Once Common Law developed (and remember that there are recorded English cases going back to at least 1100- 1200 C.E.), self defense would have been a defense to the charge raised before the court. i’m no expert on the English legal system history, so i’m not sure exactly when commoners in England received the right to a trial (may have been the English Bill of Rights) so these early cases may have only involved cases where a noble was a defendant. Thus the defendant would have to plead to self defense and the judge (or later jury) would rule whether the defendant was guilty or whether the provokation was adequate to justify the violence. As time went on and the notion of “lesser punishments” arose (remember that intitially any felony would be punished by death) the legal doctrine of imperfect self defense arose – in imperfect self defense the defendant would be justified to use force in self defense, but used too much force. In those cases, the murder charge would be reduced to manslaughter.

The self defense doctrine to my knowledge has remained pretty constant for centuries – it has always been a “risky” move in that whether there was “perfect self defense,” “imperfect self defense,” or “no self defense” was always a matter for the fact finder (the judge and/or jury) to find. Needless to say that historically self defense claims were not likely to be found when raised by members of certain disfavored groups especially when the victim was a member of the favored group.

This goes back to the precursors of constituted English society, the Anglo Saxons (Peace, Hays Council!) who required payment of bloodwealth to the families of those slain, generally in between various clans. These Anglo Saxon terms for restitution made it into English code after the Norman Conquest of 1066, suggesting that killing was always a capital offense but pardonable under common law. My understanding is when self defense was inscribed in written laws, it was intended to protect the Normans from Saxon vigilantes, and did not apply generally to everyone.

So, I would suggest that while self defense appears to be a natural right intiutively, killing was the right of kings, not of ordinary subjects. Military service was an extension of the power of sovereigns through divine right (natural law), so the bearing of arms was not an a priori affirmation of the right of self defense, but rather the right to behave above the common law in the name of the sovereign.

Thus, my lay interpretation of legal history in this complicated issue is that self defense was a universtally accepted positive defense against charges of murder, but not in and of itself a right, since killing was always a criminal act even in self defense until pardoned (either through restitution or through clemency). At least that is how I understand it, and I welcome informed critiques to the contrary.

(ironically considering that many people who push it are right wingers who pretend to support state rights saying that the Second Amendment protects it kind of tramples upon state’s abilities to set their own criminal laws – not that a bill to abolish the defense of self defense would likely pass a state legislature, but the thought that the Founding Fathers would put Constitutional dimensions on the federal level to a well established Common Law defense for matters normally within the reserved powers of the States (setting criminal law and civil (tort) law is a reserved power of the state unless specifically involving one of the enumerated powers) is rather incredible and downright silly)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State… not to fight crime, not to protect individually enumerated rights. To protect the security of the State. And be well regulated.

As I’ve said before, I am a veteran and I own guns but I do not believe that the framers would have shared the same interpretation of this Amendment as currently espoused by the NRA.

My $0.02.

You might want to read about the English bill of rights in 1688 which was a reaction to the standing armies of previous reigns and the desire by free thinkers and protestants to be collectively free from persecution in England (which was very much tied in to the colonization of North America by religious dissidents who had bitter memories of persecution).

I don’t think the right to bear arms can be divorced from self defense, but it was not the primary motive for establishing the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution was concerned with an institutional framework whereby the nation could defend itself at the same time as the life and liberty of citizens could be protected from the armies established to defend its soil.

Therefore it appears to be an incredibly obtuse distortion when looking at the historical context to suggest that only self defense was the issue. Furthermore, the free wheeling trade in arms without restrictions was certainly not the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It was intended to provide ample liberty for owning weapons but not anarchy or complete laissez faire.

In other words it was a compromise between public safety and the right of personal self defense. To go to one extreme or another — either banning weapons outright or removing all restrictions on their ownership and use — is equally a distortion of American founding principles. Reasonable limits on the right to bear arms are perfectly in line with founding principles.

The Second Amendment has absolutely zero to do with crime (unless you want to somehow claim that the state militia slave patrols had that purpose and even less to do with an individual right. To try to pretend that it does mangles both language and history.

I don’t agree on militias and crime. The issue in the 18th Century was one of several centuries: standing armies were expensive and dangerous to have around in peacetime because they didn’t produce anything and ended up being a menace.

Militia armies were a concept (which if I am not mistaken, came from England though I’ll have to owe you the exact source) much ridiculed by traditionalists but a useful innovation because they could produce and work normally in times of peace, but be called up on reasonably short notice. Firearms of the day didn’t require much training and any farmer could be bullied into a firing line. A well regulated militia was a step up from a mob or conscript army because they had some discipline, training and order, but a step down from a professional army in so far as they were not full time soldiers. But as they were cheaper and less of a menace to civilians still bitter in their memories of British soldiers, it was a smart compromise.

So when we talk about a militia in the Constitution it is important to consider what that really was — a way to avoid having standing armies on U.S. soil, which were known to be problematic in times of peace. So, that is why we have the concept of a well regulated militia, not to fight crime.

Christianity is based upon sacrifise and giving to others. Libertarianism is an ideology of selfishness, self interest, and greed (or what Christians should recognize as the root of all evil).

The Second Amendment is really there to protect slave owners – people try to deny it, but the history doesn’t lie – the “militias” that were protected were the slave patrols in the South.

Yes, i’ve read Chick Tracts too, HAW HAW HAW :P

While ‘tis true Puritanism was not the only influence upon American political and social history, you provide ample evidence that if anyone does not by now consider you an alarmist, there is every reason to do so.

Predestination and the denial of free will was not only a component of most Protestant sects present in the North American colonies leading up to our Founding, but the very idea of rule by consent of the governed was intrinsic to a belief in the omnipotent will of God.

This included not just Puritans, but Anglicans, Lutherans, and various others in all the colonies, all of whom shared a belief (the Puritans only for themselves, or course) that there should be a right to religious freedom at the same time as they believed that God, specifically the Christian god, pulled the strings of the entire universe, called all the shots, and basically had the whole thing rigged from the get go. Try as you like, with a creator God, there can be no free will.

Now please do run along, child, and crack a book.

Well, that explains a lot.

and i was still a Socialist :)

In fact, the New Testament does strongly suggest an economic system – often called socialism, but more properly collectivism – that is why historically you have had lots of Christian “Socialist” (really collectivist in that everyone was collectively working for the common good of their community and that land/capital goods were collectively owned/used for the common but there was personal property) settlements such as the Amana Colonies in Iowa (although since the Amana Colonies started a manufacturing enterprize it would have been much closer to Socialism in that Socialism is really an industrial version of collectivism in that the company is owned by the workers and such a company would also be operated democratically).

So there are some realy problems there in that Christianity in its purest form (which is to say as taught in the Bible) is not an individualist religion but instead a religion that imposes a large burden upon its followers and a Christian society to care for others.

The myth that the U.S. is a Christian Nation thus collaspes very quickly when one realizes that many of the same people who promote it also promote the myth of the U.S. of a nation of “rugged individualists” – never mind that a “rugged individualist” is completely incapatable with the teachings of the Bible. Unless, of course, you remove the teachings that Christians are judged by their works to help others (as many Fundamentalist Christians do – also seen in many of the churches (especially suburban Megachurches) which follow “Prosperity Theology” which basically tells their wealthy followers that God wants you to be rich – this type of “theology” has been parodied (first by Al Franken, i believe) as “Supply Side Jesus” or “Free Market Jesus” – it is needless to say a complete abomination and massive distortion of Christianity).

BTW, isn’t it much more notable that at the time of the Founding Fathers that there was a strong notion of collectiveness such as “public greens” and the militias also represented collectivism (or as it is so often known even though its not exactly the same thing Socialism). So based upon the modern conflation of Socialism with any sort of collective action, i think its safe to say that the Second Amendment was like totally Socialist ;)

Are there any buildings in Kansas that people would actually recognize???

“Is it racist to be proud of your own heritage? Is it racist to want to keep your own heritage pure?” Garcia-Quintana said in an interview with The State newspaper. According to Garcia-Quintana, who is Cuban-American, “racist is when you hate somebody so much that you want to destroy them.”

His comments were made two days before Haley’s campaign formally cut ties with the conservative activist on Sunday, writing in a statement that, “we were previously unaware of some of the statements [Garcia-Quintana] had made, statements which do not well represent the views of the Governor.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....47974.html

Since we ARE talking about the Tea Party. Did anyone else see this billboard in the news with a tea kettle that seems to be causing so much fuhrer…

I mean furor?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....enney.html

When I said “child logic” I was referring to your claim that there’s enough work for those who want it and that people can move to other states to find work. The whole concept of unemployment means that there are more people seeking jobs than jobs being offered, and unemployment is an inherent feature of capitalism.

Whether the cause was an accident or criminal activity, the result remains the same. Too much dangerous material, improperly stored, too close to residential structures = unnecessary death and destruction. All hail the Free Market of Texas.