A single salient question; is there a human right to self defense?

You have to have a better definition or people could just call anything they believe without question an axiom. People think that the sky is blue is self evident even though the sky is transparent and has no color. People don't dig any further because they are satisfied with the answer they are given.

You have the point of reference wrong. It is immoral according to [fill in blank] beliefs.
It is not possible for a thing to be inherently immoral.

If morality is subjective it requires a subject to make the judgement. Therefore when I say "I thought it was wrong to rape someone of any age!!!" it is likely I am referring to the subjects belief system of morals rather than a moral concept dictated by the universe. When I say a thing is not always immoral I say that because it depends on the subject who created the abstract notion of morality.

 

They are representations of real things. Time is the distance between two actions. Time is typically referenced by a rotational/repeating action like the hand of a clock, the spinning of a globe or the vibration of a quartz crystal. A person arrived after 4 full rotations of the minute hand.
Money represents resources. Money is very similar to language in that it is simply representative of something real.

Even math is just a language: '2' represents separate objects of the same kind in close proximity. We know 1 + 1 = 2 because when we put 1 object next to another object we have met the definition of '2'.
Anything that is seen as abstract is just symbolic of something real and is therefore just another form of language.



I don't know what study you might associate with my thought process...

 

But it helps to keep it in check.

 

We had a snake in the lounge the other day. Just opened the front door and allowed it to leave. No problem. When I go out of the front door I go to my car and drive off, no problem. No need for a firearm in case I meet a carjacker. No need to worry when I go to the bank and walk out without getting mugged. I have very little expectation of being accosted in my day to day life. I like living like that. If you have to arm yourself against crims then I think it's a sad way to live.

 

How do you know all of that will not change tomorrow?
If violent crime is so bad we need to further restrict the rights of the law abiding, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

 

Yes. Such a Right exists. I defend that Right every day.

 

Yup, defend me answer.

 

No I don't. My job is not to contrive definitions so as to block people from saying things I don't like. 'That which commends itself as evident' is the definition of the Greek root, axíōma. I understand the desire for more precise definitions, but I don't think worry that the word can be used to mean anything is warranted in this case. It is self-evident that the sky is blue. Whether it is objectively blue or merely appears blue to everyone with intact visual capacity isn't even slightly relevant to this discussion,.. except, of course, to one trying to hold that color is meaningless.

 

I treat the opinion on moral issues of the person who doesn't think rape is wrong the same way I treat the opinion of the color-blind on the color of the sky. His opinion doesn't count because his mind is obviously defective. I'll be the first to agree that, as far as I can show, morality is entirely subjective, but I've been around this hill enough to know that the ontology of morality doesn't matter in the slightest. That the difference between that which is obviously wrong and that which is justifiable can consist of insensibly fine gradation does nothing t o negate the fact that there are plenty of acts that EVERYONE with intact prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala and UF connecting them find deplorable. Every single one of those acts involve a human victim, a subject capable of perceiving the act as wrong, without whom you couldn't have the act anyway.

 

False on both counts, in U.K. self defense is not Legal, it is called "Taking the Law into one's own hands."

Personal Defense is discouraged in the strongest possible manner, and is a prosecuted offense.

Also, given that Personal carry of Concealed Firearms is not allowed, and storage Regulations, you will not have a Firearm handy to pull, at least not Legally.

 

I'll post tomorrow and let you know how it goes.

Now, on violent crime. If it's that bad and the police so ineffective then, yes, get tooled up. It's perfectly reasonable to do so and I would.

 

Wrong. Self defence is known in English law, it's how it got into other common law systems. You might be confused because the patchwork of laws in the States has self defence all over the place. In English law self defence is a subset of the doctrines surrounding the defence of necessity. It's the same defence that police use when they use fatal force against suspects. There's no difference in the law for police or regular people when it comes to self defence. That's been a bugbear due to the necessity for individual officers to make that decision to kill. Again in English law there is no superior orders defence to murder.

 

Self defense in the nation of Britain exists in theory exclusively. It does not exist in actual practice.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm

The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. These are not expensive and can be bought from most local police stations or supermarkets.


There are other self defence products which claim to be legal (e.g. non toxic sprays), however, until a test case is brought before the court, we cannot confirm their legality or endorse them. If you purchase one you must be aware that if you are stopped by the police and have it in your possession there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, it's contents and legality can be verified.


However, accepting there is a lot of concern about street crime, we can try to clarify matters a little by putting forward the following points.

• You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.
• There are products which squirt a relatively safe, brightly coloured dye (as opposed to a pepper spray). A properly designed product of this nature, used in the way it is intended, should not be able to cause an injury.
• However, be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone's eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury.
• Any products bought from abroad have a greater chance of being illegal.

You claim that self defense in the nation of Britain is legal. The police of the nation of Britain stated that the only device that is legal to use is a rape alarm, which amounts to nothing more than a whistle, and that the use of any other implement is illegal if it is used in a manner that may cause injury, because it becomes an offensive weapon as a result.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...e-after-scaring-off-intruders-with-knife.html

Miss Klass, a model for Marks & Spencer and a former singer with the pop group Hear'Say, was in her kitchen in the early hours of Friday when she saw two teenagers behaving suspiciously in her garden.

The youths approached the kitchen window, before attempting to break into her garden shed, prompting Miss Klass to wave a kitchen knife to scare them away.

Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Herts, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon" – even in her own home – was illegal.

Jonathan Shalit, Miss Klass's agent, said that had been "shaken and utterly terrified" by the incident and was stepping up security at the house she shares with her fiancé, Graham Quinn, who was away on business at the time.

He said: "Myleene was aghast when she was told that the law did not allow her to defend herself in her own home. All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off.

"She is not looking to be a vigilante, and has the utmost respect for the law, but when the police explained to her that even if you're at home alone and you have an intruder, you are not allowed to protect yourself, she was bemused.

"Her questions going forward are: what are my rights, and what are you actually allowed to do to defend yourself in your own house?"

The Sunday Telegraph's Right to Defend Yourself campaign is seeking a change in the law to provide greater rights and immunity from prosecution for householders in dealing with intruders.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: "This incident just shows why things are still very confused on this issue and why we need a change in the law."

A spokesman for Hertfordshire Police said: "We got a call at 12.45am on Saturday to reports of the owner of the property hearing noises outside their address.

"Officers were in attendance and checked the property.

"There was no one around although they could see footprints in the snow. No property had been taken and there were no intruders. It was treated as a trespass incident.

"Words of advice were given in relation to ensuring suspicious behaviour is reported immediately."

Pray tell why should your assertion be believed?

 

A few nice quotes to toss into the PF playpen..

 

Having been very publicly through the UK legal system on this very subject I can tell you with absolute and 100% certainty that every thing I have told you is correct. Otherwise I would not be at large to write this message to you.

I have put this one to the test.


Self defence is a legal right here.
You are also quite at liberty here to "take the law into your own hands" and make citisens arrests.

Personal defence is however discouraged by the Police. Just as I suspect citisens arrests are. But they don't make the laws.

 

You can be pointed to a few examples that hold quite differently, where the victim was charged and convicted because they resisted, while the criminal who committed assault with a deadly weapon received a sentence of significantly less severity.

 

Miscarriages of justice will happen. It's not a perfect world.

In my own case I was quite confident that no jury would convict me. But it never even went to court.
It went to parliament though. And they liked me. So what do you know.

The police offered me bigger guns and I have accepted. Case closed. Security rating fully intact. It took 3 months.
I didn't enjoy any of it. Got my first grey hairs. But it has been resolved to my satisfaction.
One in every 15,000 gun owners has an incident, they said to me. I do fear arrest whenever I have my gun. I am conscious that a single report can get me shitcanned. I think we all are and it's not really such a bad thing that we are.

That scary guy with the gun? Not really the look I am after.

 

Dropship is not above posting bogus quotes to advance the anti-gun control and anti-safety agenda. Noted.

 

Pray tell where is the proof to show that the quotes presented are indeed bogus, and did not exist?

 

I don’t generally speak to someone else’s use of quotes, but I have verified a few of these before and have saved them to have at hand. For example, Sir George Tucker’s is broader than what has been cited. Here it is in better context:

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia , in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES, Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300.

So who was Sir George Tucker? He became a legal giant in America after the Revolution. His “American edition” of the Commentaries—where the quote above resides, was the most important legal work consulted by lawyers in the early years of America jurisprudence….

And Richard Henry Lee’s quote is authentic. It comes from the Letters from the Federal Farmer series. Here Lee was discussing the desire to rely on militias over a standing army. I will try to put it in context:

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. . . .the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia. . .and include. . .all men capable of bearing arms. . . . But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia. . . .[of the select militia] These Corps, not much unlike regular troops, well ever produce an inattention to the general militia. . .whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. . . .The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.--Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, p. 169-170 (1788 [Emphasis added by me]

On the flip side I have never used the Washington quote because I have never been able to independently verify it. The same goes for the Jefferson quote.

Still, I do recall reading some advice Jefferson gave to his nephew once:

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind....Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”--Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, p. 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967). (Letter to Peter Carr, his 15-year-old nephew, August 19, 1785).

And I do recall Jefferson kept a “Commonplace Book”—sort of a scrapbook of ideas he was exposed to and which he thought highly enough of to copy down to aid him in remembering things he thought were important or well said. There was a quote he read and copied into his book that in my opinion is the best way to summarize the theory of gun control I have ever found:

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.--Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting with approval 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria from his work, On Crimes and Punishment, 1764.

In any event, it is a very dry desert indeed when we go looking for quotes from our founders to argue that the 2nd Amendment was somehow intended to protect a state’s right to a militia, or was only intended to allow an individual militiaman the right to have his own arms while in militia service. Although the gun control crowd’s thirst for such evidence is great, their search has been in vain and their thirst remains unquenched.

I still stand on my claim that my nation’s founders considered the RKBA to be an essential right of a free people, and that this belief was not abandoned by those who followed them.

---

For those who can possess and wield arms are in a position to decide whether the constitution is to continue or not. Aristotle, Politics, T. Sinclair Trans. 1962, p. 274.

 

Assuming we are talking about an individuals right to self defense in an otherwise civilized and peaceful society, anything available which could be used as a weapon defensively or offensively other than another humans life, unless of course that human is also one you are being threatened by, would be acceptable.

 

<---"In civilised debates, mere assertions don't score points - Michael Pascoe Sydney Morning Herald."

 

Just out of curiosity; do you agree with Alexander there?

 

Why not?

 

Or at least for casual use, the same Arms as the Police & Federal Agents, My customary Glock fills that position nicely.