• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man tries to run over Pa. police, shot dead

Dittohead not! said:
Here you go.

Now, are you going to still try to argue that we don't have the right of self defense in the US? Let's see some documentation of that.
Click to expand...
I skimmed through the article and didn't see anything beyond references to state constitutions and the second amendment. I currently hold a collectivist view of the second amendment, which conflicts with an individualist view of "self defense."
 
Unrepresented said:
I skimmed through the article and didn't see anything beyond references to state constitutions and the second amendment. I currently hold a collectivist view of the second amendment, which conflicts with an individualist view of "self defense."
Click to expand...


Well then, we need not prove anything to you because you don't believe in the constitution anyway, that is unless for the purposes of convenience you can use certain provisions to benefit you.
 
Unrepresented said:
I skimmed through the article and didn't see anything beyond references to state constitutions and the second amendment. I currently hold a collectivist view of the second amendment, which conflicts with an individualist view of "self defense."
Click to expand...

Refer to these SCOTUS decisions...

Brown v. United States

"Brown v. United States, [1] was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense."

Brown v. United States (1921) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

District of Columbia v. Heller

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
j-mac said:
Well then, we need not prove anything to you because you don't believe in the constitution anyway, that is unless for the purposes of convenience you can use certain provisions to benefit you.
Click to expand...
Having a different interpretation of the Constitution is different from not believing in it. I've been arguing from an interpretation of the Constitution throughout even if you don't share it.
j-mac said:
Refer to these SCOTUS decisions...

Brown v. United States

"Brown v. United States, [1] was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense."

Brown v. United States (1921) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

District of Columbia v. Heller

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I'm aware of what case law says about "self-defense." My argument isn't about case law.
 
Unrepresented said:
Having a different interpretation of the Constitution is different from not believing in it. I've been arguing from an interpretation of the Constitution throughout even if you don't share it.
Click to expand...

The only interpretation that matters is the SCOTUS's....

I'm aware of what case law says about "self-defense." My argument isn't about case law.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you disagree with case law....You still must follow it....

Are you against property rights as well?
 
j-mac said:
The only interpretation that matters is the SCOTUS's....
Click to expand...
On a current applicable basis, sure.

But that doesn't stop us from making thousands of posts on this forum discussing the validity of those decisions.;)
j-mac said:
Ok, so you disagree with case law....You still must follow it....

Are you against property rights as well?
Click to expand...
Being for or against "property rights" in an incredibly overbroad question. I share some views standard American views, I disagree with some standard American views. I'd imagine that's true with everyone.
 
Unrepresented said:
On a current applicable basis, sure.

But that doesn't stop us from making thousands of posts on this forum discussing the validity of those decisions.;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that and $1.50 will get you a refill of a ****ty cup of coffee at the truck stop.

Being for or against "property rights" in an incredibly overbroad question. I share some views standard American views, I disagree with some standard American views. I'd imagine that's true with everyone.
Click to expand...

Ok, I don't really care...All I know is that rational people will never see it your way, regardless of what political affiliation we may have....I don't know what kind of anarchist, anti American, collectivist crap has crawled out from under the rocks they were hiding under til Obama got in, but believe you me, they need to either crawl back under themselves, or be put there.
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm sorry that you don't believe that everyone is entitled to Constitutional protections and justice.

People being attacked deserve that right as well. They should settle it through our judicial system which is intended to rectify violation of law.

Adding violence and in justice to a violent encounter isn't decreasing violence or injustice. It's adding to it.

You may feel the ends justify the means, but that's not justice.

Again, "kill or be killed" situations don't really exist much outside of suspense films.
Click to expand...

Its amazing watching you twist yourself into knots over this. :2wave:
 
Unrepresented said:
There is a difference between the individual's perception of risk and the actual risk. While absolute objectivity may not be possible, the individual involved will almost certainly be more subjective in their perceptions.
Click to expand...

So if someone is swinging a shovel at you, just explain to them that this is a matter for the courts as your skull is being bashed in?

Makes sense.
 
Unrepresented said:
1) The fourteenth Amendment guarantees all Americans the same federally protected rights. The lack of a stated right to "self defense" suggests that it clearly wasn't the priority to the founders that fair and equal due process was.

2) I'm trying to be respectful of the other posters.

I disagree with castle doctrines.
Click to expand...

Very well, when do you plan to post a sign in front of your home saying you are unarmed and disagree with the castle doctine?
 
Unrepresented said:
Having a different interpretation of the Constitution is different from not believing in it. I've been arguing from an interpretation of the Constitution throughout even if you don't share it.

I'm aware of what case law says about "self-defense." My argument isn't about case law.
Click to expand...

If you believe neither whats written nor the interpretations you dont believe in it.
 
Unrepresented said:
I skimmed through the article and didn't see anything beyond references to state constitutions and the second amendment. I currently hold a collectivist view of the second amendment, which conflicts with an individualist view of "self defense."
Click to expand...
It also conflicts with the decisions of the US Supreme Court.
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, that and $1.50 will get you a refill of a ****ty cup of coffee at the truck stop.
Click to expand...
By this logic most forums in this site should be closed, considering that the only opinions that matter are the SCOTUS ones and not ours. We're here to discuss political thoughts, not necessarily just parrot what's actually happened.
j-mac said:
Ok, I don't really care...All I know is that rational people will never see it your way, regardless of what political affiliation we may have....I don't know what kind of anarchist, anti American, collectivist crap has crawled out from under the rocks they were hiding under til Obama got in, but believe you me, they need to either crawl back under themselves, or be put there.
Click to expand...
I'm arguing an interpretation of the same founding documents you claim to place your faith in.
US Conservative said:
Its amazing watching you twist yourself into knots over this. :2wave:
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think that my view is much more consistent than "self defense" is.
US Conservative said:
So if someone is swinging a shovel at you, just explain to them that this is a matter for the courts as your skull is being bashed in?

Makes sense.
Click to expand...
Even if another citizen is attempting to violate your rights doesn't mean that you have to violate theirs.

Eye for an eye is primitive justice. We're modern people with modern understandings and modern resources. We're capable of better.
US Conservative said:
Very well, when do you plan to post a sign in front of your home saying you are unarmed and disagree with the castle doctine?
Click to expand...
Avoiding trouble is the smartest form of "self defense."
US Conservative said:
Its a natural right. Even a gazelle being chased down by a lion knows this.
Click to expand...
Natural rights don't exist.
US Conservative said:
If you believe neither whats written nor the interpretations you dont believe in it.
Click to expand...
You don't get to be the gatekeeper of which interpretation is legitimate. It's as much my document as an American citizen as it is yours.
Dittohead not! said:
It also conflicts with the decisions of the US Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
I understand that. I'm not arguing case law. I'm arguing the conflict of ideologies between the Bill of Rights and those SCOTUS decisions.
 
Unrepresented said:
By this logic most forums in this site should be closed, considering that the only opinions that matter are the SCOTUS ones and not ours. We're here to discuss political thoughts, not necessarily just parrot what's actually happened.

I'm arguing an interpretation of the same founding documents you claim to place your faith in.

I disagree. I think that my view is much more consistent than "self defense" is.

Even if another citizen is attempting to violate your rights doesn't mean that you have to violate theirs.

Eye for an eye is primitive justice. We're modern people with modern understandings and modern resources. We're capable of better.

Avoiding trouble is the smartest form of "self defense."

Natural rights don't exist.

You don't get to be the gatekeeper of which interpretation is legitimate. It's as much my document as an American citizen as it is yours.

I understand that. I'm not arguing case law. I'm arguing the conflict of ideologies between the Bill of Rights and those SCOTUS decisions.
Click to expand...

Sometimes (like in self defense) you have to violate another persons rights. The law recognizes this.

Life exists outside of liberal theory. :2wave:
 
US Conservative said:
Sometimes (like in self defense) you have to violate another persons rights. The law recognizes this.

Life exists outside of liberal theory. :2wave:
Click to expand...
Life is filled with violations. I'm a fan of decreasing them. Violating a citizen's rights should involve the justice system, not a pat on the back.
 
Unrepresented said:
By this logic most forums in this site should be closed, considering that the only opinions that matter are the SCOTUS ones and not ours. We're here to discuss political thoughts, not necessarily just parrot what's actually happened.

I'm arguing an interpretation of the same founding documents you claim to place your faith in.

I disagree. I think that my view is much more consistent than "self defense" is.

Even if another citizen is attempting to violate your rights doesn't mean that you have to violate theirs.

1. Eye for an eye is primitive justice. We're modern people with modern understandings and modern resources. We're capable of better.

Avoiding trouble is the smartest form of "self defense."

2. Natural rights don't exist.

You don't get to be the gatekeeper of which interpretation is legitimate. It's as much my document as an American citizen as it is yours.

3. I understand that. I'm not arguing case law. I'm arguing the conflict of ideologies between the Bill of Rights and those SCOTUS decisions.
Click to expand...

1. An eye for an eye is revenge or justice, according to your point of view, after the fact. Self defense is taking an eye so someone else doesn't take yours. It's quite a different thing.

2. The writers of the Constitution and Declaration would definitely disagree with you there, but then, your opinion matters as much as theirs (in your opinion, of course).

3. There is no conflict of ideology, just a conflict between your interpretation and everyone else's.
 
Dittohead not! said:
1. An eye for an eye is revenge or justice, according to your point of view, after the fact. Self defense is taking an eye so someone else doesn't take yours. It's quite a different thing.
Click to expand...
I'm a fan of removing the least amount of eyes. I see "self defense" as the most blinding of the options.
Dittohead not! said:
2. The writers of the Constitution and Declaration would definitely disagree with you there, but then, your opinion matters as much as theirs (in your opinion, of course).
Click to expand...
They might disagree, but the document that was intended to verify and itemize the rights of citizens sides with me -- IMO of course.
Dittohead not! said:
3. There is no conflict of ideology, just a conflict between your interpretation and everyone else's.
Click to expand...
There is a conflict of ideology because the Bill of Rights gives multiple explicit Amendments that defend what a suspected, accused, and/or convicted criminal is entitled to and zero that give any definition of "self defense" while case law defends it as if it were the opposite.
 
US Conservative said:
Blah blah blah. You can tell that to an attacker as he guts you. Tell him all about it. :lamo
Click to expand...
Your attempt to vilify citizens in order to deny them Constitutional protections is short sighted. We'll all want Constitutional protections some day.
 
Unrepresented said:
Your attempt to vilify citizens in order to deny them Constitutional protections is short sighted. We'll all want Constitutional protections some day.
Click to expand...

Im not vilifying citizens but there are some bad people out there. Not many-but enough that people would be naive to pretend otherwise.
 
US Conservative said:
Im not vilifying citizens but there are some bad people out there. Not many-but enough that people would be naive to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...
And even those deserve every protection we can extend to them.
 
US Conservative said:
Im not vilifying citizens but there are some bad people out there. Not many-but enough that people would be naive to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

Do you run into a lot of bad people? I don't, and I live in Brooklyn.

I don't walk around scared that someone's going to attack me... do you?

I'm asking this because I can understand people behaving in a fearful way if there's danger always lurking around each and every corner (like Somalia). But, the vast majority of Americans live in extremely violence free environments (comparatively speaking), so the message of "be ready to kill!" seems grossly overblown to me.

Hell, I grew up in Brooklyn during the height of the crack epidemic. It was absolutely crazy. So from my lens, all of this fear looks extreme to me.
 
Unrepresented said:
It is unilateral when one person is authorized to kill instead of granting the person a trial by jury of peers. If they're an authorized government official doing this it is even more immoral IMO. If a person deserves justice, it should be determined through the justice system.
Click to expand...

Lol, when someone's life is in danger, there's not going to BE a trial, the officer MUST eliminate the threat to himself or the public. Since there was a giant man trying to murder him, he did the right thing by putting him down. 100% legal, 100% fair. Brown chose to try and end the officer's life, and the correct scenario pllayed out. The justice system proved this to be correct.

You don't get taken to trial if you are a threat to a police officer or especially the general public. You will be killed.
 
Unrepresented said:
Natural rights don't exist.
Click to expand...


Then you do NOT believe in this nations independence....That you said you did was a lie.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

un•al•ien•a•ble (ɪnˈeɪl yə nə bəl, -ˈeɪ li ə-)

adj.
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated.

unalienable - definition of unalienable by The Free Dictionary

IOW, The founders believed that we as a people, in fact all of mankind period were endowed by "Natural Rights"....Rights that government can not take away, because they didn't grant them....

You just destroyed your own entire argument....Thanks.

*drops mic, and leaves the stage*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom