tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post8710157614426299737..comments2024-02-27T15:47:47.923-05:00Comments on Principled Perspectives: New Jersey's Law Against Concealed Carry Violates Right to Self-Defenseprincipled perspectiveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-65886983571291897112014-03-26T21:17:18.004-04:002014-03-26T21:17:18.004-04:00I'll look at your two further comments. For n...I'll look at your two further comments. For now, I think laws about this, or about anything else, gives only principled guidance for any and all actual situations. In cases at law (or at 'bar'), the judiciary applies the principle to determine guilt or innocence of the charge, including whether or not a victim of aggression 'took the law into his own hands' or not.Mike Kevittnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-33709697366245319442014-03-23T18:05:29.828-04:002014-03-23T18:05:29.828-04:00The constitutional issue regarding guns is complex...The constitutional issue regarding guns is complex because the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is where the convergence of individual rights and the government's role as society's designated rights protector takes place. <br /><br />The government can not fulfill this role unless it has a legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. This means, quite simply, that the government must have supervisory authority to regulate private sector gun ownership, while also upholding the individual's right to self-defense in instances where the government is not there in the moment of the commission of an act of aggression. I would call this a complex legal issue. For more, see my further comments on the issue <a href="http://principledperspectives.blogspot.com/2013/09/is-there-right-to-carry-gun-in-public.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://principledperspectives.blogspot.com/2013/09/burden-of-proof-is-on-government-in.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-21520604723607398092014-03-22T22:00:21.433-04:002014-03-22T22:00:21.433-04:00What, as briefly as possible (if that's brief ...What, as briefly as possible (if that's brief enough here), is the complex constitutional issue about the right to keep and bear arms?<br /><br />I think it's simply this: you have the inalienable right of self-defense, period, so they wrote it into the Constitution via the 2nd. Amend. It recognizes the right to 'bear arms'. You have your bodily, phys. corporal means, even if you're a 100 lb.,5' tall woman, so use it. If you need more than that, such as a gun or knife, ya gotta get it, within your rights. When you get it, use it when & if needed.<br /><br />The only complication I see stems from the fact that they couldn't leave the right to implication, to what the Constitution said as drafted, without the amendments, such as the 2nd. Amend. Implication left the right to bear arms too vulnerable to being denied. So they simply wrote it in, as the 2nd. of 10 amendments. That's as complex as it was.<br /><br />Today, they wanna blatently deny the EXPLICATION! Whaddoowe do about that? What if they want to deny the whole written, explicit Constitution? What would we do about that? I'm not too sure about how complex the issue is.<br /><br />Any comment?Mike Kevittnoreply@blogger.com