Sure, if you have nothing valuable, or irreplaceable to lose. But still. It's a personal choice to flee or fight. It shouldn't be an authoritarian type decision mandated by others.I'm not saying they don't deserve it or that it should be illegal, I'm saying that sometimes getting out of the house and calling 911 is a smarter idea than hanging around trying to shoot them.
Yes, I think stand your ground and especially castle doctrine especially should be legal on a national level. However the video is kind of right. And kind of wrong. As are you. There is no one-size-fits-all response to having an intruder in your home. If you can get your family and leave safely, that's a pretty smart idea. At worst they're going to steal some stuff, and likely you're insured for it. After all, the people breaking in may have guns too. And even if shooting someone in self defense is legal, it doesn't mean a jury will agree that it was self defense.
Sometimes retreat, while it might hurt your pride, is the smarter decision.
Sure, if you have nothing valuable, or irreplaceable to lose. But still. It's a personal choice to flee or fight. It shouldn't be an authoritarian type decision mandated by others.
I view someone violating my home the same as if they violated my person.
It will be met with disproportionate force. It's not about pride, it is about you taking care of you, having that mentality first and foremost in your mind.
Below is a wonderful story of a man defending his home from intrusion.
[video]http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/09/70-year-old-man-fights-back-after-finding-intruder-in-his-gardner-home/[/video]
My problem is when you watch the video, you'll hear the narrator state Law Enforcement officials advise that home owners when faced with intrusion should flee.
This to me is the most asinine, cowardly, depend on nanny state, thinking one could have and it really is disturbing that Law Enforcement officials, who have already been proven NOT to have a constitutional obligation of protecting you and yours would tell you and me to tuck tale and flee.
If an intruder invades my home it will be by God's grace that he is capable of leaving it vertically. I will not flee, I will fight.
I feel that this is a universal right, not one that should be subject to review or under the purview of anyone or anybody. Therefore, it should -- in my opinion -- fall under Federal statute, not to be limited or restricted in any way by State, County, or local levels of government.
What say you?
Eh, I don't. To me stuff is just stuff. None of it's irreplaceable, and none of it's worth spilling blood over.
I do take care of me, but that includes giving a situation like this some thought and determining if it's really worth killing someone and all the problems that would generate in my life to protect my TV and computer and PS3.
Like I said, I don't disagree with you that castle doctrine should be legal. My main reason is because if someone breaks into your house, you don't know why they're there. People die in botched robberies, and you shouldn't have to try and determine what the guy is doing there before you can shoot him. But just because something is legal, doesn't always make it the best decision for every situation.
If we don't have a right to defend ourselves, what rights do we have? That is the most basic of all rights.
Freedom of speech and right to a trial will do you little good if you're dead.
Dude, if a 20 year old attacks a 70 year old woman, the time for skinning those smoke wagons has passed, the thug that didn't need a gun now has one.
Now, on the other hand, here's a little vignette from my youth that may entertain you, it did me...
When I was 17, in the summer between my junior and senior year in high school, I was living on my own in an apartment in South Florida. Me and high school buddy had a few beers and went walking down the sidewalk on A1A. We saw this old, old guy jogging down the sidewalk doing a Rocky thing, kind of shadow boxing as he jogged. My friend thought this was funny. I had a lot more respect for my elders. So my idiot friend makes fun of the guy, loud enough to be obnoxious. The guy hears him and basically scolds him. My idiot friend gets more obnoxious. The old guy, I'm guessing 75 years old, basically dares my friend to say something to his face. My idiot friend, a pretty aggressive guy in his own right, laughing the whole time, ignoring my admonitions, does just that, walks right up to the guy and laughs in his face.
This 75 year old guy rabbit punched my idiot friend in the face about 30 times in as many seconds and he crumbled like a bag of meat.
The guy looked at me, like he was wondering if I wanted to bite off a piece of this action.
I just looked back at him, laughed, told him that was awesome and I hoped I would be half as bad ass when I was his age.
He waved and kept on jogging.
Respect your elders.
So the 10th amendment means nothing to you.It shouldn't be national - it should be state. The Fed has enough things on it's plate without adding this one.
Missouri has had the castle laws for decades so I'm not worried about it. It won't change anytime soon, either.
BTW - ChezC3, you get a minus five for ignorance and bias.
I voted 'No' because it shouldn't be national --- but I wouldn't recommend you try sneaking into my house. *devil's grin*
States do not have any right to regulate guns in any way. The right to arms is a right specifically enumerated in the constitution, and so it's the fed's to regulate, not the states.
It shouldn't be national - it should be state. The Fed has enough things on it's plate without adding this one.
Missouri has had the castle laws for decades so I'm not worried about it. It won't change anytime soon, either.
BTW - ChezC3, you get a minus five for ignorance and bias.
I voted 'No' because it shouldn't be national --- but I wouldn't recommend you try sneaking into my house. *devil's grin*
Walk down a street in New York City (And a lot of other places.) with your handgun in clear view and see how quick you get arrested and locked up.
A lot of people have fought the law and the law has won.
Just saying.
I thought that almost all conservatives supported 'state's rights'.
Looks like there are some exceptions.
Generally, I support the idea that a person's home is their castle, etc. But I don't support shooting someone who is taking a short-cut with no evil intent, etc.
"If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." ~ Lewis Carroll
Walk down a street in New York City (And a lot of other places.) with your handgun in clear view and see how quick you get arrested and locked up.
When its actualy a state right. There is a defining criteria, you know.Walk down a streeI thought that almost all conservatives supported 'state's rights'.
Looks like there are some exceptions.
Because NY is enforcing illegal laws.
...and then Shrubnose stomped his foot and slammed the door.Until the law is overturned it's the law.
Those who violate it do so at their own risk.
Have a nice day.
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
...and then Shrubnose stomped his foot and slammed the door.
Yes, I think stand your ground and especially castle doctrine especially should be legal on a national level. However the video is kind of right. And kind of wrong. As are you. There is no one-size-fits-all response to having an intruder in your home. If you can get your family and leave safely, that's a pretty smart idea. At worst they're going to steal some stuff, and likely you're insured for it. After all, the people breaking in may have guns too. And even if shooting someone in self defense is legal, it doesn't mean a jury will agree that it was self defense.
Sometimes retreat, while it might hurt your pride, is the smarter decision.
How did you come to that conclusion?So the 10th amendment means nothing to you.
So you didn't really want a poll, you wanted only to preach your views. Got it.Mo, you get minus 345,587,900,421,234,762,999.3 for giving me minus 5
Normally, I would defer to the State, but as I had said, this is a right that in my opinion, and it should be everyone elses (hence the bias) that your right to defend you and yours does not fall under the purview of ANY governmental body or institution. It is a law I seek to make Federal that would remind the government of all levels that fact.
So you didn't really want a poll, you wanted only to preach your views. Got it.
Sure I do - and it should have been obvious to me by the way you worded the "poll".No, I see clearly you don't...
Sure I do - and it should have been obvious to me by the way you worded the "poll".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?