• ernestm
    1k
    The article some of you kindly helped to complete is ready for another round of revisions. It's now on the LinkedIn page for my proposed $16 billion/year 'Benthamite Amendment'​ to the HR5103 'National Gun-Violence Tax Bill'

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/national-gun-violence-tax-ernest-meyer/

    The main change will be to update some of the 2nd Amendment discussion with the following, from the Benthamite Amendment:

    The 2nd Amendment rights of those shot to death are insufficiently protected. It's surprising no one has raised this paradox before, because it's rather obvious once stated. There is consensus from all three Supreme Court lawyers I've asked that this paradox justifies measures to protect the 2nd-Amendment rights of those who would otherwise be killed. Simply put, killing a man with a gun infringes on the dead man's right to bear arms.

    • Attorneys have objected that the Bill of Rights only constrains the Government, but that's not quite true. Authorities such as employers, landlords, etc. can also be sued for violating rights due to their positions of power. When someone shoots a victim to death, they have assumed authority over the victim's entire life, which is the greatest extent of authority possible over another person, and thus entitling all such victims to Constitutional-right protection under the 2nd Amendment itself. While contenders could raise a challenge in the Supreme Court, it'd be unlikely to find much judicial support, considering the immense effort the courts undergo themselves when attempting to exercise authority over the life of known criminals of the worst kinds.
    • A few attorneys have objected that threats are criminal, and therefore the shot person has lost rights by breaking the law. However, in the USA, a person is presumed innocent until found guilty by a court. Being dead, the person can’t stand trial, can’t be found guilty, and therefore is still protected by Constitutional rights. The extent of the protection is really the question, but it’s certainly enough for the government to enact laws which reduce gun violence, because the government is then taking authority over aggressors to stop them losing their own rights, among which, are the rights to bear arms.

    So far, I have not received any other substantive objections, and no answer to these refutations in favor of my 2nd-Amendment paradox supporting gin-violence tax. I'd be glad for your further feedback.


  • Outlander
    1.8k
    Isn't 'shooting someone to death' outside of self defense, often only if your life is in imminent danger as in you yourself would be killed or grievously injured if said self defense was not performed, murder? Castle Doctrine or being in Texas (shooting a fleeing robber), aside.

    The higher charge takes precedence does it not? Defending your Life when confronted with another who is either trying to take It or put It in an unreasonable circumstance where it either is or seems that it is to be taken (pulling a knife on you in a threatening manner, aka a death threat), outside of a verbal or other interaction you started ie. you're just standing there minding your own business saying nothing and some guy comes up and pulls out a knife and "charges at you". That's infringing on the main Constitution al rights themselves. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. I agree when someone violates the Constitutional rights of another they invalidate theirs. That's the point.
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    Yeah shooting someone is already illegal. Taking away someone's right to bear arms by shooting them doesn't need to be more illegal than it already was. I don't really see the point of this.

    I take it you're trying to turn the 2nd amendment against itself, and restrict the right to bear arms on account of the potential that bearing arms has to restrict the right to bear arms? In other words, you can't bear arms in a way that would restrict someone else's right to bear arms, e.g. by shooting them, or threatening to shoot them, etc?

    That makes sense, except... you already can't shoot someone, or threaten to shoot them, except in exceptional circumstances that you'd want to allow under these circumstances too (e.g. urgent self-defense). So I don't see what this adds to anything.
  • ernestm
    1k
    That makes sense, except... you already can't shoot someone, or threaten to shoot them, except in exceptional circumstances that you'd want to allow under these circumstances too (e.g. urgent self-defense). So I don't see what this adds to anything.Pfhorrest

    Well thats true, and thanks for writing. The problem has been that 2A folks say ALL gun control is bad because it infrinces on 2A rights. So my point needs to be made, for this proposal to be accepted, that the State also has a responsibility to protect citizens from themselves, by not letting them have gins when they could get in a situation where someone shoots them.
  • ernestm
    1k
    That's infringing on the main Constitution al rights themselves. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. I agree when someone violates the Constitutional rights of another they invalidate theirs. That's the point.Outlander

    Well they don't legally, because people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and they cant be tried for what they did because they are dead, so they cant be provoked of rights, legally. I find this rather funny myself, because no lawyer has been able to refute it yet.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.