Comments on Pro Libertate: No Duty To Retreat (Updated and corrected)

Too bad Trayvon Martin didn't suffer

2013-09-27T16:01:09.809-06:00

Too bad Trayvon Martin didn't suffer

Too bad Trayvon Martin was unarmed...

2012-03-25T17:28:06.110-06:00

Too bad Trayvon Martin was unarmed...

The vehicle defiently appears to attempt to run ov...

2007-12-31T16:00:00.000-07:00

The vehicle defiently appears to attempt to run over the police officer. The police officer only has to have a perception of a deadly threat based on some reasonable standard, to be justified

The only sad part is... a stolen car is ONLY a property crime. Unless the vehicle was used to commit a dangerious crime (robbery, rape, etc) who cares that much? A stolen car is not worth a dead cop or a dead kid who didn't realize how deadly a car chase is.

William Norman Grigg, a patriot's patriot.Mr Grigg...

2007-10-04T20:26:00.000-06:00

William Norman Grigg, a patriot's patriot.

Mr Grigg the 2nd Amendment is clear yet the anti-gunners say it refers to National Guard, WELL REGULATED MILITIA,

Marlon Brando starred in a film, The Missouri Breaks (1976), which clearly demonstrates what REGULATED meant in this nation rent it and see, it was a lightbulb moment for me.

Recall Waco, who were they bothering? See DAVID KOPEL's writing JUSTICE FORF WACO AND OKC.

"National rights and national opinion, cannot real...

2007-10-04T14:00:00.000-06:00

"National rights and national opinion, cannot really exist, without powers for defending the one, and organs for expressing the other. The system of orders must shew these or confess that they have provided for neither, and that it uses the terms as decoy phantoms to delude nations within its grasp. The policy of the United States, exhibits its militia, its right of bearing arms, its rights retained, its right of instruction, and its inclusive right of abolishing the entire government.

"Our policy, considering a nation as possessing rights it cannot alienate, secures its will and ability to protect them, by moral and physical means. It provides election, attempered by free discussion, as a moral mode of subjecting governments to the sovereignty of the nation, and not to subject the nation to a sovereignty of the government."

- Senator John Taylor, (Virginia), An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States; Section the Sixth; THE GOOD MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. (Fredericksburg, VA.: Green and Cady, 1814).

Mark Call (and everyone else) -Then it is up to We...

2007-10-04T12:48:00.000-06:00

Mark Call (and everyone else) -

Then it is up to We The People to stand up and demand our rights be respected. Especially if We rely on God, as "Henry, Mason, Coxe, and many others" did. United We Stand, divided we fall. We vastly outnumber them. If it wasn't for us, 'they' wouldn't even be there.

The prohibition is general...I am familiar with Wi...

2007-10-03T22:49:00.000-06:00

The prohibition is general...

I am familiar with William Rawle's work, and do not disagree with the concept, EDQ. However, the fact remains that most state constitutions DO duplicate not only the 2nd Amendment, but other guarantees of God-given Rights.

The principle boils down simply to "tell 'em NO, and keep telling 'em."

Sadly, it is also inarguable that virtually ALL of those "guarantees" of Rights have been ignored, the warnings of Henry, Mason, Coxe, and many others notwithstanding.

After all, as our host here has so effectively pointed out, if the armed agents of the police state can so utterly ignore their oaths of office, and most Amerikans are utterly ignorant of these issues anyway, what difference do a few prohibitions in what the Dictator-in-Chief calls a "GD piece of paper" make?

The precedent is pretty well covered here:"The Rig...

2007-10-03T22:21:00.000-06:00

The precedent is pretty well covered here:

"The Right to Self Defense"

"Who are these militia? [A]re they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

- Tenche Coxe, using the pseudonym "a Pennsylvanian", Feb. 20, 1788, Pennsylvania Gazette.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tenche Coxe, 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803. Whose series of newspaper articles were very much approved by both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison.

Mark Call said... This is true, RB. Note, for that...

2007-10-03T22:11:00.000-06:00

Mark Call said...

This is true, RB. Note, for that reason, that almost every State therefore has a requisite set of guarantees (including the RKBA) in their individual constitutions.

NEGATIVE. To Wit:

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829). (Appointed by President George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791).

"...More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went...."

- U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1856 in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

The physical and psychological militarization of t...

2007-10-03T20:52:00.000-06:00

The physical and psychological militarization of the police is a direct assault on the citizenry. Indeed, the majority of these coppers are rotten and cruel. Abuse of power is the name of the game. The following article comments on many liberty issues with a great discussion on the right to keep and bear arms. http://truthalert.net/Green%20Libertarian%20Nationalism.pdf

When your family or friends get held hostage at gu...

2007-10-03T18:34:00.000-06:00

When your family or friends get held hostage at gun point ask the police sharp shooters to kindly shoot the weapon out of the robber's hands. Because we all know that the highly trained police sharp shooters can hit a dime at 100 yards. Anything more than that and is excessive force and they should be prosecuted the same as the robbers right? Do you know why that officer jumped on the hood? Let me explain to you. The immediate threat was the driver and the vehicle. The officer could had shot from the driver side door, stop the driver but at the same time the driver side passenger would be caught in the cross fire. He risked his safety for the safety of the passenger. Some would say that's a selfless act, others would say what a dumb ass. Which one are you? Are there police that are corrupt and use excessive force, no doubt. Only 40 years ago if you were of a certain color and lived in certain parts of America, the police were like this. You could call them state sanctioned terrorist by today's standards if you wanted to.

So ... YOU'RE saying there was NO option apart fro...

2007-10-03T10:22:00.000-06:00

So ... YOU'RE saying there was NO option apart from jumping on the hood of the car and pumping several rounds into the driver?

Did you actually watch the video? Even a donut-fueled, good-enough-for-government-work hack couldn't miss a stationary target the size of a tire at closer than point-blank range. I doubt that I could miss a shot like that.

"...disabling the vehicle by shooting out its tire...

2007-10-03T10:14:00.000-06:00

"...disabling the vehicle by shooting out its tires after Bennett was pinned in."

Yah--that's right up there with "shooting the gun out of his hand" and "shooting him in the leg" to stop an armed threat.

Under a strict constructionist view of the Constit...

2007-10-03T09:39:00.000-06:00

Under a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment applies only to the federal government, not the states.

This is true, RB. Note, for that reason, that almost every State therefore has a requisite set of guarantees (including the RKBA) in their individual constitutions.

The "14th Amendment incorporated the B of R" crap is revealed to be the lie that it is by the obvious disconnect with the Second Amendment, just like the "War on Terror" is belied by the fact that little old ladies with knitting needles are harassed in airports while immigrants bearing WMD components cross the border unimpeded.

(And it's not just LOLs, Will - I expect you might eventually have some better intel on the new Arizona victim of TSA hospitality than we get on the MSM. )

Amen.

2007-10-03T08:56:00.000-06:00

Amen.

Every person has a right to defend his life and pr...

2007-10-03T08:46:00.000-06:00

Every person has a right to defend his life and property (and the lives and properties of others) by force if necessary. This right is inherent in life and exists regardless of what the law says.

The problem with the 2nd Amendment, and original intent, is that the founders never imagined one's STATE government as the enemy. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) They saw the states as threatened by the federal government and viewed the individual right to keep and bear arms as a means by which the states could maintain their independence from an overreaching federal leviathan. The understanding being that a man would fight, as did Robert E. Lee, to defend his home state from invasion by federal troops.

Under a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment applies only to the federal government, not the states.

As everyone here knows, the "several states" are now just subsidiaries of the central government. This has been the case since the War Against Secession (aka the Civil War), and especially since the collectivist revolution of the 20th century.

Nowadays, however, the whole Bill of Rights are a MANDATE for the feds to override state laws that are deemed in violation of the Bill of Rights. But of course, the 2nd Amendment is an exception, as evidenced by the plentiful state gun control laws (not to mention federal statutes).

The state, at all levels, is the enemy. Relying on its promises (Constitutions) is like taking a known liar and murderer at his word.

—RB

What most people miss and what was well illustrate...

2007-10-03T06:42:00.000-06:00

What most people miss and what was well illustrated by the article is that the primary significance of the 2nd amendment is the people's right to use arms against a tyrannical state. It is this right to defend onself from the state, not robbers, theives, or other criminals, but the state, your state that forms the basis of the amendment. All one need do in order to understand this is to put the amendment in its historical context: the founders had just used their right to use violence against a corrupt government, their government, in the Revolutionary War. If there was one entity which they did not trust and against which they wished to insure the people defense it was governemnt and its functionaries.

Indiana passed this law last year as well. Gov. Da...

2007-10-02T20:18:00.000-06:00

Indiana passed this law last year as well. Gov. Daniels called it "Castle Doctrine." Anyone threatening or attacking your home, vehicle, family, or person is subject to immediate deadly force.

But as the police threats against "video vigilante...

2007-10-02T16:19:00.000-06:00

But as the police threats against "video vigilante" Brett Darrow illustrate, it's not necessary to shoot a cop in order to be targeted for lethal retaliation, at least in St. Louis.

Speaking of Brett Darrow, an update on his situation, just in case it hasn't been posted elsewhere:

Sgt. James Kuehnlein of the St. George, Missouri PD has been fired for his violent outburst at Brett that made the worldwide rounds on the Web. Apparently even the corrupt politicians who run the St. George PD couldn't put a positive spin on this. The full story here:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/D46A8EE4AB8299A68625735D000200C0?OpenDocument

You mean there's a difference between a mafia don ...

2007-10-02T15:40:00.000-06:00

You mean there's a difference between a mafia don and the average cop?

I'm not sure how the comparison would work out if dons were involved, but the typical mafia hitman is more discriminating in his use of lethal force that the typical New Model (post-1994) police officer.

Mark Call raises a good point regarding lethal retaliation from corrupt police. But as the police threats against "video vigilante" Brett Darrow illustrate, it's not necessary to shoot a cop in order to be targeted for lethal retaliation, at least in St. Louis.

Mark Call said... Better you should off a mafia...

2007-10-02T13:15:00.000-06:00

Mark Call said...
Better you should off a mafia Don.

You mean there's a difference between a mafia don and the average cop?

Another thing comes to mind as well on this topic:...

2007-10-02T12:23:00.000-06:00

Another thing comes to mind as well on this topic:

Even if the "Law" was to acknowledge the Right (again) of individuals to protect what they think of as their family and home with force, and that understanding specifically extended to the New Gestapo in Blue ("LEOs" as opposed to peace officers) -- there's still a problem or two.

First, since most LEOs routinely ignore their Oath of Office anyway, and thus are used to acting under "Color of law" as opposed to the de jure variety, nothing changes in that regard.

Second, and arguably more importantly, anyone who WAS to exercise such a perogative -- regardless of the law -- would doubtless be "terminated with Extreme Prejudice" by the Fraternity.

Better you should off a mafia Don.

I see the correction as well, Will, and would add ...

2007-10-02T11:47:00.000-06:00

I see the correction as well, Will, and would add this note:

Colorado, twenty years before the 2005 date referenced in the linked article, passed what has become known as the "Make My Day Law", based on the then-popular Clint Eastwood movie phrase.

While that statute does not invoke the 'no duty to retreat' language, it does something equally useful in the home-invasion context --

it changes the PRESUMPTION of the law, and allows the break-in victim to PRESUME that anyone in their house under unwelcome conditions may intend deadly harm, and that therefore armed resistance is appropriate.

Does anyone know which 15 states have enacted "no ...

2007-10-02T11:14:00.000-06:00

Does anyone know which 15 states have enacted "no duty to retreat" laws? I notice that the International Herald Tribune article to which Will has linked doesn't bother to tell us this, instead choosing to make an uncalled-for snide comment on "itchy trigger fingers" that belongs not in a news article but in an editorial, further confirming the IHT's left-wing bias. Alas, what else would we expect from a MSM rag that's a hybrid of the Washington Post and the New York Times?

I just got around to watching the video. I am ver...

2007-10-02T11:12:00.000-06:00

I just got around to watching the video. I am very familiar with that area. Smaller town--cops tend to feel they have something to prove in smaller towns. Well, they certainly proved they're liars and killers.