After Catching ‘Peeping Tom’ Outside Daughter’s Window, Father Epically Executes His 2nd Amendment Right

@rfatoday Sounds good to me, but OP said he was excercising some kind of 2nd Amendment right.

Is shooting such a right? Is self defense?

I don't see either of those mentioned in the Second Amendment, but maybe it was in the minds of the Founders?

@MistyCee
Is that the next level of dumbosity the left will move to?

@Budwick I'm really more worried about the potential "dumbosity" of the right on terms of expanding the 2nd Amendment to a "right to shoot" like your title seemed to imply.

Shoot the burglar stuff used to be state tort law stuff, but with this Court, I'm not sure it'll continue that way.

@MistyCee Pre-tell - how does
After Catching ‘Peeping Tom’ Outside Daughter’s Window, Father Epically Executes His 2nd Amendment Right

expand the 2nd amendment to mean anything more than it already does?

Why did you not answer my original questions about your comments ? Did you suddenly realize that your comments were indefensible, and decided to deflect to something else?

@Budwick Obviously, my "pre-telling" was non-existent as was my communication of the question I had about your post.

Where does self defense fit into the 2nd Amendment?

I'm tempted to say that the "right" to raise self defense to an assault or battery charge well preceded even the invention of gunpowder, but that's not so much a Scalia/Alito originalism argument, focused microscopically on the precise year the Amendment was passed as much as a more traditional Constitutional interpretation argument.

In 1066, if the other guy drew his sword first, and I attacked, I could plead self defense if I killed him. But it wouldn't necessarily apply if I killed a few bystanders to get to him.


Does a Second Amendment "right to shoot" change that and let me off the hook if I pull out my gun and shoot at him, scaring or maybe killing bystanders?

Maybe I'm just old fashioned and stuck in literalism, but I don't see anything in the Second Amendment protecting the actual use as opposed to carrying or bearing of arms, and it scares me to think that state laws limiting or delineating the parameters of self defense might be stricken down on 2nd Amendment grounds.

@MistyCee
I don't know - you brought it up, not me.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. If you were shooting for confusing legal BS - I think you hit the mark.

So, I think what you have said here is potentially groundbreaking.
Even though people may have the right to carry fire arms, the Constitution doesn't give anyone a right to USE said fire arm - is that it?

@MistyCee I realize there has been a lot of discussion since your reply and I don't have time to review it all. I don't know there was ever any explicit intent by the founding fathers of our great nation to allow firearms in the use of self-defense. I suppose one could argue that is implicit, since the intent of the 2A was to allow citizens the means to depose a tyrannical government. Call it the ultimate in checks and balances. By having the right to use lethal force to depose a tyrannical government, personal freedom and liberty is given a high priority. Thus, any violent personal attack that can be considered potentially life-threatening is also a threat to personal freedom and liberty and thus lethal force can be used. Specific State law and other legalities might provide more specific criteria for the use of lethal force. In this case, my argument was that unless the peeper was a direct threat to the father or daughter, IMO his use of lethal force might consider that death a homicide by some DAs. Now if dad heard noises and was unaware of a peeper outside his daughter's window, and went outside to investigate, sure... if he was attacked using lethal force (knife in this case), I believe he had justification to use like force (a gun) in his own defense and that of his loved ones. I live rural and have the means and ability to defend against single or multiple threats and stop said threats very effectively. Ditto for carrying concealed on my person. Does that mean if I see someone on one of my CAMs looking through a bedroom window I am going to go out and confront said individual? No. I will call 9-1-1, report the issue, then make sure all means of access inside are secure. That keeps the DA happy and gives no lawyer an avenue to steal my assets. I mean, why? Why interdict someone who is not an immediate threat? Everyone has a choice IMO in how defend themselves or not at all. Nobody has a right to tell me how I can and cannot defend myself.

@rfatoday Dude, slow down, and feel free to break up paragraphs to make your thoughts easier to digest, and for humble SWeeps like myself to be able to respond to.

I don't have an issue with self defense, but I don't think the intent of the Second Amendment was to preserve it, and actually think that the overall intent of the Drafter/Founders was to pass a compromise form of government which wouldn't re-write or reconstruct the basic legal customs they intended to preserve, unless otherwise stated.

It's hard to pierce your wall of text, but I dispute a bunch of it, like:

This seems way too simplistic to me. I get the background of the Revolution, but it wasn't passed until 1791, after both the Shays and the Whiskey Rebellion, and when it did, the organized militia clause was part of it, despite Scalia's dismissal of it and what, imo, is a resulting absurd interpretation of " original intent."

Self defense, imo, was something the Drafters probably felt like they needn't talk about, because they weren't really concerned about civil law, in the sense of the rights of disputes between citizens between themselves (Non citizens like Indians or foreigners are a slightly different topic, albeit not totally irrelevant).


My point is that that I don't think that the founders intend to to regulate state criminal law in terms of self defense when they passed the 2nd Amendment in 1791.