The two were interviewed separately and both stories match.

So we are assured that the varmint and the husband were separate creatures!

No, that was not my intent. You will note that I directed than comment to da. In #149, da had extrapolated the fact that 9 people had been hit (2 with bullets and 7 with shrapnel) due to police firing, into lesser trained civilians hitting people not intended. I had rebutted the differences, giving two recent cases, and this is a third, where civilians used deadly force and no bystanders were hit. In this 3rd case, friends of the shooter stated that he did a lot of target shooting and expressed concern over how he would deal with having had to shoot a person.

Do not take my reporting of such instances as in ANY way diminishing the fact that someone’s child, spouse, parent has been killed, even in a situation where they were doing wrong. I do not. Nor should you think that a person doing the shooting seldom or never has severe remorse and deep conflict from having taken another’s life, even though justified under the law. MOST people have those feelings, and it’s the odd one who does not. Even most police have psychological issues and many go through therapy after a shooting.

I am not that callous. You have also seen me write here that every time I carry, when I am checking my weapon and putting it in the holster, I pray that this NOT be the day I be required to use it.

Max, it distresses and alarms me considerably that in your post #180, you report with apparent approval (even a bit of gloating) on an incident where an armed customer in a store shot and killed a person attempting a robbery.

Does this mean you no longer believe in the American justice system and Bill of Rights, and have no faith in due process? Do you really believe armed robbery should be punished by summary execution?

It may be deeply exciting and satisfying (for some) to blow away a bad guy who is in the process of committing a bad act. But I truly fear what will happen to America when/if the rule of law is replaced by raw vigilante justice.

There really is no other sen­si­ble way to inter­pret that sentence.

 
This is where we fundamentally disagree and you do not have legal precedent behind that position. You are also overlaying today’s grammar and syntax over that from 200 years ago. That is not a proper thing to do, as such has changed over the years and even spelling is not always the same. In this case, your analysis is NOT historically correct. People have been arguing over the “order” of the construction for almost as long as the Bill of Rights has has existence.

Even though I have said that it is not my responsibility to give a rationale for maintaining the status quo, but yours, since you need a legal and logical argument to CHANGE it, I will state a basis for the right to bear arms.

The Declaration gives the first basis in that we have the right to “life, liberty …”. In the Preamble of the Constitution, we have “… secure the Blessings of Liberty …”. Inherent in life and liberty is one’s continued existence. Maintaining one’s existence can require self-protection. “Self” being the operative word. As the FF knew, and we see everyday, the protection provided by the State is limited and not omni-present, thus one must be prepared, if they wish, to protect themselves, their families and homes.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees that right to life, through self-protection, shall not be infringed.

And criminal and civil law makes provision for dealing with the instances where improper use of deadly force occurs.

Max, I’ve already acknowledged that the Second isn’t going to be repealed. The NRA has too much power.

And I’m not using “IMHO”. I’m simply quoting the Second. It says what is says. The construction of the sentence is of the form, “Since A, therefore B.” You are claiming, in your opinion, that it says “A is so, because of B.” However, there really is no way to make the grammar of the Second agree with your interpretation. A simple and straightforward, literal reading is that the right is being granted on the condition and reason of a well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state. There really is no other sensible way to interpret that sentence.

If you delete the first clause, then the amend­ment serves no pur­pose,

Wrong. The second part stands alone quite nicely. There are no “reasons” given for any other rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Only that those rights are fundamental and thus protected.

Our source of disagreement is that you feel that the first clause is the raison d’etre for the second clause, and I see the second clause as the source of personnel for the first.

Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15–16; give the basis of the militia, the rules for it’s use, and the delegation of it’s oversight. It is NOT the 2nd Amendment that does so, therefore not the “reason” for the Right to bear Arms. The 2nd only gives the authorization for where the militia is to be drawn. Again, the already armed citizenry. That pre-existing right is “not to be infringed”, not the regulation of the militia! 

If you are going to move the needle, you need to put forth an argument that has a more substantial legal basis than “IMHO”, for repealing a constitutionally recognized, fundamental right. 

Even the anti-choicers are using the Declaration, the Preamble and the 14th Amendment to begin making a basic argument for taking away the right of a woman to decide for herself her reproductive choice, with a Personhood Amendment. 

You will have to do better than that, not only to convince me, but 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and the Legislatures of the States! 

What you argue (“we no longer need a cit­i­zen mili­tia. ”) would
lead to an Amend­ment that would read sim­ply: “The Right of the
Peo­ple to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”.

Not really. If there is no reason to maintain a right to keep and bear arms, then there is no reason to maintain that right. If you delete the first clause, then the amendment serves no purpose, and we might as well scrap it.

Because that Right pre­ex­isted the Con­sti­tu­tion, and the Amend­ment rec­og­nizes that the mili­tia would be drawn from the already armed cit­i­zenry. Which then would be prop­erly trained and uti­lized as a “well-​​regulated” adjunct to the reg­u­lar military.

What pre-existed the Constitution was the fact that a bunch of people had guns.

The Second is very clear on the reason for the legal right to bear arms — “A well-regulated militia being nec­es­sary to the secu­rity of a free State…” If a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the secu­rity of a free State, then the need for the right has gone away.

That doesn’t mean we should outlaw guns. You don’t have a constitutional right to keep and bear chocolate, but I see no reason to outlaw chocolate. Nor do I see a reason to have a constitutional amendment to create and protect a right to chocolate. Similarly, I see no reason to have a constitutional amendment having to do with firearms, since a) the need that the original framers had in mind is not longer of value, and b) the continuing existence of the amendment is causing active harm with little or no benefit.

Now, as I said, you may see some other good reason to keep and bear arms, and even to have a constitutionally-justified right regarding arms. I’m open to hearing what you think can substitute for the need to have a well-regulated militia to protect our state (since that’s no longer needed).

“ If you want to come up with some other jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for a right to “keep and bear arms,” then go for it, and sug­gest an amend­ment to replace the Sec­ond. ”

Not my responsibility, as I am not the one desiring a change in the Amendment. And YOUR argument is ONLY applicable to the first clause of the Amendment, What you argue (“we no longer need a cit­i­zen mili­tia. ”) would lead to an Amendment that would read simply: “The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”. Because that Right preexisted the Constitution, and the Amendment recognizes that the militia would be drawn from the already armed citizenry. Which then would be properly trained and utilized as a “well-regulated” adjunct to the regular military.

Either that, or we need to start sell­ing cyanide and nerve gas at your local con­ve­nience store. Maybe land mines and hand grenades.

I would suggest you avoid ab adsurdum arguments. Puts you in the tinfoil hat territory!

da, hope this shows that your scenario is way off the mark.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/28/13526604-armed-customer-shoots-dollar-store-robber-killing-him?lite

Manufacturer’s respon­si­bil­ity ONLY applies for DEFECTIVE prod­ucts.

While this is true, I suggest we need an additional classification of legal responsibility for products that kill when they are NOT defective. Either that, or we need to start selling cyanide and nerve gas at your local convenience store. Maybe land mines and hand grenades.

Where do we draw the line for products whose sole reason for existence is to kill? I truly don’t know. But I think we need to approach the question of how to regulate them a lot better than we’ve been doing.