|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Claiming Self-Defense Isn't a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It’s become an all-too-familiar scenario: a gun owner becomes scared that a protester or mere passerby could endanger him and brandishes a gun. The gun owner then asserts that the rights to self-defense and to keep and bear arms protect him from prosecution. This line of argument, which is playing out in the McCloskey case in St. Louis, greatly misconstrues the scope of the Second Amendment and how self-defense actually works as a defense to criminal charges. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/24/2020)
|
So .... trespassers breaking down a fence .... threatening to kill the husband , wife and dog, threatening to burn down their house ... and in a locale with Castle Doctrine ...
NO RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE????
They WERE NOT "MERE PASSERSBY" and they WERE NOT en route to the mayor --- there was no path TO the mayor through the Mcloskey's property.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/24/2020)
|
This waste of words can be shot down with one fact:
THE PARAMETERS OF SELF-DEFENSE ARE CODIFIED IN MISSOURI LAW.
The Second Amendment right is a given, so it's not at issue. What IS at issue is that Missouri has gone to great pains to moot debate, and spells out in detail what acts are lawful in the exercise of self-defense rights. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
