|
|
|
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 |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
