Need Help! The Constitutional Basis for the right of Self Defense

[jimpeel]

Agricola

If it helps, the "right to self defence" is nowhere enshrined in written law (at least in the UK), aside from "common law" (that is (and this is a crude definition) the body of legal history of this country), and probably stems from Saxon, and possibly Roman, predecessors.

It is enshrined here.

English Bill of Rights (1689)

Provided that:

The acts concerning the militia are grievous to the subject

and that

it is necessary for the public Safety that the Subjects, which are Protestants, should provide and keep arms for the common defense; And that the Arms which have been siezed, and taken from them, be restored.

This was changed by the House of Lords to,

That the subjects which are Protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed by law.

The Game Act of 1671 which disallowed poor citizens from ownership of guns, traps, and other hunting commodities was changed by removing the word "guns" from the items forbidden by this act.

 

[cordex]

there is always a restriction on self-defence of some sort or another, even in the US.

As Yakov Smirnoff would say ...
"Yep!"
And in some areas, the US's prohibitions are very much akin to the UK's. Doesn't make it right.

Tell me, friend ... how is someone supposed to defend themselves if they aren't allowed to make even basic preparations to do so? What weapons could a regular civilian in England carry in order to ensure their safety?
Yeah, yeah ... they could sit at home with their government approved broomsticks and croquet mallets, but what if they want to go out somewhere?

who would think "self defence" was inexcusable violence.

Ah, that is what you were referring to when you went on about irrational people?
In that case, I think you may be partially right.
Someone who would stand by and watch their loved ones be slaughtered one by one and just run away or wait for the knife doesn't seem to me to be entirely human ... or at the very least they strike me as unstable and probably insane. However, there are quite a few people who advocate that very thing (standing by, waiting for the police to make things all better, not resisting, etc, etc). Some who live in my town, no doubt.
But I generally don't condemn them immediately, as most of them are simply ignorant. They have never been in a situation where their life, or the lives of their loved ones are endangered. They don't know how they would react.

Who are the "LP loons", and do they advocate extremist pacifism?

 

[agricola]

jimpeel,

no, thats RKBA and not "you have the right to defend yourself" - which is in common law.

cordex,

as above, self defence is not RKBA, they are linked but they arent the same thing.

The LP loons are the likes of Sean Gabb.

 

[cordex]

agricola,
You ignored my questions.

[H]ow is someone supposed to defend themselves if they aren't allowed to make even basic preparations to do so? What weapons could a regular civilian in England carry in order to ensure their safety?

Saying that you can defend yourself but not be allowed to carry any form of weapon is like saying travel is a "right", but outlawing vehicles. In other words, a restriction that becomes a de facto ban for many.

The LP loons are the likes of Sean Gabb

That's what I thought. Libertarians, right?
Do they conclude that sef-defense is inexcusable violence? If they do, they're a far cry from the Libertarians on this side of the pond.

 

[geekWithA.45]

self defence is not RKBA, they are linked but they arent the same thing.

So, you can defend yourself, against an attack, but you are limited to using empty hands or whatever pieces of flotsam that might be handy, is that what you're saying?

Really?

Are you really willing to argue that certain objects must not be used to save your own life, even if it means the failure of that defense, and consequent death?

I'm afraid that they ARE one and the same, and that splitting them is illusory. If you split them you ultimately assert that abstaining from mere possession or use of certain objects is a higher virtue than life itself.

Sorry, Agricola, I'm not gonna follow you down that road.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

To many, self defence is simply inexcusable violence, and that we as a species are somehow 'above it'. Some people would rather see a women raped and murdered, than see that woman defend herself with a knife or gun.

That's nonsense? But that's people like YOU Agricola...and you don't even know it.

You rational people, have the utter cheek to tell me that I can defend myself but that I shouldn't have the ability to defend myself. You rational people tell me that 'weapons are bad' and that 'they are too violent'. Well criminals are BAD, and criminals are VIOLENT...and criminals are ARMED.

Why do you want to keep weapons banned Agricola? It only disarms victims and not criminals. That is fact. The criminals are armed, they always are; with surprise, numbers or weapons, maybe all three. Victims need equalisers. Here, they don't even have pepper spray.

How the HELL is anyone supposed to defend themselves when they have been disarmed by rational people like you Agricola?

Tell me.

Don't give me crap like 'crime doesn't happen', because it has happened, and continues too. Don't give me crap like 'you are not likely to be a victim' because that does not justify allowing criminals to murder and rape unabated. Don't give me crap like 'you are likely to know your attacker' because that makes no difference when they try to take your life.

You rational people condemn woman to rape. You advocate it by disarming the victims. You give them little hope of defending themselves.

You rational people condemn the wheelchair bound to assault and robbery if they obey your rational laws, and you condemn them to arrest if they do not.

You rational people condemn the victims, and reward the violent predators behaviour.

You rational people ban the buffalos horns so that the lions can feed without reprisal.

Immoral, tyrannical and unnatural.

 

[agricola]

criminals! around every corner! theyre under the bush!

 

[agricola]

cordex,

thats the thing - criminals are more likely to be armed in your culture, not ours. why would we want to change that?

mr bombastic,

disabled people are always going to be less able to defend themselves - or do you know of a gun that enables a blind man to accurately target the man who is attacking him?

 

[ARperson]

criminals are more likely to be armed in your culture, not ours. why would we want to change that?

For those of us who don't happen to know which cultures you might be referring to, could you enlighten us?

I'd hate to give a flippant answer when one wasn't necessary...or worse, not give one when it's so richly deserved.

 

[ARperson]

But back to the original question...

You're going about this whole Constitutional basis thing all wrong. You're looking for a justification as if there needs to be a one. It's like trying to prove the negative thing. You just can't do it.

Simply tell your European friend that if he wants to live as a subject to someone else for the rest of his life, that's his perogative. But you live in a country where one is a citizen, not a subject. And if he can't understand the idea of inalienable rights, he'd probably not fit to live in a country with them.

 

[tyme]

[blockquote](agricola) thats the thing - criminals are more likely to be armed in your culture, not ours. why would we want to change that?[/blockquote]
Nobody wants to change that. Nobody wants violent criminals to have easier access to guns (except the violent criminals and maybe white-collar money launderers who profit from them -- and I think there's more overlap between them than is commonly believed). But if that's the cost of allowing me to have a gun to defend myself if I'm ever unfortunate enough to have to (or heaven forbid to use against the government if that ever becomes necessary), it's worth paying.

As time goes on, your criminals will have access to more guns. You simply won't be able to confiscate firearms faster than criminals can make or import them. You cannot send the gun supply into permanent decline. The one thing you can do is recognize that citizens have a right to defend themselves with whatever they want.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

thats the thing - criminals are more likely to be armed in your culture, not ours.

Because you say so Agricola, doesn't make it true. Criminals are very much armed in our culture too.

disabled people are always going to be less able to defend themselves - or do you know of a gun that enables a blind man to accurately target the man who is attacking him?

Great argument! I guess so mute people can't exercise a right to free speech; none of us should have that right!

That's total rubbish.

I think you'll find that the disabled man in the wheelchair defended himself just fine with the spray can. But you'd rather have him stabbed to death then be able to carry a self defence spray.

And you haven't even answered my question:

How the HELL is anyone supposed to defend themselves when they have been disarmed by rational people like you Agricola?

Have you even thought about how you personally could defend yourself Agricola? You think you can beat knives, guns and superior numbers with your sense of righteousness and a bit of harsh language?

 

[agricola]

mr. bombastic,

why keep imagining these make-believe situations? you might as well bemoan your lack of arms as it affects your ability to keep bears away from the house.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

Rape and violent assault are make-believe.



Okay.



Enough said.

 

[cordex]

Agricola,
You have not responded to one question no matter who asks it:
How is someone supposed to defend themselves if they are prohibited from preparing to do so?

Disarmed victims lacking the physical ability to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat with attackers is no more a fantastic "make-believe situation" than criminals obtaining more weapons if law-abiding citizens are allowed to buy, own and carry them.

You aren't putting much thought into this debate. Very uncharacteristic.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The right to self-defnse is self-evident. The right for the rain to fall does not exist in the contitution either, nor can it be legislated, nor can government repeal it. Likewise, the government can not control a right not enumerated in the constitution.

It is understood throughout law that self-defense is a right...justifiable homicide..... killed in self-defense....will not be charged...etc. Such laws are written into state law. In Utah it is one sentence. For LETHAL defensive force, you or another must be in imminent danger.

However, I have read several articles concerning persons in Britain that have been tried and convicted for self-defence using lethal means. I imaging several other "enlightened" socialist republics share the same view.

But not here in the US (except maybe for the PRK and Taxachusetts).