Reuters Poll: Most Americans Support Deadly Force in Self Defense

Its just a question of whether GOOD or evil shud win.





David

Gee, David, why did you leave out the parts of the poll that show Americans support more restrictions on firearms and more gun control?

U r free to present any contradiction or comments.
That was the form in which the information was presented.

Wht am I not surprised you get your news from very one-sided sources?

Like the one from The Washington Times
that I posted a few moments ago ?





David

Oh, you mean the Moonie paper?

Addressing the merits of the concepts whose statistics u allege:
massacres have occurred in churches, upon unarmed victims.
Outlawing guns in churches is like outlawing fire extinguishers there.
HOW do u convince the murderers to leave their guns outside of the churches ???

Concerning "background checks" (which indicates DISCRIMINATION in regard to the right to defend your life),
what about "equal protection of the laws" required by the Constitution ??

I 1ce knew a fellow in his 20s or 30s who worked for the NY Stock Exchange.
When a fingerprint check revealed that he had stolen a car when he was 14, he was fired.
That is not as bad as if he were forced by government to offer himself up unarmed for slaughter in the discretion of violent predators.
That is the same principle as making ex-convicts play Russian Roulette.





David

I 'm not a Moonie, but thay r perfectly respectable anti-communists.
That means quite a lot, where thay come from.





David

Face it, David, most of the country disagrees with you, and it IS OUR COUNTRY too.

About 4O of the 5O States (beginning with Florida in 1986)
have rejected discriminatory licensure of the right of self defense.
( That is not 1OO%. ) Many have also adopted self defense laws
similar in principle to the Stand Your Ground Law of Florida,
to render victims immune from either civil or criminal litigation
arising from their defenses of their lives.
I fully expect freedom to proliferate better and wider.




No, not in the sense of your attempts to twist & distort the Bill of Rights,
to screw people out of their individual rights. Liberals' conduct has been shameful and unAmerican.

The Founders woud be aghast.





David

Sorry, David, you are, as usual, the one that's wrong. as the professional grammarians' amicus briefs clearly showed, the 2nd amendment as the founders drew it up, was talking solely about militias. the Constitution is silent about an individual right--silent, neither pro nor con, not discussed at all. It's only the 20th century right wing activist ideological judges who invented one. Four justices strongly opposed the reasoning in Heller, which means we just have to get one more, or have one of the five realize he was wrong and recant, and we can get back to sanity.

I am thankful that the NRA is strong enough to protect me from the freedom haters.

I remain a free person thanks to the NRA.

When interpreting the law, it might be better to rely on professional lawyers instead of professional grammarians.

In any case, any argument "that the Second Amendment is solely about militias" can only work if we had such a militia, and they were able to keep machineguns/grenades/bazookas at home instead of storing them on base.





The Ninth Amendment covers all individual rights not covered by other amendments.

Were you to ever successfully argue that the Second Amendment applies only to the militia, all you would really achieve is having the individual right shift from the Second to the Ninth Amendment.





Wrong. The individual right to carry a firearm in public for self defense is longstanding, and was not invented by anyone in the 20th century.





This opposition that many on the left have to American freedom, is appalling.

I know that not everyone on the left shares your opposition to our freedom (Nancy Pelosi deserves great credit for her defense of the Second Amendment). But still, it's pretty chilling.

It appears that I missed Jack's post.
For that, I apologize, Jack.
Thank u for finding it, Oralloy.

I have not seen it.
R u sure that it existed ?
For quite a few years b4 the HELLER case of 2008,
it was my practice to inquire of miscellaneous professional grammarians
with whom I came into contact for their opinions on the accurate intendment
of the 2nd Amendment, as drawn (i.e., to parse the text of the 2nd Amendment).
(To preserve their professional impartiality and neutrality,
I never pointed out what we already know of the Founders' views
on personal defense, from their own writings,
and few of those grammarians were libertarians.)

Thay ALL, without exception, supported the Individualist understanding
of the words and syntax of the 2nd Amendment,
including those who like gun control, which were most of them.
Take your own survay of professional grammarians and see what happens.



In US v. VERDUGO 11O S.Ct. 1O56 (at P. 1O61) (1990) (cited with APPROVAL by the USSC in HELLER)
the United States Supreme Court declares that:

"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' ".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING THE
SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EVERY SECOND YEAR. (Notably, one need not join the National Guard
in order to vote for his congressman.) The Court further defined "the people"
to mean those people who have a right peaceably to assemble [1st Amendment]
and those who have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment]
in their persons houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights of states,
as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people are protected
by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e. THE PEOPLE who can speak & worship freely can keep and bear arms.

Note that: the Court RELIED upon its definition of "the people".
Its decision in the VERDUGO case is founded upon that definition,
so that stare decisis attaches, thus creating binding judicial precedent,
explaining WHO THE PEOPLE ARE who have the said rights.
In its HELLER decision, the USSC cited to VERDUGO with approval and support.





We know from study of the writings of the Founders
and of press coverage, including letters to the editor from citizens
at the time, that NO ONE supported the gun control filosofy.
Police did not exist anywhere in the USA, until the next century.
Each citizen had to take care of himself; this was the mind-set
of the Founders and of the citizens by whom thay were surrounded.




Jack, that 's like saying that if only more anti-freedom judges get appointed to the USSC,
then Roe v. Wade and freedom of abortion can be repealed. Is that the position that u wanna adopt ?

Oralloy, what did she SAY that earned your favor ?





David

Back when Obama was just moving into the White House, he and his attorney general started babbling eagerly about a new unconstitutional ban on assault weapons.

Pelosi told them in no uncertain terms to keep their unconstitutional gun bans well away from Congress, because they were not going to come to the floor so long as she was Speaker.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/18461-pelosi-throws-cold-water-on-weapons-ban

I see. Thanx for the link, Oralloy.

FOR THE RECORD:
I dissent from the notion
that extant gun control laws shud be enforced.
Thay r unConstitutional. Thay r unAmerican.
Thay help only on-the-job criminals. Their victims shud not be disarmed.





David

"The commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms.
The sword and sovereignty ever walk hand in hand together." Aristotle





David

Any time you feel like walking around with a sword, feel free.