|
|
|
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:
FL: 'Stand your ground' laws are common sense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Floridas SYG laws, passed in 2005, are a legal justification for self-defense, the use of force in response to reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death. SYG laws clarify that there is no duty to flee from an attacker or assailant before one can invoke self-defense.
A duty to retreat is a legal concept devoid of common sense: what happens if an assailant is faster or stronger than you? Furthermore, what good is running away if your attacker has a gun? The duty to retreat does little more than to embolden criminals and to harm victims, legally and physically. Stand your ground laws are common sense, and put victims and potential victims, not criminals, first the way it should be. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(12/21/2018)
|
| Duty to retreat...
.you could be dead by the time you've read this. Seconds count..... |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
