Clinton's sneak attack on our right to arms
- Thread starter steelheart
- Start date
- Status
rights are absolute....y'know what I find funny about that?
Have y'all ever considered that maybe these founding fathers may not have been as perfect as some make them out to be?
seems kinda strange that such an absolute, inalienable - supposedly "god given" according to some - right would include such an actual specific amount in a currency that may or may not last another half century.
Have y'all ever considered that maybe these founding fathers may not have been as perfect as some make them out to be?
Last edited:
Alan, you are kind of making my point. If you had an absolute freedom of speech, how could there be a Constitutional law that makes a crime out of ANY type of speech? The first amendment doesn't say that it only covers truthful speech, or speech outside a courtroom. How is the perjury, a prohibition on certain types of speech, any different than gun control; a prohibition on certain types of weapons?
I'll answer your capitol punishment question, but we're getting a little far afield. There are two problems with it:
1) Whatever the crime, it is impossible to establish with absolute certainty that someone is guilty. Instead, we use the language of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Many, myself included, don't feel that level of certainty is sufficient for the ultimate destruction of human rights. As we know that the innocent have been felled by that system, it is not good enough for this extreme and final punishment.
2) "Thou shall not kill." Whether it is just or not, execution is murder in cold blood. Prison crowding, sending a message and the need for closure and punishment are not acceptable loopholes in this basic tenant. Especially in view of #1.
Just for those of you who want to jump on me for something, I am not a proponent of what goes for gun control these days. But I am not an "anything goes" 2A supporter. There are weapons that we cannot abide individuals owning, like nerve agents and nukes (and probably some tamer weapons). And there are people that shouldn't be allowed easy access to some of the weapons that ordinary citizens should. It pains me to not be able to fully support a schizophrenic's right to own a Vulcan cannon, but I'm comforted by the fact that no right is without necessary limits. Those limits require thought and historical perspective, and are not easy or obvious. Public debate is necessary and positive.
steelheart
Moderator
The Second Amendment applies to the weapons of individual infantryman - hand fired, shoulder fired non crew-served weapons. Examples of crew served weapons include tanks, mortars, artillery, Cobra attack helicopters and Bradley fighting vehicles.
People who are against gun ownership always throw up the red herring, "What about Stinger missles? What about Claymore mines? What about hand grenades? I suppose people should be able to own those too, according to your logic."
Nope - people should not be able to own these items. Why? Two reasons -
1: They are not weapons of the individual infantryman.
2: These weapons are property of the U.S. Government; in order to own them, you would have to buy them from a black market supplier. This act would make you guilty of receiving stolen government property, a federal felony.
steelheart
Moderator
I cannot recall an exact reference, but I read that in a book written about the Second Amendment by an attorney awhile back. I will see if I can dig up a reference for you.
invention_45
New member
Quote:
Second, the 2nd does seem to refer to a "well-regulated Militia", or at the very least, something well-regulated.
Of the 3 quoted, only one makes an unqualified argument for arming everyone without exception, and that's Mason. Lee waffles some when he says "when properly formed". Does that mean "when we exclude nuclear weapons" or "when we exclude machine guns"? Adams requires somebody to determine who the peacable citizens are. Maybe that means the ones who don't want to cut off the king's head.
They also wrote "well-regulated" long ago. It's not buried in a 1000-word paragraph. It's the first part of the single sentence that is the 2nd amendment.
Add to the words of The Founders the fact that Title 10, United States Code ("Federal Law") identifies the Militia of the United States as "every able bodied male between 17 and 45 years of age."
This is just a law. Just like the Superfund Law. It's not part of the Constitution.
I don't know who this is.
Seems to me, though I could be wrong, that a word that means something as fundamental as "regulate" wouldn't change in 200 years. If they meant "proficient", I'm sure that word existed back then.
There are some who'd define "the people" to mean representatives of all the individuals. It could also be argued that convicted felons shall, by the constitution, not have their RKBA infringed.
In short, you have to jump through a lot of hoops to make the 2nd amendment apply to each individual and at the same time allow the destruction of the 4th. I like my law without the hoops.
Second, the 2nd does seem to refer to a "well-regulated Militia", or at the very least, something well-regulated.
Of the 3 quoted, only one makes an unqualified argument for arming everyone without exception, and that's Mason. Lee waffles some when he says "when properly formed". Does that mean "when we exclude nuclear weapons" or "when we exclude machine guns"? Adams requires somebody to determine who the peacable citizens are. Maybe that means the ones who don't want to cut off the king's head.
They also wrote "well-regulated" long ago. It's not buried in a 1000-word paragraph. It's the first part of the single sentence that is the 2nd amendment.
Add to the words of The Founders the fact that Title 10, United States Code ("Federal Law") identifies the Militia of the United States as "every able bodied male between 17 and 45 years of age."
This is just a law. Just like the Superfund Law. It's not part of the Constitution.
I don't know who this is.
Seems to me, though I could be wrong, that a word that means something as fundamental as "regulate" wouldn't change in 200 years. If they meant "proficient", I'm sure that word existed back then.
There are some who'd define "the people" to mean representatives of all the individuals. It could also be argued that convicted felons shall, by the constitution, not have their RKBA infringed.
In short, you have to jump through a lot of hoops to make the 2nd amendment apply to each individual and at the same time allow the destruction of the 4th. I like my law without the hoops.
Puppycock. Private individuals were known to own cannon around the time of the revolution. Not to mention the warships owned by privateers. This "crew served" restriction is pure fiction, or a rather late invention.
In 1776, there were only a few types of infantry weapons - firearms, blades, cannon and explosives made from black powder. All were privately available, and none even vaguely resemble a tank, ballistic missile or mustard gas. The all knowing Constitutional Convention did not wisely predict the advances in warfare and address "individual weapons" vs. strategic. If they had they might have phrased things differently.
Our reality is that, as I said, each right is not carte blanche and IS subject to "reasonable restrictions". The debate about gun control in America is about which shade of grey should prevail. Those that advocate total disarmament should be viewed as the same sort of crazy as someone who suggests that we should all have an A-bomb at our disposal. Let's ignore the useless fringe, stopping talking in ridiculous absolutes, and focus our attention on the important realities of the gun control debate.
These left field excursions in la-la land are distractions, not a help.
In 1776, there were only a few types of infantry weapons - firearms, blades, cannon and explosives made from black powder. All were privately available, and none even vaguely resemble a tank, ballistic missile or mustard gas. The all knowing Constitutional Convention did not wisely predict the advances in warfare and address "individual weapons" vs. strategic. If they had they might have phrased things differently.
Our reality is that, as I said, each right is not carte blanche and IS subject to "reasonable restrictions". The debate about gun control in America is about which shade of grey should prevail. Those that advocate total disarmament should be viewed as the same sort of crazy as someone who suggests that we should all have an A-bomb at our disposal. Let's ignore the useless fringe, stopping talking in ridiculous absolutes, and focus our attention on the important realities of the gun control debate.
These left field excursions in la-la land are distractions, not a help.
Thou shalt not kill
Handy,
"Thou shalt not kill" is more accurately translated as "thou shalt not murder." Ancient Hebrew words had multiple meanings (see Strong's Concordance) and could be translated in a number of different ways, always keeping in mind the context and the totality of the scripture.
The proper shade of meaning for that particular word was "murder" because, just a few verses later, the death penalty is decreed for murder, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. If I'm not mistaken, that's capital punishment. I'm sure all the folks at the receiving end of a stoning thought so anyway.
Therefore there is no sound biblical basis for opposition to capital punishment.
Handy,
"Thou shalt not kill" is more accurately translated as "thou shalt not murder." Ancient Hebrew words had multiple meanings (see Strong's Concordance) and could be translated in a number of different ways, always keeping in mind the context and the totality of the scripture.
The proper shade of meaning for that particular word was "murder" because, just a few verses later, the death penalty is decreed for murder, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. If I'm not mistaken, that's capital punishment. I'm sure all the folks at the receiving end of a stoning thought so anyway.
Therefore there is no sound biblical basis for opposition to capital punishment.
While I quoted the Old Testament, I was expressing a more general sentiment - human lives should never be taken likely. When people who have no NEED to kill end a life anyway it IS murder. Especially when they do it knowing for certain that a meaningful percentage of their victims are undeserving.
Modern people have the means to support prisons. Ancient Hebrewite's did not. What was once the only way of dealing with a dangerous sociopath has become a petty retribution and its own pathology.
Modern people have the means to support prisons. Ancient Hebrewite's did not. What was once the only way of dealing with a dangerous sociopath has become a petty retribution and its own pathology.
This is the 'justice' of the Taliban, and our moral reason for deposing them. It is just another part of the Bible that I'm glad we cheerily ignore.
steelheart
Moderator
Puppycock???
I thought we were discussing Clinton's attack on our right to arms, not bestiality...
steelheart
Moderator
Asinine, pointless and intellectually impotent.
Handy:
You seem to have NOT responded to the following, your option of course. I think that you should have though.
As to your observation regarding the possibility of limiting possession of firearms to MUZZLE LOADERS, simply amounting to REGULATION, as opposed to prohibition, practicalities sir, practicilities. While I could certainly shoot you with a muzzle loader, even if you were limited to a 100 year old bolt action rifle, the weapon you used would be a hell of a lot more PRACTICAL than was what I have been limited to, under the guise of "reasonable regulation", as it is sometimes described. I would say sir, that any such REGULATION would most certainly have transended (trashed) the basic right.
I believe that you might want to reconsider, reference to Vulcan Guns or Cannons notwithstanding. By the way, while I have not heard of reference to "everyone having an atomic bomb at their disposal", I and likely you too have heard of people who would have Mr. and Mrs. Everyman totally disarmed, with respect to possession of common small arms.
You seem to have NOT responded to the following, your option of course. I think that you should have though.
As to your observation regarding the possibility of limiting possession of firearms to MUZZLE LOADERS, simply amounting to REGULATION, as opposed to prohibition, practicalities sir, practicilities. While I could certainly shoot you with a muzzle loader, even if you were limited to a 100 year old bolt action rifle, the weapon you used would be a hell of a lot more PRACTICAL than was what I have been limited to, under the guise of "reasonable regulation", as it is sometimes described. I would say sir, that any such REGULATION would most certainly have transended (trashed) the basic right.
I believe that you might want to reconsider, reference to Vulcan Guns or Cannons notwithstanding. By the way, while I have not heard of reference to "everyone having an atomic bomb at their disposal", I and likely you too have heard of people who would have Mr. and Mrs. Everyman totally disarmed, with respect to possession of common small arms.
so I finally noticed that the post numbers are right there on the side 
It depends on what you mean by antigunners. I believe the anti-gun politicians mostly hold their views for one of two reasons:
A: They genuinely believe that because guns are designed to kill that they're inherently going to be the result of more violence and they believe that enough legislation will actually rid the nation of them. A pretty asanine belief, I would say, but politicians hold many asanine beliefs. I think it's no dumber than the evolution debate or how so many conservative politicians feel that it's ok to limit free speech on television in the name of "decency".
or
2: They don't really care about guns, they just want votes. They want to stay in power. This doesn't mean they're out to put us in camps and create a socialist oligarchy but when you're paid four hundred grand a year along with massive benefits and a full staff it's not surprising that one would want to keep that cushy job by any means necessary.
If you're asking why I believe the antigun citizens want these laws I believe it's because they're grossly uninfomed. They've been feared into believing that just because a gun's purpose is inherently to end the life of another human being that the aforementioned action is always "evil" and unjustified. There are those who would have no problem sitting idly by while a member of their family is raped, there are those who would rather hand over all their money instead of standing up for themselves. The bottom line is that I believe antigunners are, for lack of a better term, pussies.
Ever met an antigun martial artist? I have; one. One and only one (serious) martial artist I've met was against guns and it was probably because he's from Bermuda and the majority of the crime in that country is commited by white millionares. The point is that it's very rare for me to meet someone who is willing to train themselves in an art of self defense and still hold a negative opinion of the absolute most effective tool in defending one's own life. The typical antigunner would rather be a victim, would rather put their faith in being meek and compliant, hoping that Mr Criminal only wants their money. Gun owners, like martial artists, understand the importance of standing up for one's right to their own person.
On the issue of the death penalty not being enforced for gun crimes, I don't really see that as a viable solution. Not only does it serve as a weak deterrant in the first place (I know it is a deterrant but a relatively ineffective one at best) and not only is it subject to the follies of the judicial system, but it doesn't solve the problem. It requires that a crime already be commited; instead there needs to be some way to keep bad people from getting guns.
Something that people are never able to answer...y'all say that most criminals will simply steal their guns or buy stolen guns. Well, where do these guns come from??? I doubt any significant number of the illegal handguns available today were stolen directly from the manufacturer. Where in the chain of custody is the gross lack of security that allows these people to get their hands on the guns? Are the retailers responsible? Are the consumers responsible?
I don't know but I think the best way to attack the problem is to find a way to keep criminals from getting their hands on guns in the first place without stopping you or I or any other law abiding citizen from purchasing one legally.
I just can't think of a way to do it.
That was quite a diplomatic CYA post, I'm impressed.
It depends on what you mean by antigunners. I believe the anti-gun politicians mostly hold their views for one of two reasons:A: They genuinely believe that because guns are designed to kill that they're inherently going to be the result of more violence and they believe that enough legislation will actually rid the nation of them. A pretty asanine belief, I would say, but politicians hold many asanine beliefs. I think it's no dumber than the evolution debate or how so many conservative politicians feel that it's ok to limit free speech on television in the name of "decency".
or
2: They don't really care about guns, they just want votes. They want to stay in power. This doesn't mean they're out to put us in camps and create a socialist oligarchy but when you're paid four hundred grand a year along with massive benefits and a full staff it's not surprising that one would want to keep that cushy job by any means necessary.
If you're asking why I believe the antigun citizens want these laws I believe it's because they're grossly uninfomed. They've been feared into believing that just because a gun's purpose is inherently to end the life of another human being that the aforementioned action is always "evil" and unjustified. There are those who would have no problem sitting idly by while a member of their family is raped, there are those who would rather hand over all their money instead of standing up for themselves. The bottom line is that I believe antigunners are, for lack of a better term, pussies.
Ever met an antigun martial artist? I have; one. One and only one (serious) martial artist I've met was against guns and it was probably because he's from Bermuda and the majority of the crime in that country is commited by white millionares. The point is that it's very rare for me to meet someone who is willing to train themselves in an art of self defense and still hold a negative opinion of the absolute most effective tool in defending one's own life. The typical antigunner would rather be a victim, would rather put their faith in being meek and compliant, hoping that Mr Criminal only wants their money. Gun owners, like martial artists, understand the importance of standing up for one's right to their own person.
On the issue of the death penalty not being enforced for gun crimes, I don't really see that as a viable solution. Not only does it serve as a weak deterrant in the first place (I know it is a deterrant but a relatively ineffective one at best) and not only is it subject to the follies of the judicial system, but it doesn't solve the problem. It requires that a crime already be commited; instead there needs to be some way to keep bad people from getting guns.
Something that people are never able to answer...y'all say that most criminals will simply steal their guns or buy stolen guns. Well, where do these guns come from??? I doubt any significant number of the illegal handguns available today were stolen directly from the manufacturer. Where in the chain of custody is the gross lack of security that allows these people to get their hands on the guns? Are the retailers responsible? Are the consumers responsible?
I don't know but I think the best way to attack the problem is to find a way to keep criminals from getting their hands on guns in the first place without stopping you or I or any other law abiding citizen from purchasing one legally.
I just can't think of a way to do it.Alan,
I'm not sure what you're looking for. I don't want to ban everything but muzzle loaders. I just presented that as an example of how a gun banner might meet the letter of the law and violate the spirit. Why should they care about whether it is practical?
"Practical" is a funny perspective, anyhow. What is a practical weapon to arm yourself against government oppression? The government has tanks, gunships and cruise missiles. Is an upgrade from bolt rifle to belt fed machinegun actually meaningful in the face of that?
We call ourselves pro-2A, but we treat 2A as a gun amendment when it is an "arms" amendment. Then we talk about the sanctity of guns, politely ignoring that if you really want to defend 2A to the Nth degree you'd need to preserve the right to bear ALL arms by the public.
I am lead to the unescapable conclusion that both sides are okay with their own versions of arms control, and the argument is really about what is considered "reasonable". Mustard gas is not reasonable. Neither are muzzle loaders. Perhaps we should stop talking in absolutes and start discussing what kind of controls preserve both the spirit and practicalities of the 2nd Amendment?
If that fails to answer you question, please refine it for me.
I'm not sure what you're looking for. I don't want to ban everything but muzzle loaders. I just presented that as an example of how a gun banner might meet the letter of the law and violate the spirit. Why should they care about whether it is practical?
"Practical" is a funny perspective, anyhow. What is a practical weapon to arm yourself against government oppression? The government has tanks, gunships and cruise missiles. Is an upgrade from bolt rifle to belt fed machinegun actually meaningful in the face of that?
We call ourselves pro-2A, but we treat 2A as a gun amendment when it is an "arms" amendment. Then we talk about the sanctity of guns, politely ignoring that if you really want to defend 2A to the Nth degree you'd need to preserve the right to bear ALL arms by the public.
I am lead to the unescapable conclusion that both sides are okay with their own versions of arms control, and the argument is really about what is considered "reasonable". Mustard gas is not reasonable. Neither are muzzle loaders. Perhaps we should stop talking in absolutes and start discussing what kind of controls preserve both the spirit and practicalities of the 2nd Amendment?
If that fails to answer you question, please refine it for me.
Handy,
Thankfully, the majority of Americans see great value in capital punishment.
We'll certainly never know just how many crimes don't take place because the potential felon stops and decides he doesn't like the idea of a needle on a gurney, or a very hot seat, etc. Deterrence works. Just look at crime statistics before a state passes concealed carry versus the same stats after concealed carry is passed. Crime goes down because the criminal doesn't know who may be armed, and isn't very interested in looking at the business end of a .45. Contrary to what many leftists believe, criminals are rational.
Then there's punishment/retribution. Depraved thugs who wantonly take human life have shown they deserve to be executed. Such a person, for as long as he lives, is a threat to not only the general population but also the prison population and guards. Shivs can be made out of the strangest things. Where's your concern for the other prisoners and the guards?
You can be warm and fuzzy toward the thug all you want, but I'll always reserve my sympathy for the person the thug murdered. By taking an innocent person's life, the thug's life is forfeit. It's some Old Testament law that the majority of Americans still agrees with.
What's funny, Handy, is that you're posting to a gun board. The vast majority of the folks on this board believe in self defense and have decided they will kill a thug who's attacking them. If you believe the same aren't you being hypocritical? You're willing to impose capital punishment yourself, unilaterally, without concern for whether he suffered an abusive childhood, etc., but you don't trust a jury of your fellow citizens to come to the same conclusion based on the wantonness and depravity submitted into evidence against the thug? And they DO know about that abusive childhood from the mitigation and extenuation phase of sentencing. Isn't the jury essentially saying that if this thug attempted to do the same to them, and the jury member had a gun to defend himself, that they'd execute the thug right there on the spot? Just like you would do in self defense?
Isn't the 15-20 years it takes from sentencing to execution evidence enough that our society bends over backwards to try to prevent an innocent man from being executed? Isn't the fact that the thug can appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court evidence of the same thing?
Thankfully, the majority of Americans see great value in capital punishment.
We'll certainly never know just how many crimes don't take place because the potential felon stops and decides he doesn't like the idea of a needle on a gurney, or a very hot seat, etc. Deterrence works. Just look at crime statistics before a state passes concealed carry versus the same stats after concealed carry is passed. Crime goes down because the criminal doesn't know who may be armed, and isn't very interested in looking at the business end of a .45. Contrary to what many leftists believe, criminals are rational.
Then there's punishment/retribution. Depraved thugs who wantonly take human life have shown they deserve to be executed. Such a person, for as long as he lives, is a threat to not only the general population but also the prison population and guards. Shivs can be made out of the strangest things. Where's your concern for the other prisoners and the guards?
You can be warm and fuzzy toward the thug all you want, but I'll always reserve my sympathy for the person the thug murdered. By taking an innocent person's life, the thug's life is forfeit. It's some Old Testament law that the majority of Americans still agrees with.
What's funny, Handy, is that you're posting to a gun board. The vast majority of the folks on this board believe in self defense and have decided they will kill a thug who's attacking them. If you believe the same aren't you being hypocritical? You're willing to impose capital punishment yourself, unilaterally, without concern for whether he suffered an abusive childhood, etc., but you don't trust a jury of your fellow citizens to come to the same conclusion based on the wantonness and depravity submitted into evidence against the thug? And they DO know about that abusive childhood from the mitigation and extenuation phase of sentencing. Isn't the jury essentially saying that if this thug attempted to do the same to them, and the jury member had a gun to defend himself, that they'd execute the thug right there on the spot? Just like you would do in self defense?
Isn't the 15-20 years it takes from sentencing to execution evidence enough that our society bends over backwards to try to prevent an innocent man from being executed? Isn't the fact that the thug can appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court evidence of the same thing?
Those two sentences kinda contradict each other...
There's a difference. In defending yourself, you have made the interpretation that your life is in immediate danger of being taken away. With a trial there may be mountains of evidence to say that this guy killed that guy but criminal investigation isn't perfect. Innocent men have been put to death. I know some people will say it's better to kill one innocent man than let ten guilty go free....but what if that innocent man is your best friend, or your father, or your son...or you? Still gonna feel the same way?
Redworm,
The proof for "deterrence works" immediately followed that statement. The implication is that if there's proof of deterrence in CCW, there's proof of deterrence in other crimes which could result in a needle, since criminals are rational.
What if you summarily execute an "innocent" man during a home invasion? What if the guy was hopped up on drugs or alcohol and thought he was entering his own house and YOU were the intruder?
I daresay you'd feel horrible, but you'd still be justified under the law for your actions. The guy would be just as dead, however.
In the same way somebody could be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But if all of the elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, well, there's a reason the guy became a suspect, and it probably wasn't because he'd just missed choir practice. No system is perfect, just like you wouldn't have been perfect in your summary execution of the home invader.
In fact, ironically, it appears in such a case that you used the much less stringent civil trial "preponderance of the evidence" standard in your execution, because you must act quickly, while the state must use the much higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and they act almost glacially.
So I guess I'm saying that if you honestly believe that nobody should be executed because you want to change the proof standard to "beyond a shadow of a doubt," then, to be consistent, you need to rethink summarily executing sombody in self defense. There's no way you'll ever know "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that you're in the right.
The proof for "deterrence works" immediately followed that statement. The implication is that if there's proof of deterrence in CCW, there's proof of deterrence in other crimes which could result in a needle, since criminals are rational.
What if you summarily execute an "innocent" man during a home invasion? What if the guy was hopped up on drugs or alcohol and thought he was entering his own house and YOU were the intruder?
I daresay you'd feel horrible, but you'd still be justified under the law for your actions. The guy would be just as dead, however.
In the same way somebody could be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But if all of the elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, well, there's a reason the guy became a suspect, and it probably wasn't because he'd just missed choir practice. No system is perfect, just like you wouldn't have been perfect in your summary execution of the home invader.
In fact, ironically, it appears in such a case that you used the much less stringent civil trial "preponderance of the evidence" standard in your execution, because you must act quickly, while the state must use the much higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and they act almost glacially.
So I guess I'm saying that if you honestly believe that nobody should be executed because you want to change the proof standard to "beyond a shadow of a doubt," then, to be consistent, you need to rethink summarily executing sombody in self defense. There's no way you'll ever know "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that you're in the right.
Capital punishment and self defense have absolutely nothing to do with each other. If you kill someone who is no longer attacking you it is called murder, and you'll be the one on the hot seat. I have no idea how you could confuse the two.
You are also totally confusing the immediate deterence of armed citizenry with the more cerebral deterence of risking the electric chair IF caught. Criminals act because they feel they can get away with it. CCW prevent the act itself, while capital punishment can only deter IF the criminal actually believes they might be caught after the act. For the most part, they don't.
I haven't seen the most recent stats, but I don't know if the majority of American's prefer capital punishment. Can you direct me to your source? Certainly not the majority of civilized people, since the US is one of the very last modern countries to practice killing prisoners.
Some people are in favor of retribution, but as I already pointed out, that behavior is more like the Taliban than civilized people. The need for retribution doesn't translate into a right to have it.
I note that you didn't address any of your comments to the proven rate of innocents executed in the US. Obviously you feel getting even and the completely unprovable "deterence" argument justifies killing innocent men now and then. I don't.
You are also totally confusing the immediate deterence of armed citizenry with the more cerebral deterence of risking the electric chair IF caught. Criminals act because they feel they can get away with it. CCW prevent the act itself, while capital punishment can only deter IF the criminal actually believes they might be caught after the act. For the most part, they don't.
I haven't seen the most recent stats, but I don't know if the majority of American's prefer capital punishment. Can you direct me to your source? Certainly not the majority of civilized people, since the US is one of the very last modern countries to practice killing prisoners.
Some people are in favor of retribution, but as I already pointed out, that behavior is more like the Taliban than civilized people. The need for retribution doesn't translate into a right to have it.
I note that you didn't address any of your comments to the proven rate of innocents executed in the US. Obviously you feel getting even and the completely unprovable "deterence" argument justifies killing innocent men now and then. I don't.
That's quite a non-sequitor. Criminals may fear instant punishment at the hands of a potential victim with a gun but that does not in any way directly correlate to a fear of the judicial system. How many criminals die at the hands of CCW holders each year? Now how many die by execution?
If he was hopped up on drugs or alcohol and entered the wrong home, it was still his fault. Entering my home wouldn't sign his death certificate; threatening my safety would. If I mistake his drunken advances for an attack and end his life, that's something I have to live with. In either case, that man was right there in front of me and at that very moment I must've feared for my life. That's a far cry from someone breaking into my home and me shooting a guy three blocks away because he looks just like him. That's the parallel to wrongly executing an innocent man.
I didn't say that nobody should be executed. I simply pointed out why it's such a tricky issue to begin with. It can't be denied that innocent men have been put to death. I say again, if it was your son being put to death for a crime he didn't commit, would you hold the same opinion?
- Status