused this narcissism, maybe.

[gorfle]

106. Of course she does.

I really hope she was perjuring herself. The idea that she has no personal opinion on whether a person has a right to self-defense is just too terrifying.

Of course she has a personal opinion on it. But she would rather tapdance around it by talking about laws related to self-defense rather than give her personal opinion on it.

Basically what it boiled down to in a nutshell was this:

She was asked here personal opinion on the right to self-defense, and instead she described laws relating to self-defense.

This is like me asking you if you like my red sports car and your responding by saying, "Yes, it is a red sports car."

[Euromutt]

110. I admit I tuned out after about three sentences

Christ, what a load of waffling on Sotomayor's part. As it's been succinctly put in German, "Sie haben viel geredet, aber nichts gesagt" ("You have talked much, but said nothing").

I can think of at least two cases in which the SCOTUS was asked to rule on whether the government had an obligation to protect an individual citizen, and opined that it did not. Now, my background's in political science, not law, but in my book, if the government refuses to take responsibility to perform a service for its citizens, it thereby abdicates the authority (i.e. the legitimate exercise of power) to prevent citizens from doing themselves whatever it is the government refuses to do. Considerations of "natural law" and constitutional law aside, U.S. citizens have a right to self-defense at the very least by dint of the fact that the government refuses to guarantee their protection.

But at a more fundamental level, it seems unthinkable that anyone would have to even question whether people have a right to self-defense. The very notion that one should submit to being illegitimately deprived of life, health, liberty or property strikes me as an utterly alien one.

[jody]

111. You invoked Christ so I wanted to add the statement "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions,

as the heathen do for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." :hi:

[iverglas]

116. "brawk"

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=30&q=site%3Ademocraticunderground.com+jody+%22defense+of+self%22&btnG=Search&meta=

:rofl:

[eqfan592]

112. This is a very good point.

It's interesting (and distressing) to me that the judge would not have at least brought up one of the various cases that clearly state that the government has no responsibility to protect each of us as individuals. The implication being that we are left to care for this on our own.

Maybe it makes me a bad progressive, but I am not a fan of hers, for a variety of reasons. But it doesn't look like we have much choice either way right now.

[iverglas]

115. yeah, stuck with Obama as President

and with the nominees he picks. My heart bleeds for you.

[iverglas]

114. indeed

But at a more fundamental level, it seems unthinkable that anyone would have to even question whether people have a right to self-defense. The very notion that one should submit to being illegitimately deprived of life, health, liberty or property strikes me as an utterly alien one.

I assume you consider that observation to be germane in the context of this thread.

Could you explain how it is? (Oh, I'll let you leave the "property" part out of your answer, since the discussion here is about self-defence, which has nothing to do with property.)

I find the notion that a country would invade and occupy another country without justification abhorrent, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to express that sentiment in this thread. Just in case you needed an illustration to assist you in answering my question.

[iverglas]

117. anybody else wonder where "guardian" went?

Some people make such a point of noticing when the OP posts and runs sometimes ...

Me, I think that someone who makes statements like:

This is someone that is LYING to avoid answering that her opinion is NO.

really ought to offer up some substantiation of this really quite ugly attempt to assassinate the character of the Democratic President's nominee for, and next member of, the US Supreme Court.

I know, that's just me being weird again.

[trumanh59639]

118. Sure

But NOT a gun.

[X_Digger]

119. Do tell..

"trumanh59639 Fri Jul-24-09 02:07 AM

9. The 2nd amendment is antiquated

There's no need for guns. PERIOD"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x7000#7215


Why exactly do you think we don't have a right to a firearm?

[Glory89fan]

120. Yeah, of course

Just not with guns.

[iverglas]

121. many people who join this site

do so to participate in discussions. Often, in order to do that, they find that reading the discussion they decide to join is useful.

Goodness, sometimes they even find it useful to actually read the post to which they are replying, and not just the header of the post, before composing a reply! Amazingly, this practice is more likely to produce a result that is relevant to the topic of the thread ...

[iverglas]

122. oh dear, I missed the interruption of the disruption

A suitable memorial is called for.



Had to be one of the dumbest ones I've seen yet.

[Xenotime]

123. She holds progressive values in high regard. The question is stupid.

Get an alarm. Call a cop.