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.

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.

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.

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.