Britain: don't hit criminal twice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's an analogy which might be better suited to the discussion (I just thought of it, so there might be flaws. If so, please let me know):

A community has a sudden rash of violent fistfights, in which several people are quite badly injured. The government, in response, decrees that all residents must henceforth wear manacles to restrict their ability to attack each other. The manacles are chained together loosely enough to permit normal daily activity, but not typical fistfighting techniques.

The problem is that now if some enterprising hoodlum should cut his chains, no citizen will be able to fight him.

Has self-defense been restricted here?
 
Or, since the chains were designed to be long, so as to permit other activities, I predict that these same chains will be used for stranglings.

They'll have to be shortened, one link at a time until the serfs start acting right.

As Sam Adams said,
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.

We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen.
Click to expand...

Dang, that's appropriate.

Rick
 
ag, I'm 70 years old come July 6th. I have some arthritis problems and a bad back. Plus, I've had a colonoscopy.

What this means is that some two or three unarmed but healthy young hoodlums would find me relatively helpless against them.

It is my belief that no government can morally deny me the right to remain unhospitalized. No government can morally deny me the means to maintain my present level of health.

Governments have the physical power to render me helpless to the point of my injury or death at the hands of hoodlums, but they no moral right to do so, no moral right to say that I should consider my life as thereby worthless.

Now, you may see all this in a different light. However, in the last thirty-seven years I think I've heard about every argument as to removal of my firearms that can be made. I've heard from the Pacifists, the Passivists, and those who would create total power over the citizenry by the State.

As usual, Shakespeare said it best, as to these arguments: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Art
 
Agricola,

Practically speaking, restricting the ease of performing an act is restricting the act. Our disagreement may well have to do with different historical traditions. Over here, for a long time civics tests were used to ensure that the black population could not register to vote. Yes, anyone who could pass the test was allowed to register, but the test was only administered to blacks.

The present situation is analogous. "The right to vote" equals "the right to defend yourself," "passing the test" apparently equals "becoming a nth-degree blackbelt in jujitsu," and "blacks" equal "anyone without a gun (i.e. anyone who must learn jujitsu to even have a hope of surviving a lethal encounter)."

I'm speaking broadly, but the point still stands. Does it matter that I have the theoretical right to self-defense if it is practically out of my reach?

This discussion is making me a bit nervous, since I'm traveling to London in a week and a half, and I'd enjoy knowing that the authorities actually have my welfare in mind. Unfortunately, it doesn't look that way.
 
Practically speaking, restricting the ease of performing an act is restricting the act.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. Too bad "shall not be impaired is nowhere to be found in the brit.gov ever-changing small-C constitution. Whatever the Parliament says, goes.

Art, between your bad joint and my bad back, I'd think a small troop of Girl Scouts, properly motivated, could give us a run for our money.

:D

Rick
Haplily on AngriCola's ingore list.
 
DE,

Practically speaking, restricting the ease of performing an act is restricting the act.
Click to expand...

no, its just that - restricting the ease of performing an act.

the various voting analogies that people have been coming up with are (clearly) nowhere near (the closest would be saying to people that you couldnt take the train to vote, or something like that) an adequate comparison.

art,

i dont want to remove your firearms, what you do in your country is your business - but (and this is not aimed at you) kindly leave me to mine. Once again we see THR filled with badly written, ignorant pieces of "journalism" about the UK that are so easily dismantled (ie: can be done within two minutes at a keyboard) that you really wonder (a) how these people make money doing it and (b) why people believe it.

azrickd,

I think you flatter yourself.
 
agricola
Senior Member

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 1119


GRD,

So now public carriage of weapons gives people self defence? I dont think killing everyone in the street is acceptable, but it is the logical end to the idea that possessing weapons (or, more importantly, opposing restrictions on them) is a part of self-defence; it isnt (this isnt semantics - its fact)
Click to expand...


Does that mean the logical end of allowing people to study martial arts is that everyone goes around beating up everyone they see, just in case they were going to attack them?
 
AngriCola, you promised me I was going to be added to your ignore list. You disappoint me.

iapetus:
Does that mean the logical end of allowing people to study martial arts
Click to expand...
You're under the impression that AngriCola is of the mind to care. Don't think of this as needing to make AngriCola cry uncle under the weight of your logic. It would be like waiting for Fidel Castro to bow to the economic wisdom of Lou Dobbs (let alone, Milton Friedman).

All you really have to do is to give we here at THR some points of wisdom so we can debate those who think gun prohibition laws are good and use Angri's debate points without knowing how flawed they are. If they are not Authoritarians like Angri, you'll have some measure of success with them. Let's not kid ourselves that Angri has any say over anyone here.

The key is to know when Angri is backed into a corner and begins to howl at the moon. That is the time to disengage, knowing that Angri is out of anything even remotely resembling a rational argument, even for England, let alone for the US of A.

Hint: That point was many posts ago. :D

Rick
Cheese burgers await me.
 
Last edited:
I'd forgotten why I quit debating rights and freedom issues with Ag. We just don't even talk to the same language. When this:
I dont think killing everyone in the street is acceptable, but it is the logical end to the idea that possessing weapons (or, more importantly, opposing restrictions on them) is a part of self-defence; it isnt (this isnt semantics - its fact)
Click to expand...
is held up as logical, it's time to shake your head and move on.

The talking in circles is making me dizzy. If you feel like addressing any of the points that have been made here, Ag, be sure and let me know.

- Gabe
 
Agricola:

GRD,

Youre committing the fallacy of assuming that the premise you hold - that self defence isnt really self defence unless you hold the means to do it effectively - is correct. It isnt, for the reasons below.
Click to expand...


I can't speak for GRD, but:

I would say that for self defence to actually be "self defence", it has to be successful. Otherwise it is just "attempted self defence".

If someone can only defend them selves against a certain attack if they are armed, then preventing them from being armed doesn't make self defence harder, it makes it imposible.

So preventing them from being armed means they cannot defend themselves.

So even if the law still says "You may defend yourself", in effect it prevents them from doing so.
 
Indeed - a lot of going in circles .. in fact Iapetus has just added what really is the case, as have others. And, I think I share Gabe's dizziness also!

I really fail to see how having a right of self defence ... as all people should by basic right (whether you consider it ''God given'' or not) ... should not be seen as an innate right across the board.

Therefore, without means to excercize this right (being ''permitted (sic) ) it is not far off a denial of that right.

It has to be born in mind that .... carrying of a firearm (weapon) for self (and family )protection does NOT lead to blood running in streets and monstrous homicide figures ... these features are what criminals get up to. It is against the criminal's potential for aggressive and threatening behavior - often with lethal force at their disposal ... that some half ways decent means of response is needed. In a huge majority of cases even presentation of a firearm stops the problem cos even bad guys have no wish to get shot.

To achieve this ''de-escalation'' .. requires means .... having no means will not. It is maybe something we can label ''victim impotence''. Something Ag' seems to prefer.

I used to be a Brit .. ( used to be!!! )..... and find much of the attitudes toward people defending themselves desultory .. no matter what ''theory'' seems to suggest. People there are for the most part AFRAID to envisage a situation where they need to defend themselves. In part because they still have this feeling that the victim almost always seems to come out smelling of roses ... AND .. they are not allowed the tools for defence ... other than in the home.

Bag snatches, muggings, rapes .. occur in streets and dark places .... places where there will not usually be a cop to help .... where it is necessary and desirable for the potential victim remain just that .. potential .... no more.

Sorry - rambling ... I doubt there will be agreement over this great divide, judging by the thread thus far, so Ag' ... it might be there will have to simply be an agreement to disagree.!
 
Ag, before we continue this migrane-inducing thread, please answer a couple of questions I have:

How does my carrying of an inanimate object (a firearm, a knife) to be used only when attacked infringe upon anyone else's rights? How is it different from the inanimate object I carry concealed to open my car and house doors? Neither will hurt anyone.


Do you ban keys in the UK to prevent cars from being "keyed?" Its for the paint jobs, you know.:scrutiny:
 
Are all brits insane? (NB: thousands of brits look at this thread saying to themselves "Are all yanks insane?") :evil:

atek3 <---- Insane American who believes carrying weapons is an important part of self-defense
 
I think the whole problem here is simply radically different notions of what a right to "self defense" actually is.

By and large it appears the members of this board include the right to carry with them the means of self defense as part of the right, with several notable exceptions - I don't believe all the arguing in the world is going to change the mind of the exceptions - they simply hold a radically different worldview towards private carriage of weapons.

I saw a UK tv show called "Thin blue line" recently, that is sort of a parody of an English police department (kind of like 'Reno 911' I guess), where the police inspector in charge of issuing shotgun permits refused to issue them, and compared owning a weapon to an ant owning an aardvark. You can't argue with people like that.

So when someone says "we do too have the right to self defense" it's best to remember that he doesn't mean the same thing by self defense that you do.

Perhaps there is a community of people somewhere, who believe that the absolute maximum "self defense" you may use against lethal assault is harsh language or to run away or to summon the police. These people might argue until they are blue in the face that they indeed "do have the right to self defense" because they are allowed to do these three things, but that any private citizen using any force whatsoever against an assailant could logically be extended to indiscriminate murder.

Now, does our hypothetical ultimate pacificist society have the right of self-defense? They certainly have less of it than the English, but I doubt if you'd be able to convince them of that.
 
Are all brits insane? (NB: thousands of brits look at this thread saying to themselves "Are all yanks insane?")
Click to expand...

We've got at least one on this very thread arguing the pro-RKBA viewpoint it looks like to me.
 
azrickd,

Its nice to know that your debating "skills" remain in the playground. made up any more stories for KABA yet?

GRD,

I have been addressing the issues - you are the one that has held RKBA as being part of self-defence (if you can find a legal definition of self defence as including RKBA, please share it with us), which is clearly wrong.

Or is it, as I have been saying all along, something that is only linked to self defence, not self defence itself?

iapetus,

no, because there are always going to be some cases where self defence is never going to be possible. do you therefore legislate for the SHTF scenario, or for the person who cannot defend themselves due to disability?
 
you are the one that has held RKBA as being part of self-defence (if you can find a legal definition of self defence as including RKBA, please share it with us), which is clearly wrong
Click to expand...

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).
1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).

Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, § XXII).
1865: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Art. I, § 4.
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." Art. I, § 14.

Hawaii: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959).

Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1978).
1889: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Art. I, § 11.

Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).
1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

Iowa: No provision.

Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:
First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. . . .
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).
1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
1799: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. X, § 23.
1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, § 25.

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).
1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3.

Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).
1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.

Maryland: No provision.

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).
1835: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13.
1850: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Art. XVIII, § 7.


Minnesota: No provision.

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
1832: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State." Art. I, § 23.
1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence." Art. I, § 15.

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.
1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).

Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).

Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).

New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).

New Jersey: No provision.

New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Art. II, § 6.

New York: No provision.

North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. Art. 1, § 30 (enacted 1971).
1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Bill of Rights, § XVII.
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Art. I, § 24.
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."

North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).

Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).
1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.

Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).

Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842).

South Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. Art. 1, § 20 (enacted 1895).
1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace . . . ." Art. I, § 28.

South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).

Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1870).
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. XI, § 26.
1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 26.

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.

Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984).
1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).

Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).

Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
 
Or is it, as I have been saying all along, something that is only linked to self defence, not self defence itself?
Click to expand...
This is insane. And forget RKBA. We're not even close to discussing firearms. Long way to go before we get there, we're only talking about the basic exercise of the right to defend oneself, at the most introductory level: the carriage of any weapon, no matter how modest. Please elaborate on how one is to defend oneself without any means to do so?!.

OK, let's define self-defense. I was under the impression that it had something to do with defending yourself from the assaults of another. What would your definition be, Ag? I'm interested to hear a definition of self-defense that manages to include your repeated statements that the right to self-defense is full and intact in the UK, even though the gov't prohibits it's subjects from carrying even the most rudimentary self-defense tools. Is your definition of self-defense defending oneself from attack without tools?

Or is it all just a semantic slight-of-hand? Self-defense is the actual act of attempting to defend yourself from attack, and the fact that you will have no chance of success is irrelevant, and allows people like yourself to continue to parrot "The right of self-defense is intact!", because you see, the tools required for self defense are not actually the act of 'self-defense', just linked to it, so we can deny you the tools and still feel good about ourselves when we tell you that your right to self defense is uninfringed.
the various voting analogies that people have been coming up with are (clearly) nowhere near (the closest would be saying to people that you couldnt take the train to vote, or something like that) an adequate comparison.
Click to expand...
I'd also like to continue with this. Denying people any and all tools to defend themselves would not be akin to denying people one method of transportation to the polls, but all methods. The polling place is there, and it's open, but you are prohibited from travelling to it by any means. Have fun voting! You see, Ag, transporting yourself to the polling place is not part of the right to vote. It's only linked to voting. Two completely different things. So when I deny you the ability to get to the polling place, oh you could still break the law and travel there illegally - even more evidence that your right to vote is not impaired! - I have not actually infringed on your right to vote one bit! You can still pull the lever, and your vote will still be counted! How do you get there? Well, your right to vote is intact, how you get there is irrelevant, it's only linked to your right, you see. Tough luck that.

- Gabe
 
agricola:

iapetus,

no, because there are always going to be some cases where self defence is never going to be possible. do you therefore legislate for the SHTF scenario, or for the person who cannot defend themselves due to disability?
Click to expand...


If you (or your friend/family member/community/etc) is attacked, there are three possible situations:

1) You can successfully defend yourself/them without the use of weapons.

2) You can successfully defend yourself/them if you use a weapon, but cannot do so if you are unarmed.

3) You cannot successfully defend yourself/them, even if you are armed.


Now, a law banning the possession of weapons will make little difference in cases 1 and 3.

But in case 2, a law banning the possession of weapons will prevent anyone (who obeys that law) from successfully defending themselves.
 
GRD,

Your analogies seem to agree more with my standpoint than yours.

Please remember:

i) we forbid the carriage of weapons in public. In private premises, especially the home, you can bear what you like (in terms of melee weapons);

ii) self defence is "full and intact" in the UK, as repeated cases have shown. Of course, since - by being American - you are always right (one recalls St. Johns sig), I appreciate I am on shaky ground (only coming from this country, and working within its criminal justice system, oh and not basing my theory on articles whose truth quotient is rather on the low side).

You also show your argument well by totally redefining the definition of "self defence" (like stand watie, who has similarly confused RKBA with self defence) in order to justify your theory (for which you have presented no evidence. Here is a good definition of what English law terms "self defence" as:

http://www.free-definition.com/Self-defence-law.html

http://www.spr-consilio.com/Forum/app_masteradl.cfm?PostNum=168&action=detail
 
Your analogies seem to agree more with my standpoint than yours.
Click to expand...
I must be missing something, I fail to see how this is the case (obviously, or I wouldn't be using the analogies), yet you refuse to enlighten me. Have at the voting analogy, if you want. That's the only one I've proposed.
i) we forbid the carriage of weapons in public. In private premises, especially the home, you can bear what you like (in terms of melee weapons);
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that settles that! Just don't leave your home and everything is AOK. But if a weapon is not necessary for self-defense, why even allow people to carry them in private? Couldn't you remove all the weapons from the private residences also and still tell people their right to self defense is intact? That way all those people, who are now only disarmed in public, could reap the benefits of being disarmed in private as well. Quite an injustice to let them have those melee weapons in private...every day more damage is done.
Of course, since - by being American - you are always right (one recalls St. Johns sig),
Click to expand...
I am not St. John, nor have I ever once pretended to be 'always right'. You can lose the uncalled-for snide little barbs.
I appreciate I am on shaky ground (only coming from this country, and working within its criminal justice system, oh and not basing my theory on articles whose truth quotient is rather on the low side).
Click to expand...
I'm not debating what is in the UK. You know how it is. I am not debating from any 'articles' that may or may not be truthful. I have quoted no authors and cited no references. So what is your point, exactly?
You also show your argument well by totally redefining the definition of "self defence"
Click to expand...
So my definition, simply 'defending oneself from attack' is a fabrication of my own mind? Self-defense means something else? Your links seem to be a pretty good definition, and I would object only to the 'proportionality' clauses.
in order to justify your theory (for which you have presented no evidence.
Click to expand...
My theory. The question is: is the right to self-defense restricted in the UK. Pretty simple. You have provided us with a data point: you may not carry a weapon in the UK (outside of your home). We postulate that it is not possible to defend yourself in the absence of a weapon. Are we all following along so far? I think this is where we start to disagree...you believe that you don't need a weapon to defend yourself, or is it that 'defending yourself' is an act and only the success of that act depends on the weapon. Therefore allowing self-defense, but not the weapon, means that the right to self-defense is intact?

Drop the RKBA angle. I'm not talking about guns. I'm having a hard time understanding how denying a subject the ability to carry even the most modest weapon can be reconciled with "self defence is "full and intact" in the UK". But then I'm just a dumb American, as you pointed out.

What evidence is it you are looking for to support the theory that in many cases you can't defend yourself without the proper weapon? I'd think it would be pretty obvious and not requiring an extensive case history to see that if you are attacked, your chance of successfully defending yourself is increased, or simply made possible at all, by the presence of the appropriate tool in your hand.

But this is back to the top of the circle again isn't it. And my migraine is kicking in.

Tell you what, do me a favor...please. You're going to have to explain this to me like I'm a child. I am not following your argument. Not at all. It, literally, makes no sense to me. And I know you're not an idiot, and I don't think I'm an idiot, so there must be something there that I'm missing. Just walk me through it, one step at a time, defining terms clearly as you go.

The big question: Is the right to self-defense infringed in the UK?

Part 1 of the crap I don't understand that I'd like you to explain to me: How is it possible to defend oneself from criminal assault in the absence of even the most rudimentary weapon? For the sake of argument, lets assume a little old lady is the victim a young armed thug is the attacker.

Go slow.

- Gabe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top