4 ms·

If the historical purpose of the second amendment is to have a citizenry capable of defending itself from unjust government force, and the government is increas

If the historical purpose of the second amendment is to have a citizenry capable of defending itself from unjust government force, and the government is increasingly using unjust force; How does it follow that the citizens need to concede anything?

scott_karana 13y ago
No kidding. There have been cases similar to this (but less dramatic) where the homeowners fired on the un-marked, un-announced police squad, and were (rightly!) vindicated under their states' respective castle or self-defense laws. What a pointless waste of life. Police need to go back to basics.
- Crito 13y ago
  How do those situations play out such that the homeowner lives to see themselves vindicated?
  - parsnips 13y ago
    Sadly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
- uxp 13y ago
  > There have been cases similar to this (but less dramatic) where the homeowners fired on the un-marked, un-announced police squad, and were (rightly!) vindicated under their states' respective castle or self-defense laws. There have? Could you please cite them? In reading the Author's book, mentioned at the end of the article, I was lead to believe that the castle doctrine has pretty much eroded to the point that one has a reasonable sense of privacy in one's own home, buy if you're suspected of illegal activity you basically forfeit that right.
  - scott_karana 13y ago
    Sure, here: http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/article_549b0586-cefc-53a2-bd34-80a8f07816b4.html http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/article_549b0586-cefc-53a... Can't see any others at the moment, sorry. You might be right about forfeiting the right in illegal activities, I don't know.
danso 13y ago
It's not a debate in a vacuum... The problems people have with the Second Amendment often arise from citizen-on-citizen shootings...both the shooting-rampage variety, and the There's-not-enough-money-to-fund-the-police-so-criminals-go-rampant kind. I'm not saying gun rights should be abolished or limited...I guess I'm just despondently pointing out difficult (and money-based) of an issue it is.

scott_karana 13y ago

No kidding. There have been cases similar to this (but less dramatic) where the homeowners fired on the un-marked, un-announced police squad, and were (rightly!) vindicated under their states' respective castle or self-defense laws. What a pointless waste of life. Police need to go back to basics.

Crito 13y ago
How do those situations play out such that the homeowner lives to see themselves vindicated?
- parsnips 13y ago
  Sadly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
uxp 13y ago
> There have been cases similar to this (but less dramatic) where the homeowners fired on the un-marked, un-announced police squad, and were (rightly!) vindicated under their states' respective castle or self-defense laws. There have? Could you please cite them? In reading the Author's book, mentioned at the end of the article, I was lead to believe that the castle doctrine has pretty much eroded to the point that one has a reasonable sense of privacy in one's own home, buy if you're suspected of illegal activity you basically forfeit that right.
- scott_karana 13y ago
  Sure, here: http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/article_549b0586-cefc-53a2-bd34-80a8f07816b4.html http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/article_549b0586-cefc-53a... Can't see any others at the moment, sorry. You might be right about forfeiting the right in illegal activities, I don't know.

danso 13y ago

It's not a debate in a vacuum... The problems people have with the Second Amendment often arise from citizen-on-citizen shootings...both the shooting-rampage variety, and the There's-not-enough-money-to-fund-the-police-so-criminals-go-rampant kind. I'm not saying gun rights should be abolished or limited...I guess I'm just despondently pointing out difficult (and money-based) of an issue it is.