Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I am all for the right to protect your own home. Many states have laws that support the old english common law "castle" doctrine (your home is your castle, you have a right to protect it).
Beyond that, I see opportunities for serious abuse of the "stand-your-ground" laws, either intentionally or accidentally. Citizens have no training in how to act in public scenarios like the kid with a knife robbing a grocery store. A successful outcome may result or it may result in a deadly overreaction.
THere is a case in Florida under investigation: In Tampa, a tow- truck operator shot and killed a man he said was trying to run him over and used the "Stand Your Ground" law as a defense. The district attorney is evaluating other forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony that the shots came from behind, and therefore were not in self-defense. |
which is exactly the way things should be. The government has to prove it's case, not automatically assume guilt and force the defendant to prove innocence. Why do you think the magna carte was written? and the constitution?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
A lot of law enforcement is really expensive. Maybe we should just stop having police! Also, do you have any idea how much the US pays for privately owned and run prisons?
|
we have a choice. do we imprison people, do we execute people, or do we just ignore the crime?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The dealer should be charged with involintary manslaughter if anyone was killed with their gun.
|
so charge someone with a crime they had no knowledge of, nor participation in? where is the sense in that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
HAHAHA!!! So where did I say that felons wouldn't be heald responsible? Maybe in your mind, to make your argument a little easier? Yeah, that's called a strawman. Incid the felon on charges, and indict the "private individual" for involuntary manslaughter. Make it clear that if you are found supplying guns to bad people, you will not get away with it.
|
If the government can prove a case of a lone individual supplying guns to felons, then by all means, do so. But if I sell a single gun to a single individual, why should I have to do the background check on someone that should still be in prison? Why should I be charged with being an accessory to a crime I was nowhere near? Should you be charged with aiding and abetting a felon because you know someone who smokes pot, but didn't say anything, and he got caught with an amount to be charged with distribution?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Longvision is only as long as it takes to get into effect. If my idea started tomorrow, we could very easily see gun crime drop within a few months. The thing is, arming everyone is a great way to give everyone too much power. I can name on one hand the amount of people I know that I'd trust with a gun, and that's just not good enough.
|
Should we put willravel in charge of who gets rights and who doesn't? Should you be the overseer of who gets to drive and who doesn't? Should you only give rights to people that YOU trust? Face it will, the reason you want people disarmed and guns off the streets is because you don't want to have a gun yourself. If you feel you are incapable of dealing with gun ownership, you want everyone on the same footing as you. Nobody should have a gun because will doesn't like them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
As for the potential insurgency against our government thing: guns aren't really the weapon of an insurgency against a government and powerful military. Bombs are. The only way for them to stop me from making bombs is to find me and stop me, as the stuff that can be made into bombs can be found anywhere.
|
good snipers are the most lethal tool in any combat situation. I have that on good authority. (USMC 84-80)