|
|
|
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 |
| "Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy ... censorship. When any government, or any church, for that matter, undertakes to say to it's subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Revolt in 2100" (Pg. 68-69, Baen Books paperback edition, 1999 printing) |
|
|
