Retiree That Legally Defended Himself Sentenced to Prison in New York

[quintessentone]

From the additional verifiable details mentioned in news reports.

Man who shot NYC mugger arraigned on multiple gun charges, held on $50K bail

Several people associated with the case have suggested that the shooter was displaying signs of paranoia, which, in a situation where there is inadequate valid cause for fear, is a description of a psychological imbalance.

Yes, it certainly points in that direction.

From the pic/video I've seen the alleged mugger was a long way off and not really on top of him or manhandling him to provoke a shooting. Just my observation.

[chr0naut]

There is no requirement to demonstrate need in order to exercise your rights, and you're making an awful lot of leaps there.
If even 25% of americans who are armed to the teeth were doing so with the intent of carrying out acts of terror they would have to call in the marines.

The 2nd Amendment purported to have a specific purpose. The curation of a collection of guns was mentioned in the clause, perhaps? Nah.

Honestly, firearms are deadly weapons. You cannot just check your brain at the door and ignore that fact.

There are so many unlawful uses of firearms that you cannot just assume that the 2nd means that everyone must have access to firearms under any conditions, for any purposes.

As Pretti has evidenced, possession of a firearm actually makes you a target.

And as the history of firearm use in the USA has evidenced, even with armed militias, the people cannot successfully defend against the overwhelming munitions of tyrannical government through force of arms.

[PorkChop96]

What exactly is a 'connection' with a Constitutional right?

How thin and tenuous can it be stretched?

I guess at this point it doesn't matter what I say about "stretching" anything. You, as someone who knows little to nothing about what MY constitution actually says and would rather see us dot he same as you and your people did and give up all of our rights, will "stretch" it to mean anything you want or don't want it to mean. 
 

Already the Constitution is confusingly and ambiguously phrased.

Definitely the 2nd makes no specific mention of the general public being armed, it is clearly talking about arming of militias and yet it is interpreted as meaning something it does not explicitly say.


Does the 2nd Amendment say that the general public has a right to be armed? If so, why not just say it with absolute clarity?

 

Reading comprehension must not be something they teach in Australia, huh? 


"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"  That is pretty cut and dry.  

People like you are so keen to let the slightest infringement, all the way to full on removal of, on MY 2nd amendment rights go right on through, but if someone even mentions the slightest restriction of someone's 1st amendment rights, that sets you off like a 5 cent bottle rocket.

[Moon68]

The very second statute ever written for the USA was one encouraging armed revolt against your own government.

It hasn't been protective, either, because since it was penned, you have had a civil war, and numerous armed revolts have been put down by superior government forces (Waco, Ruby Ridge) and even this year the total death toll from firearms (including suicides), again exceeds that of any other country.

So, from a very dubious starting point, Federally, it's a bit harsh to judge the States, whose authority pre-existed the Union, and the Congress, and by whose assent the Union and the Congress were granted their power.

Amdt10.3.4 State Sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment

Do you even read what you post?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."

The United States (Federal government), by the Constitution, is responsible for the protection of the Peoples rights as proscribed by the Constitution. That is the federal governments main responsibility, upholding rights.

States are not allowed to circumvent federal law on a whim, just because they don't like a law or who happens to be President at the time. If a State is in violation of a Constitutionally protected right the United States government is required to intercede.

You should keep you nose on your own face.

[Moon68]

From the additional verifiable details mentioned in news reports.

Man who shot NYC mugger arraigned on multiple gun charges, held on $50K bail

Several people associated with the case have suggested that the shooter was displaying signs of paranoia, which, in a situation where there is inadequate valid cause for fear, is a description of a psychological imbalance.

Nowhere in that article does it state that "Several people associated with the case have suggested that the shooter was displaying signs of paranoia".

You are making shit up...again.

He had armed himself for self-protection due to the increase in crime in the area. Sounds like a valid cause to me armchair psychologist.

[Moon68]

What exactly is a 'connection' with a Constitutional right?

How thin and tenuous can it be stretched?

Already the Constitution is confusingly and ambiguously phrased.

Definitely the 2nd makes no specific mention of the general public being armed, it is clearly talking about arming of militias and yet it is interpreted as meaning something it does not explicitly say.


Does the 2nd Amendment say that the general public has a right to be armed? If so, why not just say it with absolute clarity?

Why all that other stuff about the necessity of militias to a free state? Do you just ignore that contextual stuff in exactly the same clause? Here's a concept, perhaps clauses used in law in the English language, tie together definitions and specific conditions?

And, of course there are the explanations, expansions and clarifications mentioned in the Federalist Papers by the original authors. We shouldn't ignore those either.

Militias, as described in the Constitution, ARE THE CITIZENRY.

**Mod. snip**

[MrGashler77]

The 2nd Amendment purported to have a specific purpose. The curation of a collection of guns was mentioned in the clause, perhaps? Nah.

Honestly, firearms are deadly weapons. You cannot just check your brain at the door and ignore that fact.

There are so many unlawful uses of firearms that you cannot just assume that the 2nd means that everyone must have access to firearms under any conditions, for any purposes.

As Pretti has evidenced, possession of a firearm actually makes you a target.

And as the history of firearm use in the USA has evidenced, even with armed militias, the people cannot successfully defend against the overwhelming munitions of tyrannical government through force of arms.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is clear by the writings of the people who enshrined it in our constitution.
Firearms can be deadly weapons. Vehicles can be deadly weapons. Medication can be a deadly weapon. A pressure cooker can be a deadly weapon. A sharpened pencil can be a deadly weapon. The object has no intent, and as such it cannot decide what it is and what it isn't itself. The intention of the user is what decides that.
The 2nd amendment is not in any way ambiguous. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It was less about the fact that Pretti possessed a firearm, and more about the actions he had taken while possessing a firearm. He did not really make any good decisions that day.
I get the impression that you don't really understand the history of the firearm in the US, or even around the world, nor the overwhelming firepower the US population has access to. And then you have to consider the fact that a not insignificant percentage of the US armed forces would refuse to fire on their own people and would subvert the plans of the government and/or directly sabotage their equipment.

[chr0naut]

I guess at this point it doesn't matter what I say about "stretching" anything. You, as someone who knows little to nothing about what MY constitution actually says and would rather see us dot he same as you and your people did and give up all of our rights, will "stretch" it to mean anything you want or don't want it to mean. 

The full text and much legal commentary of the US Constitution is online. Your assumption that people within your borders have a better knowledge of the US Constitution than those outside is patently false.

Definitely your President, at least, has a laughably poor understanding of your foundational documents:


 

Reading comprehension must not be something they teach in Australia, huh? 

Of course they did.

International comparisons of achievement - nces.ed.gov

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"  That is pretty cut and dry.  

The lower case letter "t" at the start indicates that the bit you just quoted isn't even the whole sentence. In English, sentences are prefixed with a capital letter and suffixed with a full stop (or period, for people who are language challenged ).

Generally, in legal documents, the entire contents of a clause are to be taken together, as there may be specific conditions and requirements that must be encompassed and properly defined.

The 2nd Amendment is not only a single clause, it is also a single sentence. You cannot just ignore the rest of the clause in understanding the statute.

And to try and apply an interpretation that is only a part of what is in a sentence, discarding the rest, is totally invalid - a clear and wilful twisting of meaning.

The full clause is:

"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."

As an English language sentence, the above text has several issues. It has three primary subjects (a well regulated militia - the security of a free state - and the bearing of arms), and by applying the action "shall not be infringed" to any of the subjects of the sentence, completely changes the possible interpretation.

Nor, in your interpretation, does regulation of, administration of, or registration of, arms amount to infringement of their right to bear arms. You are arguing one thing using what has become a slogan about another separate issue.

A good parallel example about legislation is with driving automobiles where; road rules, driver licensing and automobile registration, don't prevent everyone from using automobiles.

They aren't about to take away your automobiles! LOL.

People like you are so keen to let the slightest infringement, all the way to full on removal of, on MY 2nd amendment rights go right on through, but if someone even mentions the slightest restriction of someone's 1st amendment rights, that sets you off like a 5 cent bottle rocket.

As demonstrated, the 2nd Amendment (like much of the US constitution) is very poorly written and open to wilful misinterpretation. For important legal statute, that is very poor. Statute must necessarily be clear, concise, and unambiguous.

Additionally, the use of the word 'arms' at the time of writing of the 2nd encompassed bombs and cannon.

The interpretation that precludes militia from coverage by the 2nd is fairly arbitrary and it ignores that the 2nd mentions "a well regulated militia".

If, however, the 2nd was about arming militia, then bombs and canons would have been specifically included in what the authors intended.

Also the "well regulated" bit does not imply that absolutely everyone gets a gun/bomb/cannon as a right, but that the militia has authority to delegate who has access to arms.

The Federalist Papers 24, 25, 29 (by Alexander Hamilton), and 46 (by James Madison) primarily argue the necessity for civilian State militia, rather than relying only a large standing Federal army. They are not arguing that the general public must be armed, but rather that strong State militia will keep the country balanced in political terms, and will prevent Federal totalitarian misrepresentation of the will of the people.

[chr0naut]

Do you even read what you post?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."

The United States (Federal government), by the Constitution, is responsible for the protection of the Peoples rights as proscribed by the Constitution. That is the federal governments main responsibility, upholding rights.

States are not allowed to circumvent federal law on a whim, just because they don't like a law or who happens to be President at the time. If a State is in violation of a Constitutionally protected right the United States government is required to intercede.

You should keep you nose on your own face.

The administration, regulation and licensing of firearms does not not contradict the 2nd Amendment rights in any way.

Just like State road administration, road rules, driver licensing and automobile registration do not prevent everyone from driving safely conformant to reasonable safety rules.

They aren't trying to take away your automobiles! They are just trying to make it safe.

[chr0naut]

Militias, as described in the Constitution, ARE THE CITIZENRY.

**Mod. snip**

What, women, children, babies, the disabled?

Militias existed and were well defined as distinct groups of armed fighters and that did not include the entire citizenry, from well before the Union of the States.