Correct, there is no constitutional right to use a gun for a given purpose, you only have the right to bear arms, not to be judge, jury and executioner.
Their only purpose for writing the right to bear arms is for protection, RAZD. Do you
honestly believe the spirit of the right is just to have them?
When a gun or other weapon has been used, regardless of location, one needs to show due cause, usually involving self-protection from immanent harm.
Wholeheartedly agreed.
You can't just blow someone away that happens to be where you don't want them to be.
It all depends on the circumstances, such as it is most anything else in life.
I certainly don't think such uses are appropriate for gun owners to engage in, and that lax gun restrictions are a contributing factor to their being a part of the news cycles.
Would it make more sense to blame the offenders rather than the inanimate gun which has no willpower of its own? Where guns are disallowed, murder by other weapons such as knives increase. The problem is the human condition, not the (in)accessability of guns.
That proof is well-established where the murder rate is through the roof (Russia, Mexico) but places where guns are abundantly prevelant (Switzerland, Saudi Arabia) the homicide rate is low.
One has nothing to do with the other, and any suggestion that they do is disingenuous. The homicide rate has everything to do with social aspects, not inanimate objects.
It seems that the pro-gun lobby would rather attack this problem with armed citizens rather than with reasonable regulations and laws.
There already are a plethora of regulations and laws. The strict gun control lobby keeps saying this, see that new laws are passed, and then say there needs to be even more regulation. Rarely do they specify what kind of new regulations and laws they want passed. One can only assume that if they don't have anything specific in mind, "gun control" is really just code for "I hate guns and want to get rid of them."
What kinds of laws and regulations (that don't already exist) would you seek to legislate? Please be specific. Or if you feel like being perfectly honest, do you just want to repeal the 2nd amendment altogether?
The reason the federal government would get involved is if there is too much disparity between state regulations.
What purpose is there to even have states? Do you know why the Framers opted to have states as opposed to 100% federalization?
As long as the states can form militia units, such as the National Guard units and like State Police forces, this clause of the constitution is fulfilled.
If only the militia was expressed, there would not have been the right of the People included. If you are to look at it in context (which is highly advisable) you will see the Framers intent was to grant the People the right to keep and bear arms, but also within that body, to have a militia who are well-trained and disciplined.
That the SCOTUS continually agrees in numerous separate cases that peaceable men should be allowed the right to keep and arms, serves to invalidate your very narrow premise.
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ... "
In other words you do not have the right to take the law into your own hands.
This is a raping of what this means. So, we have to acquiesce in the face of tyranny so that your assailant, who is trying to kill you, gets his right to a trial? "Taking the law in to your own hands?" Would we be taking the laws in to our own hands by assaulting someone who was asaulting your 7-year old daughter or infant son?
I agree that all assailants should have a right to a fair trial, but some times the circumstances do not permit that based on the assailants actions. The police some times have to kill an assailant before he is brought to trial. That shit happens some times.
He, just like a civilian who has to kill (kill or be killed), will have to justify their actions in a court of law. The way you are making it sound is we are not allowed to make snap decisions when the threat of life is imminent. Imminent means, you don't have time to sit down with the assailant and have a cup of tea with them. Be realistic.
Where does society draw the line between what is appropriate and what is inappropriate?
The same way it does with any law.
It seems to me that the pro-gun lobby would be happy to have guns de-regulated to the point where the american-taliban-fundamentalist-zealots can arm themselves and train to kill abortion doctors and any other person they disagree with, simply because they have the right to bear arms.
Don't be so melodramatic. We just want what is sensible and what is afforded by the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.
Personally I can't see the founding fathers approving of such a situation, likewise law has always taken a dim view of vigilante justice, and all of this shows that there are rational reasons for regulation of who is allowed to use what kinds of weapons when and where.
To you, stopping a killer in your own house is considered vigilantism, so what you think has no objective basis in reality. As for the Framers, please refer to the myriad of quotes I provided. No one is advocating vigilantism, they are offering self-protection. The problem is that you view self-protection and vigilantism as being analagous.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston