Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

In the process of excercising your rights by shooting someone in the head, doesn't that mean that you're violating someone else's right? Or taking that right away?

If it's a right and it's based on the bill of rights, why do people still have to go to court to defend themselves after excercising their rights?

Surely if it's a right, it must be self evident why you shot someone in the head.

The attacker is violating rights. If he becomes injured or dead when someone defends themselves, his or her rights have not been violated.

[slang]

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Radar

The attacker is violating rights. If he becomes injured or dead when someone defends themselves, his or her rights have not been violated.

Wrong. If his right to live is natural/inalienable then you've violated his right to live by taking away his life, regardless of the reason why you did it. Regardless of whether you were trying to preserve your own or not.

It doesn't matter what the reason is. It's still a right violated.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Wrong. If his right to live is natural/inalienable then you've violated his right to live by taking away his life, regardless of the reason why you did it. Regardless of whether you were trying to preserve your own or not.

It doesn't matter what the reason is. It's still a right violated.

WRONG. When you attack someone, any injuries you suffer (including death) are your own fault. It stands to reason you wouldn't understand something this simple since you're stupid enough to think it's Israel's fault when they retaliate for people blowing up their children.