Right wing astro-turf, or why nothing ever really gets done

There is a phenonmenon called astro-turfing by politicians. This is the practise of creating a fake grass roots effect. The Gun Rights/RKBA crowd are notorious for this since they tend to appear like flies to shit when someone makes any sort of comment that some form of regulation is needed regarding the purchase and ownership of firearms.

Their funniest statment usually runs along that there are loads of gun laws on the books right now, why don't we enforce them?

Because these gun laws are toothless due to the fact that the legislators are scared shitless of the "gun rights" lobby. Quite frankly, they aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

And even more foolishness, the agency tasked with enforcing these laws, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF, ATF) is vilified by the gun rights crowd. This agency has no power or funding because the gun rights crowd don't like them. In fact, the gun rights crowd does everything possible to make sure gun laws aren't (a) enforcable or (b) enforced while saying the gun laws on the books need to be enforced!

So, go figure!

From the Center for Responsive Politics's OpenSecrets.org website:

If lawmakers are guilty of tiptoeing around gun control issues, it is because the NRA and other gun rights groups wield an enormous amount of influence in Washington. The source of that influence is money. Gun rights groups have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989. Nearly $15 million, or 85 percent of the total, has gone to Republicans. The National Rifle Association is by far the gun rights lobby's biggest donor, having contributed more than $14 million over the past 15 years. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, contribute far less money than their rivals -- a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989, of which 94 percent went to Democrats. The leading contributor among gun control advocates is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly known as Handgun Control, which has given $1.5 million over the past 15 years.

If gun rights groups have a substantial advantage in campaign contributions, they dominate gun control advocates in the area of lobbying. The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period. By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000.

The National Rifle Association has an additional advantage over all other groups in the debate. As a membership organization, the NRA can spend unlimited funds on communications to its 4 million members that identify pro-gun candidates. Those members also contribute millions of dollars in limited donations to the NRA's political action committee, which runs ads aimed at the general public that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. Since 1989, the NRA has spent more than $22 million on communications costs and independent expenditures, with more than $18 million spent in support of Republican candidates.

So, what we are seeing isn't really the popular voice, but the voice of money talking and influencing politics. In fact, Most of the "Second Amendment Scholarship" that has come out in recent years has been funded by the NRA! For example, Nelson Lund is the Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at the George Mason University School of Law. This position was created thanks to a one million dollar commitment to GMU School of Law by the National Rifle Association Foundation announced in 2003.

The Academics for the Second Amendment is funded in part by the National Rifle Association. Academics for the Second Amendment isn't exactly a collection of academic gun nuts--most of its more than 500 members aren't academics! The organization is engaged in a genteel lobbying effort to popularize what many liberals consider the gun nut's view of the Second Amendment: that it confers an individual right to bear arms, not just the right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia. Since it was founded in 1992 by Joseph E. Olson of the Hamline University School of Law, who was on the NRA's National Board of Directors, Academics for the Second Amendment has held by-invitation-only seminars for academics who share its beliefs about the Second Amendment--or might be persuaded to adopt them.

Strangely enough, Academics for the Second Amendment doesn't have a website, but it does have a blog!

In fact, it's fairly hard to find information on this group, but I would put that it does have an incredibly strong connection to the NRA given the lobbying efforts of the "gun rights" crowd. Funny though that Academics for the Second Amendment doesn't give out any info on who belongs to it. The most I could find was this:

A2A is a tax-exempt educational organization recognized under IRC §501(c)(3) [that makes your contributions tax-deductible]. Our primary goal is to give the “right to keep and bear arms” enshrined in the Bill of Rights its proper, prominent place in Constitutional discourse and analysis.

A2A was formed in 1992 by a number of present and former law school teachers, joined by historians, political scientists, and philosophers of government, who believe it is time to stand and be counted in support of a complete Bill of Rights which includes an individual right under the Second Amendment. The organization seeks to foster intellectually honest discourse on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and, of course, the environment in which academics, judges, politicians, and the public place the rights preserved by the Second Amendment.

Now, wouldn't an organisation with such noble goals work in the open?

Anyway, I plan on delving deeper into the topic of paid "scholarship" and the Second Amendment, but the real point I am making here is that there isn't an "intellectually honest discourse" going on here--especially since money is talking the loudest. In fact, money is drowning out any real discourse or action.

So, I don't need to mention that there was yet another mass shooting near Pittsburgh, PA since even more inactivity will come of it. I might have even been flooded with comments if I allowed them.

Yet another funny RKBA quote

From Is there Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?

Historian Garry Wills has made an attempt at claiming the above. An online article, from the gun control group Join Together, reports Wills as writing "any claims that the Constitution ensures an armed citizenry as a bulwark against the potential tyranny of government is a myth. 'You can't read the amendment apart from the body of the Constitution,' he wrote, 'and the body of the Constitution defines taking up arms against the United States as treason.' " [quoting Wills from his book, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government (1999)]

A myth? Not according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison in 1811)--at least in the Guncite article author's opinion

No myth

Article III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Treason is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution. Actaully, one should read and quote the relevant section in Story's Commentaries, which are those relating to Article III, Section iii.

Somehow, I don't see Story's quote in the guncite article as contradicting the US Constution: do you?

Anyway and again, the whole passage from Joseph Story-Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833):

"§ 1889. The next amendment is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. [FN1] And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. [FN2]

"§ 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the [English] Bill of Rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." [FN3] But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege."

Note that Story is talking about the institution of the Militia in relation to the Second Amendment, not personal ownership of firearms, lamenting "How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization". The problem is that the Militia was pretty much dead at the time Story was writing, which he mourns in this passage. In fact, the militia was a still birth.

I mean if the Second Amendment were truly vibrant, there wouldn't be the large military budget since:

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

Again, from Story's Commentaries regarding Article III, Section iii of Constitution:

§ 1292. The propriety of investing the national government with authority to punish the crime of treason against the United States could never become a question with any persons, who deemed the national government worthy of creation, or preservation. If the power had not been expressly granted, it must have been implied, unless all the powers of the national government might be put at defiance, and prostrated with impunity. Two motives, probably, concurred in introducing it, as an express power. One was, not to leave it open to implication, whether it was to be exclusively punishable with death according to the known rule of the common law, and with the barbarous accompaniments pointed out by it; but to confide the punishment to the discretion of congress. The other was, to impose some limitation upon the nature and extent of the punishment, so that it should not work corruption of blood or forfeiture beyond the life of the offender.

Another point, Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

What? No mention of the Second Amendment in that passage??? Again, the Second Amendment cannot be construed as allowing treason or "change by violence, revolution and terrorism" since armed revolt is unconstitutional under Article III, Section iii.

Hallelujah !

A Message from John Cleese

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy). This means you will stop calling her the Queen of England - she's Queen of the United Kingdom i.e England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Mistakenly calling her anything else is like calling George Bush, President of Texas.

Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded, and a questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.

1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' , 'humour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise.

Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').

3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as " cool", "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell- checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize.
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday and you will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.

5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline)-roughly $10 per US gallon. Get used to it.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting Nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.

12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters.
Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full Kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.

God save the Queen.

Only He can.

John Cleese

If only this were true!

Why none of the "public interest groups" want a definitive answer on Heller.

Quite frankly, if the SCOTUS does the sane and sensible thing by reiterating US v. Miller in idiot proof, plain English, then there will be an end to the interminable fund raising letters, e-mails, etcetera I receive. Not to mention the road will be indeed cleared for the possibility of a gun ban. Perhaps we will see much needed talk of gun responsibilities, rather than fictitious "gun rights".

On the other hand, finding "an individual right" outside of militia service will guarantee that there will be loads of litigation. We'll see loads more trash written about the "individual right". It'll be the gravy train for "Second Amendment" lawyers and scholars. Someone reading these blogs might offer me a lucrative job, especially if whatever opinion generated is not unanimous.

On the other hand, probably not since I would much prefer that my real Second Amendment right of being free from standing armies were implemented rather than some nonsensical right which never was intended to be part of the whole shebang. I would want to see an end to this and make the Second Amendment the dead letter it is for firearms ownership once and for all.

To be quite honest, I don't mind expanding rights in a Roe v. Wade fashion if it truly impinges upon something which affects only a person and his/her personal life. I do mind when the right leads to high social costs which is undeniable about "gun violence".

The RKBA crowd has a sticker which says "fear the government that fears your gun".

I say "fear the government which tells you how to run your personal life and doesn't care about the welfare of its citizens".

I don't want the government telling someone that she can or cannot have children. Worse, forcing children into this world without parents who want them. Especially if that government is unwilling to shoulder the burden of raising those children. Even more so when it is all too willing to pay to incarcerate those children rather than pay to properly educate them.

The government has no business telling me what I should believe as far as religion goes. Even more so since the Constitution says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means public officials should keep their arses out of proselytising.

I agree with Justice McReynolds when he said the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment included an individual's right "to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy privileges, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

This means that I can do what I will if it doesn't lead to harming others. Unfettered firearms ownership does harm others. The cost of gun violence in terms of law enforcement, legal process, health care, etcetera is astronomical. Firearm ownership also makes no sense in a city for a multitude of reasons. And if a legislature also reaches that conclusion, it is not the place of the courts to come and second guess the legislative process.

Self-defence, nuclear weapons, and the Constitution

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!

This argument comes up from time to time during gun control arguments. An anti-gun person who intends to use it as a strawman argument usually offers it facetiously or sarcastically. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which a debater exaggerates an opponent's position, directs arguments at this exaggerated position, and claims to have defeated the opponent's real argument.

No this isn't a "straw-man" argument. It is a very valid critique of the individual right position.

I decided to do a search using the text of the Constitution, which is available here.

Now the term "self-defence" is never used in this document. Neither is "democracy" for that matter, instead this country is formed as a republic (article 4, section 4).

On the other hand, "provide for the common Defence" is used twice, once in the preamble and in Article I, Section 8.

The term "self" shows up once in the fifth amendment regarding self-incrimination: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Since the term self-defence is never mentioned in the Second Amendment, or the Constitution. And, given the term common defence IS used. It is very obvious that the intent of the Constitution is to deal with the common defence and not self-defence. I think it is sensible that the Second Amendment is not extended to the common law concept of self-defence.

Moreover, this is borne out in the debates regarding both the militia and the adoption of the Second Amendment. Never was the "right of self-defence" (or even "self-defence") mentioned during these debates. The issue was the common defence, not personal defence. Personal defence was not a concern. The ultimate issue was the possibility of the establishment of a standing army over the institution of the militia. As I have said before, Justice Kennedy's frontier farmer's family could have been scalped and the women raped for all "we the people" who wrote the Constitution could have cared in respect to the Second Amendment. The issue was not private arms, but the plenary power of Congress over the militia and the establishment of a standing army.

I have more than enough posts on this topic to delve too far with the issue of self-defence here, but it is a common law concept, not a Constitutional one.

In fact, the Pennsylvania Minority is mentioned regarding a personal right, yet they said "no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals". This says that public injury is a reason for disarming the people. Would they support gun control given the current cost of gun violence in this country? And, the Pennsylvania minority is usually cited as a pro-self-defence position.

True, I cannot use a nuclear weapon for self-defence if that is the alleged purpose of the Second Amendment, but I am more than justified if the right extends to military purposes. We can't read the term "the people" broadly and then restrict the term "arms". That is a logical inconsistency. Both must be read broadly or read narrowly. One can't read one term narrowly and the other broadly.

Additionally, if I am entitled to a personal right to fight tyrant's armies and invading forces, then it makes total sense to have a nuclear or other form of weapon of mass destruction. I cannot fight off a tyrant who is equipped with missiles and tanks if I am not similarly equipped. Where would the US have been had Saddam Hussein actually possessed and used WMD?

On the other hand, the "right of self-defence" is one at common law and can be limited in scope by law. One cannot repulse the attack with such force that one then becomes the attacker to paraphrase Blackstone (and St. George Tucker). We see in other common law jurisdictions (e.g., Britain and Canada) where personal defence weapons are barred from ownership. Additionally, one cannot use self-defence as a reason to justify firearms ownership in Britain. In fact, the use of deadly force is extremely limited at common law, which means that a firearm is definitely not the first choice of self-defence weapon.

There is absolutely no reason to open up the Second Amendment to add the common law concept of self-defence. To do so would be to destroy the constitution. We will see all forms of litigation if a personal right is recognised where it doesn't exist. Whether that is challenging laws regarding machineguns, felon in possession, sentencing, etcetera. There is more than just a hint that this will happen as I have also cited in my other posts.

And I will indeed file a petition to the Supreme Court claiming that my Second Amendment rights are being infringed by treaties limiting nuclear weeapons if it finds an individual right.

the strict constructionist and the Second Amendment

I read that any law which does not literally impinge on an explicitly enumerated right in the Constitution passes judicial scrutiny according to the strict constructionist view.

Now, I just did a search of the constitution for self-defence, and nowhere is that term mentioned. Which means that self-defence is not a constitutionally protected right.

Again, as I mentioned in my posts on the Heller Oral arguments, the Second Amendment does not mention this. Self-defence is a common law concept, not a constitutional one.

If the object of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito is to not impinge upon an expressly enumerated right, then the District's gun laws do not. Self-defence was not at issue when the Second Amendment was drafted and is not an enumerated right in the constitution.

On the other hand, the establishment of a standing army was the issue.

The Second Amendment is a dead letter, especially regarding the right of an individual to own a firearm for self-defence. Self-defence was not a concern.

Justice Kennedy's frontier farmer could be scalped and the women raped for all the "people" who wrote the Constitution cared. The issue was not self-defence, but assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the body organised under Article I, Section 8, which at that time was called the militia and is now the national guard.

To say the Second Amendment encompasses the right of self-defence is to not go into the penumbra, or even umbra, it is to take it to beyond the outer edge of the logical universe. It is to create a Constitutional right where none existed. It is to forgo public safety for no sane reason. Worst of all, it is to second guess legislatures and destroy the rule of law.

The law of self-defence

The issue of Self-defence in regard to the Second Amendment is a real diversion. As I consistently point out, the term is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Secondly, the use of deadly force is extremely limited in most jurisdictions. Of course, there are the "licence to murder" laws which change the common law concept of self-defence to make deadly force a first option.

In most jurisdictions, when the defense succeeds, it operates as a complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. In other words, you must be threatened by deadly force to use deadly force. If the attacker can be stopped with a non-lethal agent (e.g., pepper spray), then you don't have the right to use deadly force.

So, The defense would fail if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. On the other hand, you would be justified if you had been robbed by someone with a replica firearm or BB gun and shot the robber. But, if you were a black belt and disarmed the person, you would stand a better chance of getting off.

So, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (say, being tackled and restrained), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack. One is justified in using enough force to stop the attach, but one cannot go beyond that force and become the aggressor. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place.

Some jurisdictions have a duty to retreat. This means that if you could back down, or run away, from the threat, you are not justified in using force. Of course, the duty of retreat makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium " i.e. Latin for "and each man’s home is his safest refuge”).　However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.

Again, if one could deescalate the situation, but fails to do so, you cannot say that you acted in self-defence.

In some jurisdictions, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person. Again, the force used must only be that necessary to stop the threat.

The problem is that the RKBA crowd want to get more guns on the streets via liberalised CCW laws and the "licence to murder laws" which change the definiton of self-defence to allow for the use of deadly force in situations where it is not justifiable under common law.

No one has the right to deadly force, especially if one wishes to link this to the right of militia members to "keep and bear arms". We have two separate concepts working here: Militia service and self-defence. Every common law jurisdiction has the heritage of these two concepts, yet other common law jurisdictions severely restrict the items which can be used for self-defence. Anyone who has been to England or Canada knows that things like pepper spray, mace, stun guns, and especially firearms and not allowed to be possessed for self-defence.

Another thing which I find odd, is that with all this talk about right to life, no one has brought in Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which defines the Right to Life as follows:

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Opinions can differ on what is a reasonable amount of force, but one thing is certain. The defendant does not have the right to decide how much force it is reasonable to use because the defendant would always believe he or she was acting reasonably and would never be guilty of any offence. It is for the jury, as ordinary members of the community, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable to use in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from an imminent attack and might not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including his or her beliefs as to the surrounding circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for any mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. The classic test comes from the Jamaican case of Palmer v The Queen, [1971] AC 814:

The defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.

So, to argue that one has a right to arms for self-defence is a misunderstanding of the common-law concept of self-defence. One only has the right to use as much force is necessary to stop that threat. There is no right to use a firearm if a non-lethal alternative exists that can stop the attack (e.g., pepper spray).

Additionally, one can argue that the right to life means that one cannot be deprived "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The fifth Amendment specifically states this, which would put it in conflict with the Second Amendment if that allows for the use of deadly force without justification.

To argue that the Second Amendment allows for the ownership of firearms for self-defence is to take both the Second Amendment and the concept of self-defence totally out of context.